Soapbox features enable our individual writers to voice their own opinions on hot topics, opinions that may not necessarily be the voice of the site. Today, Kate asks why the games industry is still so far behind in accessibility features.
It's something you never have to think about, until you do: games and consoles are not made with disabilities in mind. Whether it's a physical disability, like the loss of movement in your hands, a hearing impairment that makes it hard to follow audio cues, or even colourblindness - a condition that affects approximately 8% of men worldwide - many people struggle to connect with games in the way they were intended to be played.
In a Reddit post that went viral, gamer and YouTuber Biggy reviewed the accessibility of Animal Crossing: New Horizons, and how it interacts with his disability. Biggy is paralysed from the chest down, with "significant loss of motor function in both hands", which makes it hard for him to use ubiquitous control schemes, like D-Pads, joysticks, and particularly the triggers and shoulder buttons on a controller or a Joy-Con.
Biggy uses an app called Joy-Con Droid, which is free on the Android store, and lets players use the touchscreen to simulate Joy-Con buttons on one flat plane.
We've covered the Joy-Con Droid before, but never in the context of accessibility. In Biggy's review, it's clear that while Animal Crossing: New Horizons isn't built for players with disabilities, it's also surprisingly good in other ways - largely by accident. He notes that the game can even be used as exercise, at least in terms of developing fine motor skills, like needing to use both hands to capture tarantulas. Through the use of third-party software, he is able to play the game fully, catching hard-to-get bugs and fish and terraforming the place.
The Reddit comments are incredibly heartwarming - when one person recommended the Xbox Adaptive Controller, which can be used with the Switch, Biggy noted that he couldn't get it easily or cheaply, as he's not in the US - and another commenter said "PM me. I'll buy it for you."
Nintendo's games and consoles have been criticised for how little they cater to the disabled community, especially with the fiddly Joy-Cons. Disability charity and advocate AbleGamers' review finds it "disappointing" to see Nintendo ignoring accessibility features; the Washington Post praises Nintendo's 10.0.0 update that added customisation options to controller inputs, and lets other disabled gamers know which games are easiest to play, but notes that the basic controllers are not ideal, and recommends third-party options.
In the past, Nintendo's mandatory motion controls with the Wii, autostereoscopic 3D with the 3DS, and games that require button mashing have all been incredibly disability-unfriendly. Sure, they're not alone in that - many games require button mashing, after all - but accessibility has never really been at the forefront of their design process.
The games industry as a whole is making slow progress on accessibility, but there is, at least, progress. Many games are implementing colour options for colourblind people, a range of subtitle sizes, and various other changes, but the fact is that many of these additions come after the game's release, and sometimes - like in the case of Dead By Daylight - after the developers have been caught saying ableist things. Accessibility shouldn't be an afterthought, or something that gets patched in months after launch.
Blind gamer Steve Saylor was so overwhelmed by The Last of Us Part II's accessibility options - the most progressive he'd ever seen - that he wept tears of joy. That alone should show how much it means to include gamers with all kinds of disabilities from the very beginning, and not as a post-launch consideration.
The pandemic has not been kind to the disabled community. Many are at high risk of catching the virus, others cannot wear the mask, and are therefore often refused entry to places, and the rush to change how things work differently during a time that requires social distancing, office closures, and new health and safety guidelines has often left people who require extra accessibility measures behind. Loneliness is rampant, and many immunocompromised people, and people with chronic conditions, are hearing others treat them like acceptable losses. The healthcare systems of every country are overwhelmed.
To be able to see Biggy speak about being able to play Animal Crossing: New Horizons, albeit in a slightly different way to most, is more meaningful than it seems at first blush. A lot of our pandemic experiences have involved the emotional and mental support of this game, and everyone deserves to have that, if they want it. The game is slightly tricky to play with various disabilities, and Biggy (as well as other people in the comments) has had to find quite a few workarounds to be able to enjoy all that the game has to offer, but what matters is that, eventually, with new inputs that suit his mobility, he can fish and catch bugs with the rest of us.
But having to buy expensive new setups, with complicated wiring and engineering, and hoping that the system you have supports them fully, is a huge barrier to entry for many people. That's why the Xbox Adaptive Controller was such a huge deal - an officially-made, simplified, first-party controller that was actually made with disabilities in mind. The more these controllers, inputs, and accessibility features get into the mainstream, the more widely-available and widely-accepted they will become.
Given that Nintendo's whole MO is "games for everyone", it begs the question: why don't they make games for everyone? Accessibility has never really been one of their strong points, and - much like accessibility progress in general - a lot of the time, their more accessible games and features are accidental, not designed to be that way. Many champions of assistive technology and disability inclusion are third-party, like AbleGamers, SpecialEffect, and Steve Saylor, although Xbox has its own initiative.
