THe needs of the Few…
September 6, 2020 7:15 PM Subscribe
Hi, AskMe. I ran into a particularly frustrating argument today in the context of my game accessibility work and would love to know how folks respond to it. Details below the fold.
I'm trying to raise awareness of blind gaming to get a particular game company interested in making its work playable for me, and someone presented the argument that they'd rather see the company work on improving the game for everyone who can already play it rather than adding a feature that "less than 0.1% of the players will ever use." I found this particularly annoying because I can understand the argument from a practical standpoint, as someone who works adjacent to developers, I know they have a lot to do, but it still rubs me the wrong way and I'm not sure how to counter it.
They went on to say that people are far too interested in "seeming virtuous," and that while it would be nice if I could play, maybe I should just get out of video games completely because they're a largely visual medium and so forth. I haven't responded for fear of saying something I'll later regret.
From a certain point of view I should just ignore this guy's arguments completely, especially given his second point, but I'm wondering how to refute the first one when it's brought up. I've heard it before in other contexts and always been slightly flummoxed.
Thanks for any ideas, all. :)
I'm trying to raise awareness of blind gaming to get a particular game company interested in making its work playable for me, and someone presented the argument that they'd rather see the company work on improving the game for everyone who can already play it rather than adding a feature that "less than 0.1% of the players will ever use." I found this particularly annoying because I can understand the argument from a practical standpoint, as someone who works adjacent to developers, I know they have a lot to do, but it still rubs me the wrong way and I'm not sure how to counter it.
They went on to say that people are far too interested in "seeming virtuous," and that while it would be nice if I could play, maybe I should just get out of video games completely because they're a largely visual medium and so forth. I haven't responded for fear of saying something I'll later regret.
From a certain point of view I should just ignore this guy's arguments completely, especially given his second point, but I'm wondering how to refute the first one when it's brought up. I've heard it before in other contexts and always been slightly flummoxed.
Thanks for any ideas, all. :)
Since it sounds your willing to accept the utilitarian framework your critic brought up, the basic response is that sure, the blind are a small constituency but making the game accessible helps them a *lot.* One more tweak of the gameplay or something helps more people, but not as much.
Another valid argument that may need more time trying to "educate" people: There's the concept of universal design, which is that often rethinking things to make something more accessible improves it for everyone. 99% Invisible had a nice episode about it, using curb cuts (the ramps for wheelchair users at corners) as an example--everyone uses them with strollers, luggage bags, bad knees, etc. even though that wasn't the intent. I'm sure it's been talked about on the Blue as well. You can't really predict what would be good about committing to more accessibility in games for the abled, but they might be helped too!
Then there's the moral argument: "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little," as FDR put it.
posted by mark k at 7:35 PM on September 6, 2020 [43 favorites]
Another valid argument that may need more time trying to "educate" people: There's the concept of universal design, which is that often rethinking things to make something more accessible improves it for everyone. 99% Invisible had a nice episode about it, using curb cuts (the ramps for wheelchair users at corners) as an example--everyone uses them with strollers, luggage bags, bad knees, etc. even though that wasn't the intent. I'm sure it's been talked about on the Blue as well. You can't really predict what would be good about committing to more accessibility in games for the abled, but they might be helped too!
Then there's the moral argument: "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little," as FDR put it.
posted by mark k at 7:35 PM on September 6, 2020 [43 favorites]
Adding visual accessibility to software isn't solely for the blind. There are a significant number of conditions that require accessibility, even among people with "normal" vision. Red-green color blindness occurs in 7-10% of men. Size increase options for fonts or UI elements isn't just for near-blindness, it's for folks who like to have larger text, even if it's a personal preference. Adding features to a game's UI isn't to accommodate .01% of people (which, as a stat, is BS), but instead should be viewed as a differentiating set of features for the game.
