Visually Impaired Gamer Sues Sony [Archive]

Emabulator

11-06-2009, 04:55 PM

http://evavhost.com/i/news/SonyCorpLogo.jpg

GameSpot is reporting (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6239339.html) a lawsuit, filed by a visually impaired gamer, alleges Sony is violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by not making its games more accessible with reasonable modifications.

But now, one visually impaired gamer has gone beyond simply requesting accessibility features and is demanding them by way of a lawsuit. Last month, disabled gamer Alexander Stern filed suit against Sony, Sony Online Entertainment, and Sony Computer Entertainment America in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The suit alleges that Sony is violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to implement features to make its games accessible to visually impaired gamers.

The Americans with Disabilities Act states that, "No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation."

According to the suit, Sony ignored repeated requests through postal mail and e-mail to come up with reasonable modifications to its games to make them more accessible. The suit, which doesn't mention SOE games by name but appears to focus on massively multiplayer online titles, requests the addition of visual cues to point gamers to their destinations for gamers with "disability impaired visual processing."

Johan

11-06-2009, 04:58 PM

Classically American.

WholeWheatCracker

11-06-2009, 04:59 PM

No. Uh... No. I don't think so. It can't be coming to this. Next up, the double amputee that's suing Huffy for failing to provide prosthetic legs with their bikes.

OmegaVader

11-06-2009, 05:01 PM

greenapple

11-06-2009, 05:05 PM

"any place of public accommodation"

Is his theory that an MMO is a virtual place of public accomadation?

Too bad he (or his lawyer) can't actually be bothered to read the AMA. MMO's don't make the cut. Here's ADA 36.104 (defintions):

Place of public accommodation means a facility, operated by a private entity, whose operations affect commerce and fall within at least one of the following categories --

(1) An inn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a building that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually occupied by the proprietor of the establishment as the residence of the proprietor;

(2) A restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink;

(3) A motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment;

(4) An auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other place of public gathering;

(5) A bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment;

(6) A laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment;

(7) A terminal, depot, or other station used forspecified public transportation;

(8) A museum, library, gallery, or other place of public display or collection;

(9) A park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation;

(10) A nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private school, or other place of education;

(11) A day care center, senior citizen center, homeless shelter, food bank, adoption agency, or other social service center establishment; and

(12) A gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or other place of exercise or recreation.

Chimpbot

11-06-2009, 05:14 PM

I'm sorry, but it's very difficult to make a predominantly visually-based medium more accessible to those who are visually impaired.

I have an IQ that's pushing 140. I'm going to sue PopCap for putting out to many mind-numbing games that are simply insulting to my intelligence.

KlausFlouride

11-06-2009, 05:27 PM

It is a sad fact in this country you can sue anyone for any reason. This asshat will get some money. The biggest loser here will be the consumer. We will pay more for Sony branded products as a result. I should sue for that.

Meusli

11-06-2009, 06:13 PM

Anenome

11-06-2009, 06:32 PM

Reminds me of the strip club that got sued by some girl confined to a wheelchair because they wouldn't hire her to be a pole dancer. Yeah, that happened.

It was also slapped down in court by a reasonable judge.

surj0

11-06-2009, 06:36 PM

Why just Sony? I agree partly as some things about games really do annoy me. I am colour blind in green and brown and sometimes games do not allow for simple things like hud change colour. Little things like that are really helpful.

It sounds like he wants to play a sony game and can't, or at least not in its entirety. I know WoW for example has color settings for the color blind *shrug*

This aint nothing though, try having public design projects and sites utterly destroyed to support ADA. Sometimes ADA is simply not feasible or the cost becomes such that its not even worth doing, but we're forced to support it. There's a point where people need to suck it up and not expect everyone else to pick up the bill for their problem (not that reasonable efforts should not be made). /rant

Sensei-X

11-06-2009, 06:40 PM

So he's doing this so he can play Everquest 2? Someone should tell him he isn't missing much.

dirtbag

11-06-2009, 06:57 PM

Next up on the docket: A mute is suing a microphone manufacturer for not giving him the ability to sing . . .

drakkarim

11-06-2009, 07:01 PM

JFC, enough with this shit, its not the world's fault people are born with disablities, and its not the world's duty to accommodate itself to everyone.

i'm going to sue because i suck at games, and since they're too hard for me, all the developers are discriminating against me, who's joining me?

Orphiuchus

11-06-2009, 07:02 PM

Ok, thats it, America is over.

I'm quitting the Marines, and moving to that cabin in Montana.

What? I cant quit or I go to jail? ...And theres no power or internet in the cabin?

Ok, I'll stay in the Marines and I wont move to the cabin, but I'm gunna start doing a really really bad job and complaining a lot.