Exclusion is outdated. It's past time that Nintendo catches up with the progress of the rest of the gaming world, as small as it is. As Deaf hearing aid user Ben Bayliss says in his GI.biz article about accessibility in games marketing, "accessibility needs to be a thought process that spans an entire company rather than just the development of a game." It takes a long time, a lot of money, and a ton of effort to integrate accessible design into the process of making a game, and running a studio, but it's worth it to ensure that games really are for everyone.
[source reddit.com]
Comments 43
Yeah, there have been some great steps made recently to accommodate more gamers. Disability can affect us all out of absolutely nowhere. Hopefully Nintendo start to focus a bit more on accessibility.
Here is the frightening truth. Even though I make sure sites and applications I develop are accessible and compliant with wcag aaa, most in my industry don't care. Equally as scarey is the lack of usability testing done. It is laziness.
Look, ma, no drift!
This just tells me some controller companies got potential markets to tap into.
Video Game developers are not obligated to be more approachable, just like their content of their games shouldn't be forced to be for everyone. They are a business that, in spite of being narrow in scope of one industry, still spans over many aspects of it.
That being said (as irksome it may be to some), I do encourage many of the controller makers out there to reach those disenfranchised markets. Hori, PowerA and others got an opportunity to really hook some good PR.
Most companies probably think it's not worth the effort. It's truly a shame, the more people can play and enjoy games comfortably, the better.
Game companies especially highly profitable ones like Nintendo have had decades to be decent towards disabled people and they’ve refused. Their owners should suffer painful and news worthy financial consequences going forward.
@Derringer They’re definitely trying to drum it into uni students now, taking marks off for potential usability issues and such. Hopefully that leads to better habits later in life.
@Paraka They do not need to offer all the options, but wcag was extended to cover documents and software so they need to meet the 508 or wcag criteria. Things like dialog text need to use a certain color ratio, etc.
E205 Electronic Content: E205.4 Accessibility Standard. ELECTRONIC CONTENT shall conform to Level A and Level AA Success Criteria and Conformance Requirements in WCAG 2.0 (incorporated by reference, see 702.10.1).
Most assume its just the web because there are little to no fcc and accessibility watch dog complaints and lawsuits. The web on the other hand, is a lawyers wet dream.
@nessisonett That's because of the lawsuits, and they are growing.
It's sad that Nintendo's accessibility efforts on Switch started, peaked, and ended with the launch of 1 2 Switch
I'm flabbergasted that Nintendo hadn't bothered to at least incorporate touch-screen controls for Animal Crossing: New Horizons considering that the DS and 3DS installments have had it. And thank God for the Brain Training and Super Mario Maker 2 stylus because some games would have been borderline unplayable without them (a stylus for Katrielle and the Millionaires' Conspiracy is a must).
The only touch-screen support in AC:NH that I am aware of is while browsing the catalogue, (?) but even then, touch-screen control is completely absent from one screen to another which makes it inclusion redundant and more frustrating than convenient. Also annoying is the lack of optional motion controls. Why can't we throw our nets or cast our lines with motion controls? Another missed opportunity to give the game that wee bit of extra polish.
Mario Kart 8 Deluxe did a fantastic job of making the game inclusive of almost everyone. One way they could have better accommodated blind people is by increasing the intensity of the rumble whenever a player veers too far off course. While the existing smart-steering and auto-acceleration options have gone an enormously long way, additional triggers (such as certain vibrations or sounds to indicate what item one has picked up or been hit by) and perhaps optional immunities/handicaps could further give them a competitive edge to level out the playing field.
The Joy-Con really should have included a speaker like the Wii Remote as it's one of the things that I miss most about it. An in-built speaker could also serve as a narrator to guide vision-impaired players through menus similar to accessibility options on PC (at least for games that are designed to accommodate blind players).
@Derringer - Honestly, probably the most easiest answer is allowing more personalized control mapping.
Nintendo, or anyone else, making their game compatible with companies who are controller focused and their designs would probably be the easiest bet.
Hell, most third parties understand basic keybind options, so it's not too far from where we are at.
Can we please at least start with universal in-game button binding? I'd love to use my custom control set (with an Xbox-style button layout) with BOTW, but its just so awkward using anything but the default. And don't even get me started on traditional Zelda's controls. Let me bind any item to any non-movement/pause button, damn it! Also, being able to universally set attack to the R button in 2d platformers would be really nice.
@kategray - thanks for yet another interesting, thought provoking article.
Considering the various types of mice (mouses?) that you can get, along with transcribing software, and other, more modern, advances for working in the office with a computer, it is a real shame that something that was niche for so many years has not really thought about inclusivity.