Being "blind" isn't a binary. It's a spectrum of conditions and states that "normal" developers can't predict. And, speaking to someone building a game they've committed years of their life to making a reality, why would they want to exclude a set of people from experiencing that vision?
posted by youknowwhatpart at 7:40 PM on September 6, 2020 [25 favorites]
Being "blind" isn't a binary. It's a spectrum of conditions and states that "normal" developers can't predict. And, speaking to someone building a game they've committed years of their life to making a reality, why would they want to exclude a set of people from experiencing that vision?
posted by youknowwhatpart at 7:40 PM on September 6, 2020 [25 favorites]
This is why there are government regulations and things like building codes, folks have learned that without rules raw capitalism will cut corners and there will be deaths and general society will be worse off. Now a game does not warrant the same societal protections as say an electric substation, but there should be some. Working with assistive technology at the programming level is pretty hard, and far from great in most software and seemingly getting worse, screen readers struggle with wacky modern web pages. Would the company go out of business if they were totally idealistic and spent enough to make the game totally playable for all?
I really like what jamjam said but I would've phrased it much more rudely, this person is an unfeeling ass.
posted by sammyo at 7:41 PM on September 6, 2020 [5 favorites]
I really like what jamjam said but I would've phrased it much more rudely, this person is an unfeeling ass.
posted by sammyo at 7:41 PM on September 6, 2020 [5 favorites]
Even if there is a roughly static percentage of visually impaired people, they won’t always be the same people. People’s needs change.If the game company only makes games for people who don’t need assistive technology, what happens as their customers age and...need assistive technology? It’s always cheaper to keep a customer than to acquire a new one, so why not try to meet existing customers’ changing needs?
posted by chesty_a_arthur at 7:59 PM on September 6, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by chesty_a_arthur at 7:59 PM on September 6, 2020 [5 favorites]
Best answer: “improving the game for everyone who can already play” isn't making the world better. It's reinforcing the same dreary status quo. And that “everyone” doesn't include you.
Lemme guess, this bloke's still stuck in the GET GUD mindset that sees any adaptive feature as a cheat mode?
posted by scruss at 8:16 PM on September 6, 2020 [19 favorites]
Lemme guess, this bloke's still stuck in the GET GUD mindset that sees any adaptive feature as a cheat mode?
posted by scruss at 8:16 PM on September 6, 2020 [19 favorites]
A pedantic argument is that many games have Linux versions despite less than 1% of Steam players using Linux.
A counterargument to this might be that there's little extra cost to doing this: if care is taken in design and programming, modern game engines make it easy to port to multiple operating systems.
The counter-counter-argument would be that the same ought to be true of accessibility: it ought to be part of upfront design and game engines ought to have features to make it easy, and making accessible games would be cheap even if it only increases your audience by a tiny amount, just like porting to Linux.
posted by vogon_poet at 8:25 PM on September 6, 2020 [3 favorites]
A counterargument to this might be that there's little extra cost to doing this: if care is taken in design and programming, modern game engines make it easy to port to multiple operating systems.
The counter-counter-argument would be that the same ought to be true of accessibility: it ought to be part of upfront design and game engines ought to have features to make it easy, and making accessible games would be cheap even if it only increases your audience by a tiny amount, just like porting to Linux.
posted by vogon_poet at 8:25 PM on September 6, 2020 [3 favorites]
Best answer: There are already some very good answers here, but I'd like to add:
1. Design for Accessibility is not just for the benefit of the visually/hearing/mobility impaired. There is a tangible benefit from explicitly thinking about what your game (...or other product/tool/etc.) requires from its users.
I think it is absolutely valid to create a video game that intentionally leans on the players' visual acuity, and excludes those with less than perfect vision and lower quality displays : if that is your intention. To do so by accident displays an embarrassing lack of forethought.
If they are really dense, you could also frame this as an argument that the advances made for specialist user accessibility will eventually lead to more options and better experiences for everyone. You can use the NASA technology analogy if you want.
I'd also suggest that they read "The Design of Everyday Things" by Donald Norman. It's a pretty accessible and fast read, and puts a lot this in context.
2. The second argument is simply that life happens. People get older. It's very rare that their vision or hearing or mobility improves with age. Also, accidents happen.
Gamers, as a group, are getting older. (...and in many populations they aren't necessarily getting healthier.) Requiring that all of the users of your product have a pair of working eyes and a couple of working ears and two hands with exceptional dexterity is just plain irresponsible. You're leaving money on the table.
When I was in the musical instrument industry, I had a spiel that I tried to get across to everyone I worked with: Our ultimate goal was to turn the kid who got their first guitar/keyboard/sampler/drumset for Christmas into a lifelong customer. If we treated them well, listened to them, and gave them new products to fit their interests and where they were in their lives, they would literally stick with us for life.