What? I do that already? ... Well ok then. Can I sue anyone about this?

brandonjclark

11-06-2009, 07:05 PM

Hey, start supporting this guy. Now Sony will have to develop a system that connects directly to your brain, ala the Matrix. This is the first step to straight-up "mind-control" videogames - NATAL v33.0!

I have an IQ that's pushing 140.
You dumbass....:D

Doc Brown

11-06-2009, 07:09 PM

i'm going to sue because i suck at games, and since they're too hard for me, all the developers are discriminating against me, who's joining me?
Not all of the developers, Nintendo is adding noob mode to New Super Mario Bros. Wii. The game will play itself after you die 8 times. Maybe you should stick to that :D

oldschooldimo

11-06-2009, 07:13 PM

Im actually suing every country that speaks another language, because i cant understand them. things like this make me really hang my head in shame for America..

brandonjclark

11-06-2009, 07:21 PM

..... things like this make me really hang my head in shame for America..

I'm rather proud things like this can happen.

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/7946/americanflag2do0.jpg

Johan

11-06-2009, 07:24 PM

I'm rather proud things like this can happen.

He can't see your patriotic picture.

:as a result, you're gonna get served; see you in court:

Chimpbot

11-06-2009, 07:27 PM

Why just Sony? I agree partly as some things about games really do annoy me. I am colour blind in green and brown and sometimes games do not allow for simple things like hud change colour. Little things like that are really helpful.

The lawsuit isn't even about something as sensible as that. Let's focus on one specific sentence from the article...

The suit, which doesn't mention SOE games by name but appears to focus on massively multiplayer online titles, requests the addition of visual cues to point gamers to their destinations for gamers with "disability impaired visual processing."

Based off of the limited information in this article, the plaintiff either has a visual processing learning disability or his eyesight is pretty damn bad; regardless, he's essentially asking for blatant markers to point out where to go in a friggin' quest chain.

I really do feel for this person. There honestly isn't a day that goes by where I try to imagine my life without eyesight or the ability to hear and the impact it would have on my life. I draw and paint; without eyesight, I would be hardpressed to be able to pursue my artistic goals, let alone take in the visual mediums I love. Without hearings, my life would be closed off to the music I love. This is a terrible prospect and I really, truely feel for this person.

At the same time, however, one has to realize that a disability may just force you to turn your back on something you love. Blindness inherently restricts your ability to enjoy visually based mediums, such as books, films and video games.

I seriously doubt, however, that this person is visually impaired, given the fact that he's asking for visual cues to help point him in the right direction. I'd be willing to bet he has trouble processing visual information, can't quite get where to go and needs some extra help. I'm sure there's a site like WoWHead for whatever SOE game he's trying to play that can help fill in the blanks.

Chimpbot

11-06-2009, 07:30 PM

AbleGamers

11-06-2009, 07:42 PM

Johan

11-06-2009, 08:02 PM

I think you can rest easy that people can differentiate between the disabled community and one seemingly stupid individual suing for what appears to be pretty obviously ridiculous accommodations from Sony. Don't worry. :)

Also, checking out your site, I like the premise behind it. Good job.

brandonjclark

11-06-2009, 08:24 PM

Very cool, Mark! PAY ATTENTION EVERYONE. THIS (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1809141&postcount=22)is how you handle adversity.

well done, sir, well done

Anenome

11-06-2009, 09:18 PM

Hey, it's an egalitarian society, right? If blind people join the Air Force and want to fly jets in combat, why should we stop them just because they can't see? How is that fair? It's not their fault they're blind! Remember folks, if you agree with this, vote democrat :P

blackzc

11-06-2009, 09:49 PM

I'm rather proud things like this can happen.

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/7946/americanflag2do0.jpg

Why exactly? Fuck him, he shouldn't have been blind. If i went blind right now i can assure you id have better thing to do than bitch about a video game. Fuck him.

HALO 32

11-07-2009, 12:18 AM

I can’t see this law suit going anywhere.

Gedd

11-07-2009, 03:33 AM

Not at all surprised to uh.. "see" something like this.. lol.

I can't go into details, but a company I worked for was basically strongarmed by a group like this into going beyond resonable accomodations for certain people out of fear of being sued into the ground. It's a bunch of horseshit and these fuckers know they can get away with it 80% of the time and do, or force an out of court settlement for ez cash.

Paranoia

11-07-2009, 05:08 AM

Can anyone sue the US legal system for allowing this sort of crap to happen?

lost

11-07-2009, 05:46 AM

He should just play stuff from AudioGames.net - they are really quite fun.

http://www.audiogames.net/

vivalahazy

11-07-2009, 06:06 AM

Only in the good ol' USA

modeps

11-07-2009, 06:45 AM

PLEASE READ!

My name is Mark, and I am Editor-in-Chief of AbleGamers.com (http://www.ablegamers.com), we are the largest game site with the disabled gamers in mind. We are NOT in support of this move, and we think that it is a waste of time and breaks the first rules of game design FUN FIRST.