That touch screens are now readily available is great, but that there are so few adaptive control surfaces for gaming is a real shame in this day and age.
My hearing is screwy from far too many noise and hardcore gigs, so I find audio cues in games massively frustrating.
And on a Nintendon't note - it is really surprising they have not catered for all players. They really need to get their act together on that front
@Silly_G
That's a great idea about the HD rumble!
@Rambler I can only assume that, as the original gaming generation gets older (and experiences worse mobility) that companies will finally acknowledge accessibility. It's a shame it'll take that long.
@KateGray
Yep, the gamers with the greatest disposable income, who are able to pay for expensive controllers, etc. Hopefully affordable adaptive controllers will become available
But yes, the more voices heard, the better. It's baffling why it has taken so long.
I don't think it's a matter of companies doing better. In a capitalist system - which we have no choice but to live in, like or not - if there is a market for something, it will get made.
You think companies have morals? That they care about their workers or their consumers? Time to wake up. If there isn't enough demand for a product, it ain't getting made.
Such a heartwarming comment section...
@Heavyarms55 that’s why at the least they must be forced to do what’s right.
To Nintendo's credit, they actually made a hands-free controller for the NES decades before MS joined the game. This is one of those things a lot of people don't know about, but it existed.
Also to Nintendo's credit, the Switch has one asset that is an enormous help to visually impaired people: the zoom function. It's helped me countless times, both in handheld and on the TV, and since I started playing on PS4 I've been frustrated that PS4 doesn't have the same feature.
More accessibility options are always great.
As a left handed player I can't tell you how annoying it is when acceptable control options are not available to me.
System level button mapping has helped immensely but even now I see Nintendo with Skyward Sword HD mention only the right joycon for the sword controls which would be useless for me.
I have begun tweeting them asking for the option to swap the joy cons for sword and shield use.
Hopefully they listen.
Accessibilty is incredibly important and companies should do all they can and if it is possible they should implement the options.
I know I’m going to get backlash for this comment, but why should they care for accessibility? Not everything should be for everyone. Video games included.
@Galaxyman88
You are lucky I am being nice these days otherwise I would have a few choice words for you.
In jest of course.
@GrandScribe
And how would you propose for them to be "forced" for companies to make these options?
@GrandScribe They wont be and they never will be. Corporations have far too much power. I can't imagine any peaceful way they ever give that up.
@Toy_Link legislation like the Americans with Disabilities Act that has painful consequences for the owners should they violate it.
@Heavyarms55 Legislation is the best tool we’ve got until we can redistribute business ownership and control among their workers.
@TheFullAndy It’s insane to think even extremely common deviations in the way people play games, like being left handed, is so against the ‘norm’ that they don’t bother creating workarounds. My brother was really happy when he realised some DS games had a left-handed mode as some games were almost unplayable without one.
No Gamer left behind!
@KateGray
Nintendolife, more articles on accessibility in video games please. Every article brings more awareness.
Games are a luxury commodity, convince companies it is profitable to cater to those who need these options.
It's certainly a big positive when innovations make products accessible to more people with disabilities, but I'm not sure it's reasonable for all game developers to develop all games and hardware with all disabled people in mind. The Wii was criticized, as mentioned in the article, for not having accessible options to replace motion controls. But that was kind of the point of the Wii. If an option existed to not use motion controls, nobody would get off their butts, eliminating the novelty of the games often directly to the detriment of the people playing the games. Getting people out of their comfort zone and it being an activity more than just a video game is what sold Wii systems.
With some tiny fraction (one percent?) of people unable to play Wii games at all and a much smaller number of people unable to use a traditional controller, there probably isn't much incentive for Nintendo specifically to focus on this degree of accessibility. Third parties who are dedicated to accessibility for the disabled are generally better equipped to understand problems and create solutions.
It may be sad, but it's also unavoidable - finances matter. If Nintendo (or any other company) doesn't see an avenue for meaningful profit, there isn't really any reason for them to do it, especially if they are already fairly specialized. Microsoft, on the other hand, develops software and hardware for a much larger range of activities and may find it worth the resources to expand in that direction.
Governments can legislate certain degrees of accessibility, but that does increase costs. Is, as an example, forcing game developers to ensure all games are accessible to 100% of the population instead of 95% at double the price worth it? Legislation can also increase the barrier to enter a market for startups, which can have depressing economic effects and actually stunt the very things it attempts to promote.
The best way to find solutions to this problem is to actually donate and promote third parties who specialize in this type of accessibility. Don't complain about companies who don't (or in many cases, can't) focus on it. Uplift the ones who do.
@GrandScribe Which has a snowballs chance in hell of happening peacefully.
@JasmineDragon Zoom function? What? Where? I never knew that existed on Switch. Is it hidden in settings?