This is similar to the games industry today. 13 year old kids who played Atari and Intellivision games in 1980 are now 53 years old. My 75-year-old mother is a hearing-impaired stroke survivor who can't get enough of her iPad games.
So, argument #1 is basically that accessibility improves quality for everyone, and argument #2 is that accessibility makes money.
posted by Anoplura at 8:47 PM on September 6, 2020 [21 favorites]
1. Design for Accessibility is not just for the benefit of the visually/hearing/mobility impaired. There is a tangible benefit from explicitly thinking about what your game (...or other product/tool/etc.) requires from its users.
I think it is absolutely valid to create a video game that intentionally leans on the players' visual acuity, and excludes those with less than perfect vision and lower quality displays : if that is your intention. To do so by accident displays an embarrassing lack of forethought.
If they are really dense, you could also frame this as an argument that the advances made for specialist user accessibility will eventually lead to more options and better experiences for everyone. You can use the NASA technology analogy if you want.
I'd also suggest that they read "The Design of Everyday Things" by Donald Norman. It's a pretty accessible and fast read, and puts a lot this in context.
2. The second argument is simply that life happens. People get older. It's very rare that their vision or hearing or mobility improves with age. Also, accidents happen.
Gamers, as a group, are getting older. (...and in many populations they aren't necessarily getting healthier.) Requiring that all of the users of your product have a pair of working eyes and a couple of working ears and two hands with exceptional dexterity is just plain irresponsible. You're leaving money on the table.
When I was in the musical instrument industry, I had a spiel that I tried to get across to everyone I worked with: Our ultimate goal was to turn the kid who got their first guitar/keyboard/sampler/drumset for Christmas into a lifelong customer. If we treated them well, listened to them, and gave them new products to fit their interests and where they were in their lives, they would literally stick with us for life.
This is similar to the games industry today. 13 year old kids who played Atari and Intellivision games in 1980 are now 53 years old. My 75-year-old mother is a hearing-impaired stroke survivor who can't get enough of her iPad games.
So, argument #1 is basically that accessibility improves quality for everyone, and argument #2 is that accessibility makes money.
posted by Anoplura at 8:47 PM on September 6, 2020 [21 favorites]
I am a professional game developer so I have a different angle on this based on my experience. In my opinion the REAL problem here is that the other person is trying to create a zero-sum conflict between "improve it for everyone" and "add support for the blind" when that is simply not how game development works. The TLDR is that people should keep advocating for both accessibility AND quality of life features, but this is most likely to be successful if done before release and in a way that won't piss off developers.
Something like 50-80% of the effort in developing a game goes to completing the "core features" which are decided early in a project or become very obvious during development. These are features that are seen as vital, and if they are not completed in time the game will be delayed or cancelled. Development of these features is usually heavily managed by production/leads and individual developers don't have any leeway to add or remove them. Accessibility and quality of life features are almost never in this bucket, although that is changing with accessibility in more recent games with larger teams. If a game is already mostly complete adding something to this list is basically impossible.
But, there are often holes in the schedule (or developers work extra hours), and that's where the other features come from. These are usually initiated by a single developer or small team and includes tasks like iterating on existing features to make them look or feel better, adding new accessibility or control options, quality of life features, and things like easter eggs. These features are usually fun and rewarding to work on, and production doesn't tend to schedule them in detail because that they don't have time to worry about them and that gets in the way of the individual developer's autonomy.
So it doesn't really make sense to pit accessibility for the blind against whatever feature the other person was talking about, because they would probably be done by different people, for different reasons, at different times in the project. I've been in enough horrible schedule meetings to know that if we tried to individually prioritize and schedule each individual feature perfectly, literally no games would ever get made. This isn't "lazy devs", it's that developing large games is very complicated and contentious.
