[games_access] UN Convention - Argument example

[Tara Tefertiller]

Sandra,

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.

Examples:
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  
midterms.

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  
best choice.

-Tara



On Nov 4, 2010, at 9:44 AM, Sandra Uhling wrote:

> Hi,
>
> 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  
> possible
> 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  
> country
> 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  
> with
> disabilities. They talk about it and then the problem is solved.
> That would be the best way.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Sandra
>
> _______________________________________________
> games_access mailing list
> games_access at igda.org
> http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/games_access