PLEASE DO NOT PAINT THE DISABLED COMMUNITY BECAUSE OF THIS GENTS MOVE PLEASE!

Hey Mark, thanks for posting. I don't think anyone here is saying that disabled gamers are all this way. Seems like everyone is in agreement that it's just a dumb move in general and looks like a cash grab.

AbleGamers

11-07-2009, 07:06 AM

Why exactly? Fuck him, he shouldn't have been blind. If i went blind right now i can assure you id have better thing to do than bitch about a video game. Fuck him.

Taking the point of the suit aside, I am not sure that you can say something as dumb as "he shouldn't have been blind", I am not sure that is something you can always pic. I am looking at my own life and I do not recall a conversation between me and the US Military where they said, "Hey Mark, how would you like to be disabled?" and getting a chance to think about it and say, "Sure, why the hell not."

So while I am many in the disabled community think this looks like a cash grab as well, saying something like this only makes the entire gaming community look bad and gives fuel to those that want to regulate video games out of the market place.

Let me remind you, that the disabled club is an easy club to join. You are only one shitty day away from being a member, car accident, or the ticking time bomb in your DNA. And trust me when I say, NO ONE asks you before you join.

That is all

prence

11-07-2009, 07:46 AM

And the dumbest lawsuit in the last 24-hours goes to.. THIS GUY.

prence

11-07-2009, 07:47 AM

Also sorry but I DID laugh at able gamers dot com. I'll say a few hail mary's and we'll be cool.

Murph the Surf

11-07-2009, 08:13 AM

Is a paralyzed man going to sue a bike maker next? A sony game isn't exactly a "place of public accommodation." I understand if a public place needs to be accessible but this is a privately owned luxury product. It sucks to be any degree of blind but come the eff on...

Exactly! I am sure he must have the greatest lawyer in the world if he didn't notice that key phrase in the Act. (oh, unless his layer can't see either...?):rolleyes:

Johan

11-07-2009, 08:35 AM

Also sorry but I DID laugh at able gamers dot com. I'll say a few hail mary's and we'll be cool.

No, we won't. :facepalm:

Why exactly? Fuck him, he shouldn't have been blind.

W.T.F. :facepalm:

Let me remind you, that the disabled club is an easy club to join. You are only one shitty day away from being a member, car accident, or the ticking time bomb in your DNA. And trust me when I say, NO ONE asks you before you join.

Truth.

brandonjclark

11-07-2009, 09:27 AM

Why exactly? Fuck him, he shouldn't have been blind. If i went blind right now i can assure you id have better thing to do than bitch about a video game. Fuck him.

I"m merely stating how wonderful a free society is. See, in order to have creative freedom, capitalistic chance, and modern thinkers, you also have ot put up with idiots like this.

It's a double-edged sword, except one side is fantastically dull.

Grumsh

11-07-2009, 11:08 AM

Why exactly? Fuck him, he shouldn't have been blind. If i went blind right now i can assure you id have better thing to do than bitch about a video game. Fuck him.

YOU, out of the gene pool! Please tell me you are not breeding.. the national IQ averages can't afford more hits.

Now while I might agree that this lawsuit is as stupid as say a Vision Impaired person sueing for having his chauffeur license revoked... accidents do happen that disfigure, scar, injure, and permanently main the best of us. Thats why they are called 'accidents' not 'intentionals'. Kinda like what you think about people who post stupid stuff like this...

biscuitbutt81

11-07-2009, 12:44 PM

Yeah, you guys are all jack asses.

Spurred by the enduring legend of the McDonald’s coffee case, the two professors - Michael McCann of the University of Washington and William Haltom of the University of Puget Sound - have conducted an in-depth analysis of press coverage over a 20-year period from 1980 to 1999. What they found was that there has been a measurable explosion in the coverage of civil litigation, but there does not appear to have been commensurate growth in the actual number of cases.

Their research also casts a spotlight on popular misperceptions of several high-profile lawsuits that have served as poster boys for tort reform. They found that legal information gets to the public largely through the lens of the mass media, and that the lens often has a distorting effect.

There is a huge misconception on how many frivolous lawsuits actually occur in the United States and a lot of the shit that most people have heard about is completely misunderstood.

For example, here's what actually happened in the infamous Mcdonald's case:

On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49¢ cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap. Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin. Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[11] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds. Two years of medical treatment followed.

So yeah, try to do some research before you say something insipid like, "DUHH THAT'S AMERKUH FOR U."

Grumsh

11-07-2009, 01:45 PM

Yeah, you guys are all jack asses.

There is a huge misconception on how many frivolous lawsuits actually occur in the United States and a lot of the shit that most people have heard about is completely misunderstood.