So why don't more accessibility/quality of life/platform support features get added to games? Well some are basically impossible unless they are considered early in development, depending on the specific game being made. For the example of accessibility to the blind, it will be MUCH easier to support that in a game that has a structured text approach that works similarly to a normal windows app (like a business sim) than something that displays text as 3d objects (which most action games do). For similar reasons localization (supporting different languages) is extremely difficult to do correctly and only happens because it is usually specified up front as a critical requirement. The second reason is that no one even thought about adding the feature in the first place, advocacy helps a lot here as developers definitely read forums. The third reason is that there may be no developer who is interested or feels capable to implement the feature, and insulting devs for not doing something perfectly will make them lose interest. The last reason is that a developer may very well have started to work on it, but was unable to finish due to problems with the implementation or lack of time to finish.
posted by JZig at 11:17 PM on September 6, 2020 [18 favorites]
Something like 50-80% of the effort in developing a game goes to completing the "core features" which are decided early in a project or become very obvious during development. These are features that are seen as vital, and if they are not completed in time the game will be delayed or cancelled. Development of these features is usually heavily managed by production/leads and individual developers don't have any leeway to add or remove them. Accessibility and quality of life features are almost never in this bucket, although that is changing with accessibility in more recent games with larger teams. If a game is already mostly complete adding something to this list is basically impossible.
But, there are often holes in the schedule (or developers work extra hours), and that's where the other features come from. These are usually initiated by a single developer or small team and includes tasks like iterating on existing features to make them look or feel better, adding new accessibility or control options, quality of life features, and things like easter eggs. These features are usually fun and rewarding to work on, and production doesn't tend to schedule them in detail because that they don't have time to worry about them and that gets in the way of the individual developer's autonomy.
So it doesn't really make sense to pit accessibility for the blind against whatever feature the other person was talking about, because they would probably be done by different people, for different reasons, at different times in the project. I've been in enough horrible schedule meetings to know that if we tried to individually prioritize and schedule each individual feature perfectly, literally no games would ever get made. This isn't "lazy devs", it's that developing large games is very complicated and contentious.
So why don't more accessibility/quality of life/platform support features get added to games? Well some are basically impossible unless they are considered early in development, depending on the specific game being made. For the example of accessibility to the blind, it will be MUCH easier to support that in a game that has a structured text approach that works similarly to a normal windows app (like a business sim) than something that displays text as 3d objects (which most action games do). For similar reasons localization (supporting different languages) is extremely difficult to do correctly and only happens because it is usually specified up front as a critical requirement. The second reason is that no one even thought about adding the feature in the first place, advocacy helps a lot here as developers definitely read forums. The third reason is that there may be no developer who is interested or feels capable to implement the feature, and insulting devs for not doing something perfectly will make them lose interest. The last reason is that a developer may very well have started to work on it, but was unable to finish due to problems with the implementation or lack of time to finish.
posted by JZig at 11:17 PM on September 6, 2020 [18 favorites]
The counter-counter-argument would be that the same ought to be true of accessibility: it ought to be part of upfront design and game engines ought to have features to make it easy, and making accessible games would be cheap even if it only increases your audience by a tiny amount, just like porting to Linux.
One argument against both porting to Linux and some types of accessibility options is that both are very easy to do POORLY but hard to do correctly without increasing support/QA burden. Yes, it is almost trivial to release a Linux version of most modern games, but it is NOT trivial to support Linux users that run into problems as the hardware/system setup is often complicated and foreign to developers working in Windows. This is even more true for a Mac version as Apple seems determined to make it impossible to develop and release video games on their platform. From the developer's (and sometimes user's) perspective a pissed off user is worse than having them just buy and play something else.
posted by JZig at 11:25 PM on September 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
One argument against both porting to Linux and some types of accessibility options is that both are very easy to do POORLY but hard to do correctly without increasing support/QA burden. Yes, it is almost trivial to release a Linux version of most modern games, but it is NOT trivial to support Linux users that run into problems as the hardware/system setup is often complicated and foreign to developers working in Windows. This is even more true for a Mac version as Apple seems determined to make it impossible to develop and release video games on their platform. From the developer's (and sometimes user's) perspective a pissed off user is worse than having them just buy and play something else.
posted by JZig at 11:25 PM on September 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
Ok, here’s an argument that may only work on in some contexts and isn’t really appealing to the other person’s better nature. Increasing the audience of the game makes it more likely that the game will make money, which means the game developers will have more resources to update, improve, or make a sequel for the game.
posted by Night_owl at 4:34 AM on September 7, 2020
posted by Night_owl at 4:34 AM on September 7, 2020
I think there are a lot of great answers in this thread. Honestly, I think this person should just be tossed into the sea, but that's probably not an option...
