[games_access] UN Convention - Argument example
tara.tefertiller at gmail.com
Thu Nov 4 11:20:21 EDT 2010
Maybe I'm just a pessimist because I don't see this working out like
you would hope. I feel like if the convention accomplished what you
wanted studios/publishers/people would respond in negative ways.
Some country adopts the rules set in the convention. A studio goes to
launch a game in that country. The game turns out to not meet the
accessibility requirements for that country. Rather than spending the
time and money to adjust the features of the game and resubmit to
Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo (which costs a lot of money) for publishing
approval -they just don't launch the game in that country. Or- they
adjust the game to meet the standards but do so half assed resulting
in a poor game title.
I think this because it's like something I have seen in real life- A
studio (which will remain nameless) got their game bounced back to
them for not meeting all of German violence rules and such and didn't
have permission to launch their game in that country. They thought
the German video game laws were sort of a joke, and rather than
cutting things out nicely, they felt like meeting the German laws
took away from the rated M title. Rather than trying to find a way
that worked with the title, they simply cut a bunch of stuff out. The
game wasn't nearly as good. The studio knew that. What they did
though to "make up for" their crappier German version game was ship
games with the german language option to all the countries near
Germany that didn't have similar laws.
I really don't like the idea of having poor titles because people are
trying to meet standards set up by governments.
I also am worried about the idea of laws being higher than
intellectual property laws. I feel like this would be interpreted as
people feeling they don't have creative freedom at all. I also feel
like this is something that would scare away American developers.
Having something about intellectual property laws may be taken as a
violation to their freedom of speech- and that would be a huge problem.
I also think that having a law of any sort is dangerous because it
still doesn't actually address whether or not video games is a public
or private activity- which makes a huge different and effects laws
that could surround it. And once again open up a door for laws that
publisher and developers don't want.
Also, talking to lawyers. I would never pursue anything with this
with out talking to a lawyer. And for your example with AbleGamers
and PS3- I didn't see this as realistic. I feel like if something
were passed it wouldn't result in people at AbleGamers contacting
Sony and everything gets resolved after they talk it out. It would
end up being AbleGamers contacts someone at Sony - who then blows
them off. AbleGamers responds by contacting a lawyer. Sony, being a
huge company with tons of money is all "Fine, take me to court. I've
got lots of money." Sony is then taken to court about the game not
being acceptable and then a judge makes a ruling... which then gets
appealed... and so on. It's not a pretty picture.
Maybe I'm just a negative Nacy. Maybe I'm just anti-politics because
of all the shenanigans going on with the US government and our recent
I think the best idea would be to reward developers who do make
accessible games, and not to punish those who don't. I don't think
setting a law that ever says "You must include feature 'x' in your
game," will ever be accepted by the development community. I think
the best idea is to teach them, work with them... have them do these
things on their own and not because they are told to is really the
On Nov 4, 2010, at 9:44 AM, Sandra Uhling wrote:
> I use this example to explain the situation:
> The UN Convention can be used in two ways:
> 1. The branch says yes, we will do it and tries to get as much as
> out of the UN Convention:
> Funds, Support, Research, Information, ...
> 2. The persons with disabilities learn how to fight for their
> rights. And
> the branch has to do it then.
> I personally prefer possibility 1 :-)
> AbleGamers and PS3, Sony:
> They could look for a person who has this problem who lives in a
> that ratified the convention and the protocol.
> Then they support the person to fight for his right. (Note the
> convention is
> higher than laws that protect intellectual property)
> I am wondering why this is not possible:
> AbleGamers contact a person at sony who is responsible for persons
> disabilities. They talk about it and then the problem is solved.
> That would be the best way.
> Best regards,
> games_access mailing list
> games_access at igda.org
More information about the games_access