For example, here's what actually happened in the infamous Mcdonald's case:

On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49¢ cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap. Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin. Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[11] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds. Two years of medical treatment followed.

So yeah, try to do some research before you say something insipid like, "DUHH THAT'S AMERKUH FOR U."

I know a lot of people like to defend that she was right to sue Mcdonalds but some of us just shake our heads and question a few points:
1/ The only way I am putting boiling water (212f/100c for those who don't know) near my genitals is at gun point.
2/ She was wearing sweatpants... cotton sweatpants... any none virgin guy can tell you they take less than 2 seconds to pull off ('nuff said there!).
3/ Common_fricken_sense! Don't poke a bear, don't see if a gun is loaded by looking down the barrel, don't tug on Superman's cape, don't spit into the wind, and you just don't mess around with Slim.

Frivilous lawsuits are a waste of a lot of peoples time and money.

Anenome

11-07-2009, 01:52 PM

Johan

11-07-2009, 06:34 PM

Yeah, you guys are all jack asses.

WTF does a McDonald's lawsuit have to do with this one? Oh, I know...NOT A DAMN THING!

Take your red herring diversion and your ad hominem idiocy and jam them both down your craw.

Capt_Thad

11-07-2009, 06:52 PM

Hot coffee lawsuit = contributory-negligence. Look it up. It was still stupid. They handed her a perfectly safe sealed cup of coffee. She chose to open it in a stupid place in a stupid way. And who sits in anything for 90 seconds that can give you 3rd degree burns. I don't think that's even possible unless you pass out or are too old and weak to do otherwise. I can pull my own pants down off my skin in 5 seconds if they're covered in liquid burning, even in a car, she can't? It really reads much more like someone trying to intentionally burn themselves in order to sue and taking it much further than they thought they would with the burning.

Great. Now I have the image of a 79 year old lady screaming and ripping off her sweat pants in my head. Thanks for that. heh I do have some family members in that area and a little beyond, you may be underestimating the woman's fragility. My great-grandmother walked into a table not too far back (she's in her late 80's now) and ended up breaking her leg (something I would've shrugged off with a bruise and a few inappropriate phrases). Not sure how the coffee incident was McDonald's fault though.

@Biscuit: Not sure how that came into conversation with stupid lawsuits though. Because one incident got bad publicity and may have held some shred of validity, there are no stupid lawsuits in America? Fail to see the logic there. There are plenty of other examples to choose from. In this case, the rule wasn't written from a single occurrence.

Chimpbot

11-07-2009, 08:47 PM

Hot coffee lawsuit = contributory-negligence. Look it up. It was still stupid. They handed her a perfectly safe sealed cup of coffee. She chose to open it in a stupid place in a stupid way. And who sits in anything for 90 seconds that can give you 3rd degree burns. I don't think that's even possible unless you pass out or are too old and weak to do otherwise. I can pull my own pants down off my skin in 5 seconds if they're covered in liquid burning, even in a car, she can't? It really reads much more like someone trying to intentionally burn themselves in order to sue and taking it much further than they thought they would with the burning.

The thing is, the coffee wasn't perfectly safe; at that time, McDonald's intentionally served their coffee hotter than normal due(roughly 190 degrees F) to a customer survey. They found that most who purchased coffee at the drive-through waited roughly 15-20 minutes before actually drinking the coffee; in order to prevent it from being nearly lukewarm by then, they served the coffee far hotter so that it would be a "normal" hot temperature by the time it was actually consumed. At this temperature, however, third-degree burns can be caused within seven seconds.

On top of that, the woman in question sued simply to have the company cover her medical bills; it was the jury that awarded her the insane amount that she ended up with. Her medical bills were around $11,000 and she wanted to settle for $20,000; McDonald's, however, would only go as high as $800 and refused to go any higher. After the judge lowered the punitive damages, she would have received $640,000...far from the $2.7 million the jury awarded.

I know this is a bit of a derail...but c'mon.

Ravenus

11-08-2009, 05:22 PM

Well Sony might as well make their games for people that have had their nuts ripped off and shoved down their throat, because that's what I'm going to do to this dumb ass if I ever meet him. The World + Less STUPID ASS PEOPLE = A Much Better Place.

BabyJesus

11-09-2009, 03:34 PM

I am only 5'7" inches tall and I have a horrible 3 point shot, maybe I can sue the NBA.

KlausFlouride

11-09-2009, 06:34 PM

I am only 5'7" inches tall and I have a horrible 3 point shot, maybe I can sue the NBA.

You would really need to sue several people at once:

-the company that made the ball to heavy for you to be able to heave it that far.
-whomever came up with the distance the 3 point arc is for you to heave the over weight ball
-possibly the shoe company that made your shoes so under performing you couldn't jump high enough to heave the over weight ball the exaggerated distance.

You get the picture.