I think something people haven't mentioned directly, though it's directly adjacent to a lot of points, is that there is immense value in broadening the scope of who can play games...not just this game, but games in general. Of course, gamers in general are often miserable gatekeepers so I wouldn't expect this person to necessarily agree, but having more people who can bring different points of view, experiences, and in this case fundamental ways of interacting with the world to bare will only make the medium much, much richer. Of course, this is not an economic argument for the given company...but just as an aesthetic argument, I think I find it very powerful. I am a sighted person who would love to play a game exclusively designed with blind people in mind. Gaming is still so young and immature as a medium, and bringing more people in and making it easier for more people to play (and ideally develop, so I think the real solution is the game development frameworks making this sort of accessibility easier to do) will only make the medium that much richer.
And I mean this again won't convince him, but I got back into games after a decade or so away. And then, recently, I had another RSI flareup, something I've been dealing with for ~8 years. Because of this I basically can't play games, and have to heavily limit my computer use (at least for the short term while I sort of get things in order). I only mean this to say that...being locked out of something you find interesting and meaningful because of your body really sucks, and there's no reason not to at least try to overcome that, because everyone is dealing with all sorts of body shit, so trying to be accomodating where we can is nice. Of course I know that game development is brutal and game development companies are often not the most charitable, but there are lots of indie game devs that care a lot about this stuff.
I played kentucky route zero recently and I could totally imagine a game like that that didn't need visuals. While I enjoyed the visuals of the game a lot, the gameplay itself was pretty simple and I could totally imagine leaning more heavily on sound (and one day, feel?) to tell a story like that.
But yeah I mean preaching to the choir. Toss him into the sea imo.
posted by wooh at 4:42 AM on September 7, 2020 [3 favorites]
I think something people haven't mentioned directly, though it's directly adjacent to a lot of points, is that there is immense value in broadening the scope of who can play games...not just this game, but games in general. Of course, gamers in general are often miserable gatekeepers so I wouldn't expect this person to necessarily agree, but having more people who can bring different points of view, experiences, and in this case fundamental ways of interacting with the world to bare will only make the medium much, much richer. Of course, this is not an economic argument for the given company...but just as an aesthetic argument, I think I find it very powerful. I am a sighted person who would love to play a game exclusively designed with blind people in mind. Gaming is still so young and immature as a medium, and bringing more people in and making it easier for more people to play (and ideally develop, so I think the real solution is the game development frameworks making this sort of accessibility easier to do) will only make the medium that much richer.
And I mean this again won't convince him, but I got back into games after a decade or so away. And then, recently, I had another RSI flareup, something I've been dealing with for ~8 years. Because of this I basically can't play games, and have to heavily limit my computer use (at least for the short term while I sort of get things in order). I only mean this to say that...being locked out of something you find interesting and meaningful because of your body really sucks, and there's no reason not to at least try to overcome that, because everyone is dealing with all sorts of body shit, so trying to be accomodating where we can is nice. Of course I know that game development is brutal and game development companies are often not the most charitable, but there are lots of indie game devs that care a lot about this stuff.
I played kentucky route zero recently and I could totally imagine a game like that that didn't need visuals. While I enjoyed the visuals of the game a lot, the gameplay itself was pretty simple and I could totally imagine leaning more heavily on sound (and one day, feel?) to tell a story like that.
But yeah I mean preaching to the choir. Toss him into the sea imo.
posted by wooh at 4:42 AM on September 7, 2020 [3 favorites]
Accessibility in games is probably expensive initially, and then not as much. So the cost:benefit analysis over the long run probably works.
The person you're debating is a jerk. There are a lot of visually impaired people, building adaptations for them is possible, and it's the right thing to do. That's why the Americans with Disabilities Act exists. If the only real task is increasing shareholder value, the right thing doesn't get done. So, now you have to do it because it's the law. And it very often turns out that there are unexpected benefits for everyone.
There's been a MeFi post on how accessibility ends up being a general good in many ways, but I'm not finding it quickly. Information like that might be mildly persuasive, but the person you're debating is really saying WDGAF.
posted by theora55 at 6:08 AM on September 7, 2020 [2 favorites]
The person you're debating is a jerk. There are a lot of visually impaired people, building adaptations for them is possible, and it's the right thing to do. That's why the Americans with Disabilities Act exists. If the only real task is increasing shareholder value, the right thing doesn't get done. So, now you have to do it because it's the law. And it very often turns out that there are unexpected benefits for everyone.
There's been a MeFi post on how accessibility ends up being a general good in many ways, but I'm not finding it quickly. Information like that might be mildly persuasive, but the person you're debating is really saying WDGAF.
posted by theora55 at 6:08 AM on September 7, 2020 [2 favorites]
That guy sucks.
My usual angle when I am talking about accessibility (I sometimes have similar arguments about accessibility in library catalogs and ebook readers) is that increasing usability for some users, often increases it for ALL users. I know this isn't the angle you are taking but sometimes it can resonate with neanderthals. So, you know, curb cuts in sidewalks help people who use wheelchairs but ALSO people with luggage, pushing strollers, etc. Often things that help blind users help more than just blind users. So that statistic about a tiny fraction is incorrect.
Second I would remind people of the social model of disability. The problem isn't that you can't see, the problem is that the game designers decided they weren't designing a game for all players. That is on them and it's too bad. Poor choices. There is no reason you shouldn't be able to play video games (of course) and no reason video games should be a largely visual medium except they just decided not to accommodate other users. It's like telling blind people to not go to the movies or deaf people to not go to the opera or short people to not play basketball. The only reason they can't fully engage is because of baked in restrictions (maybe somewhat less for short people playing basketball) not because of anything inherent to the thing.
Third I'd let them know about the disabled gaming community, it's large and legendary. In fact I might ask this same question at the disabled gamers community on reddit for extra ammo.
posted by jessamyn at 7:51 AM on September 7, 2020 [6 favorites]
My usual angle when I am talking about accessibility (I sometimes have similar arguments about accessibility in library catalogs and ebook readers) is that increasing usability for some users, often increases it for ALL users. I know this isn't the angle you are taking but sometimes it can resonate with neanderthals. So, you know, curb cuts in sidewalks help people who use wheelchairs but ALSO people with luggage, pushing strollers, etc. Often things that help blind users help more than just blind users. So that statistic about a tiny fraction is incorrect.
Second I would remind people of the social model of disability. The problem isn't that you can't see, the problem is that the game designers decided they weren't designing a game for all players. That is on them and it's too bad. Poor choices. There is no reason you shouldn't be able to play video games (of course) and no reason video games should be a largely visual medium except they just decided not to accommodate other users. It's like telling blind people to not go to the movies or deaf people to not go to the opera or short people to not play basketball. The only reason they can't fully engage is because of baked in restrictions (maybe somewhat less for short people playing basketball) not because of anything inherent to the thing.
Third I'd let them know about the disabled gaming community, it's large and legendary. In fact I might ask this same question at the disabled gamers community on reddit for extra ammo.
posted by jessamyn at 7:51 AM on September 7, 2020 [6 favorites]
Obviously, making a game accessible should be its own good reason to do it. But I'm imagining a world where at least one game has decided to take this really seriously and do an excellent job addressing accessibility for blind gamers. Potential results:
--More blind players than they think will play, for sure. No way they're not underestimating that. And each and every one of those players are just as worthy of a good game as any other gamer.
--Blind folks who don't normally game will hear about it and try it out, thus becoming gamers.
--Others will hear about it and be curious how it works, joining the audience for the game.
--Side effect of being more accessible to all kinds of players, for a spectrum of reasons that may be hard to predict
--Good will and good publicity
--Reputation as an innovator
--The process of advocating and innovating for this niche will lead to new ideas, both specific to this niche and more widely applicable
Regarding this specific guy, if he doesn't work at one of the companies you're advocating to, ignore. He has nothing to do with what you're doing. If he does, go over his head.
Don't give up! What you're advocating for is worthwhile for its own sake and really exciting from countless more angles, especially to anyone who actually does want to see new ideas in the gaming world, which should be most people in it.
posted by lampoil at 8:31 AM on September 7, 2020 [2 favorites]
--More blind players than they think will play, for sure. No way they're not underestimating that. And each and every one of those players are just as worthy of a good game as any other gamer.
--Blind folks who don't normally game will hear about it and try it out, thus becoming gamers.
--Others will hear about it and be curious how it works, joining the audience for the game.
--Side effect of being more accessible to all kinds of players, for a spectrum of reasons that may be hard to predict
--Good will and good publicity
--Reputation as an innovator
--The process of advocating and innovating for this niche will lead to new ideas, both specific to this niche and more widely applicable
Regarding this specific guy, if he doesn't work at one of the companies you're advocating to, ignore. He has nothing to do with what you're doing. If he does, go over his head.
Don't give up! What you're advocating for is worthwhile for its own sake and really exciting from countless more angles, especially to anyone who actually does want to see new ideas in the gaming world, which should be most people in it.
posted by lampoil at 8:31 AM on September 7, 2020 [2 favorites]
A few answers alluded to this, but here's a concrete (albeit hypothetical) example how accessibility features can benefit more than just those who 'need' them: It's not hard to imagine the use of haptics in video games -- e.g., the 'shock' through the controller that accompanies certain events/interactions in the game -- having been born as an accessibility feature. If more people with vision impairment could play video games more, they might think of other features that non-impaired users also would enjoy. You also, by writing off the impaired like this guy did, likely rule out an enormous fraction of potential future developers due solely to their impairment, and I bet at least a few of them might have created a game that would have been immensely popular with the non-impaired.
posted by troywestfield at 10:03 AM on September 7, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by troywestfield at 10:03 AM on September 7, 2020 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: Thank you all for the wonderful perspectives. I'm going to keep on trucking and just ignore the dude being hateful, stashing away the counterarguments for people who are worth engaging with.
posted by Alensin at 11:46 AM on September 7, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by Alensin at 11:46 AM on September 7, 2020 [4 favorites]
Just another random thought, there was a post (I think here) about a game that was a detente between folks cheating, trying to fix cheats, modding bots to fight other cheat bots, etc. Adding hooks and interfaces for accessibility to some formats could make interface hacking code easier, again just a possible motivation.
posted by sammyo at 1:53 PM on September 7, 2020
posted by sammyo at 1:53 PM on September 7, 2020
The real answer, IMO, is because it's the right thing to do. But your friend isn't at that point, so here are some points I'd make:
1) That .1% (I suspect the real figure is much higher) is distributed among all players of all games. It will amount to a much higher percentage of a particular game's userbase if it accommodates their needs.
2) The percentage of disabled gamers doesn't reflect the percentage of profit they represent. Disabled gamers will probably be early adopters of games that accommodate their needs, and pay full value. This means more money, and more early sales - which both help push games onto a more successful tier.
3) Also, each extra game sold adds a disproportionate amount of profit. If a game costs $10 million to produce and sells 500,000 copies at $20 each it has just broken even. It's only subsequent sales that represent actual profit. So the extra copies sold to disabled users are actually very important.
4) Besides all this, thinking about users' needs improves everybody's play experience. When audio cues are sufficient to allow blind users to play it also helps sighted users react to things happening "behind" them; and those cues also allow sighted users to promptly return to their game when it is minimised or otherwise invisible. In a FPS I myself find that good audio cues allow me to turn and return fire before my eyes have processed the visual prompts.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:43 PM on September 7, 2020 [3 favorites]
1) That .1% (I suspect the real figure is much higher) is distributed among all players of all games. It will amount to a much higher percentage of a particular game's userbase if it accommodates their needs.
2) The percentage of disabled gamers doesn't reflect the percentage of profit they represent. Disabled gamers will probably be early adopters of games that accommodate their needs, and pay full value. This means more money, and more early sales - which both help push games onto a more successful tier.
3) Also, each extra game sold adds a disproportionate amount of profit. If a game costs $10 million to produce and sells 500,000 copies at $20 each it has just broken even. It's only subsequent sales that represent actual profit. So the extra copies sold to disabled users are actually very important.
4) Besides all this, thinking about users' needs improves everybody's play experience. When audio cues are sufficient to allow blind users to play it also helps sighted users react to things happening "behind" them; and those cues also allow sighted users to promptly return to their game when it is minimised or otherwise invisible. In a FPS I myself find that good audio cues allow me to turn and return fire before my eyes have processed the visual prompts.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:43 PM on September 7, 2020 [3 favorites]
Another argument to keep ready is that video games are already making huge leaps in accessibility and if developers don't learn how they'll be left behind. Can I Play That gives accessibility reviews, Able Gamers gets people the modified tools they need to participate, and recently Sightless Kombat played right through The Last Of Us 2 without help from a sighted partner.
This isn't a "virtuous" bit of charity, it's about making a quality product which meets the needs of the market. Improving a game for people who can already play it is just masturbation; increasing the number of people who can join in is a solid business decision.
It might be helpful to get some more accurate statistics so you can rattle off some data at people too.
If the cold hard logic approach isn't right for the situation, aim for their heart instead. Get a childhood story out of them by asking what made them love video games, then smack them with this video about Microsoft's adaptive controller being used by kids with disabilities. Ask them why it's ok for a blind kid to be left out of the joy, fun and companionship that games can bring when it's clearly possible for them to be included using current tech and development methods.
Good luck! And tell anyone who complains about virtue signalling that they're doing a bit of arsehole signalling.
posted by harriet vane at 8:47 AM on September 8, 2020 [4 favorites]
This isn't a "virtuous" bit of charity, it's about making a quality product which meets the needs of the market. Improving a game for people who can already play it is just masturbation; increasing the number of people who can join in is a solid business decision.
It might be helpful to get some more accurate statistics so you can rattle off some data at people too.
If the cold hard logic approach isn't right for the situation, aim for their heart instead. Get a childhood story out of them by asking what made them love video games, then smack them with this video about Microsoft's adaptive controller being used by kids with disabilities. Ask them why it's ok for a blind kid to be left out of the joy, fun and companionship that games can bring when it's clearly possible for them to be included using current tech and development methods.
Good luck! And tell anyone who complains about virtue signalling that they're doing a bit of arsehole signalling.
posted by harriet vane at 8:47 AM on September 8, 2020 [4 favorites]
There are already so many good answers to this, but I'd like to add that the person who gave you this argument is definitely not a developer, and the attitude they display ensures they probably never will be.
Assuming we're talking about AAA titles, which is probably the only subset of games a person who presents that kind of argument recognizes, 0.1% of a game's playerbase is a *lot* of people.
Less than 0.1% of players will ever get a platinum trophy for a title, should we cut those? Less than 0.1% of players are professional eSports players or well-known streamers, should features that serve them be cut? If a game erases the save data of 0.1% of players, should that not bother being fixed? I would guess they would say "no" to all of the above, so it's not the percentage of players affected that is the issue to them.
To go even further, less than 0.1% of people in the world will ever even play whichever game is in question. Why even make video games at all for a tiny minority of people when that effort could be used to make the world a better place for everyone?
posted by subocoyne at 10:19 AM on September 8, 2020 [4 favorites]
Assuming we're talking about AAA titles, which is probably the only subset of games a person who presents that kind of argument recognizes, 0.1% of a game's playerbase is a *lot* of people.
Less than 0.1% of players will ever get a platinum trophy for a title, should we cut those? Less than 0.1% of players are professional eSports players or well-known streamers, should features that serve them be cut? If a game erases the save data of 0.1% of players, should that not bother being fixed? I would guess they would say "no" to all of the above, so it's not the percentage of players affected that is the issue to them.
To go even further, less than 0.1% of people in the world will ever even play whichever game is in question. Why even make video games at all for a tiny minority of people when that effort could be used to make the world a better place for everyone?
posted by subocoyne at 10:19 AM on September 8, 2020 [4 favorites]
The context for my answer is a combination of being mid-pandemic and reading books like Saramajo’s Blindness. It’s better to build for universal design because it allows for adaptation and wide-range adoption. We all are within an adapt or perish framework, whether it’s for navigating contagion, or stepping away from visual-dependent design because people want to continue the game via a mobile device in a self-driving car that shuts off the screen.
This remains a real opportunity, this person is not stepping up to be champion. Someone else will eclipse them.
posted by childofTethys at 7:42 PM on September 16, 2020
This remains a real opportunity, this person is not stepping up to be champion. Someone else will eclipse them.
posted by childofTethys at 7:42 PM on September 16, 2020
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by jamjam at 7:31 PM on September 6, 2020 [19 favorites]