@stinky_t It is indeed hidden in the settings. Once you activate it, you can double-click on the Home button anytime to zoom in. It's not very useful for action games, but is a huge help reading menus and figuring out tiny status icons in a game like Civilization and RPGs.
@JasmineDragon i had no idea about that, cheers!
@nessisonett
Yep there are so many games over the years I was unable to play just because developers left out the option to remap all the controls and even when they included options for left handed people they missed the point.
Best example is first person shooters, games like Doom included an option for southpaw but all they did was swap the sticks and for some reason swap the trigger buttons so I shoot with L now instead of R ( why?). But they keep the jump button at A.... how am I meant to jump with A whilst walking with the right analogue stick?!
As I said the system level button mapping all 3 console makers have implemented the last few years has been a revelation.
@JasmineDragon I didn't know about the zoom feature thank you so much.
@Heavyarms55 nothing substantial occurs without a loss of peace paid as the price.
@Ashunera84 should companies be able to exclude disabled people in other places like theaters? Should a theater be allowed to deny a wheelchair user access to an auditorium because there's no way up except stairs?
Why should disabled people have to expend precious time, energy and money others don't have to just to enjoy something like video games? Why is it just and acceptable they have to pay those prices when they're the least able to pay them?
@GrandScribe building a ramp is a fairly small concession to make. The cost of doing so is very low and the benefit of doing so is very high, so in this specific case, it's probably worth it to legislate. That said, it's still a cost associated with opening/maintaining a business that makes it more difficult to do, and barriers to entry for a startup slows innovation, which can prevent innovations that help the disabled from happening.
The cost of making games playable by disabled people can be very high, depending on what needs to be done. Again, if a game is developed to be playable by 100% of the population, what were the additional costs? Does the price per content jump 50%? 100%? The cost increases are pushed to the consumer. Does everyone then have to pay $120 for the game, or are all of the costs paid by just the people who need those features? That might push the cost of a copy into the thousands. If it increases everyone's cost, does it price me out of buying it? Why am I paying for $60 worth of features I'll never use? How many units won't be sold because of cost relatively speaking? Is this a sustainable business model?
Is this "fair" to the disabled? Maybe not. But are you entitled to my money? I'm not a rich CEO, just an average Joe. When businesses close because of legislated regulations, we all lose.
Tech companies in general spend a lot of time and effort on accessibility that aren't immediately apparent. It can simply be very hard to find solutions in a lot of cases. This is why promoting, donating to or investing in third parties who specialize in providing solutions for the disabled is preferable to forcing everyone to make products that way by default.
@Ashunera84 what you're arguing is that exclusion by design is morally acceptable within society. That society at large has no obligation to ensure the maximum integration of disabled people within everyday life. That kind of thinking has always been fuel for painful, injurious and even deadly consequences for disabled people.
All a business is, is a construct a tool to organize labor. Just as a hammer isn't worth more than a disabled person's life neither is any business.
Markets are a structure, another tool within society.Just as a band saw can't drive a nail in markets can't by design deliver justice. All they can do is exploit injustice in the guise of helping for the sake of profiteering which they center not disabled people.
If a business cannot withstand society demanding inclusion by design then they are owned, structured and operated by fools. If owners refuse to do inclusion by design without needlessly passing on costs then they are ableists doing so out of petty spite and greed.
@GrandScribe this is incredibly naive and idealistic. It relies on the assumption that making everything accessible to everyone is easy. It's not even remotely easy, even without accounting for disabilities. How well do you think my able grandmother can use Facebook? This falls under the accessibility umbrella, something all tech companies, Nintendo included, spends a great deal of time, effort and money on already.
Inclusion within reason is expected (ie. ramps) but where costs are high and few benefit, it does not make sense to enforce. Someone pays for every regulation. Those costs add up. When profit disappears, new businesses can't open and old businesses close. When that happens, 100% of people, disabled or otherwise, suffer. A low barrier to entry or the masses is VITAL for innovation. Innovation is VITAL to improving the lives of the disabled. If you, as an individual, can't have something right now, does that mean everyone should go without?
Despite the human approximation of "nature" through markets/capitalism having many faults that do need fixing (specifically providing opportunity to the disadvantaged, a wealth distribution problem) it's just a simple, sad reality that an individual being legislated something will cost someone else something.
Should playing baseball be made accessible to the totally blind by baseball leagues? No. This is why you promote third parties who find solutions for specialized cases. (In the case of baseball, restoring or improving vision through health sciences is obviously the only route, baseball leagues can't do that.) Promoting third parties is most effective way to solve these problems without hindering society in other ways. No bureaucracy, no debate, no restrictions, no inefficiency, no unintended side-effects, just your money going directly toward finding solutions.
@Ashunera84 your argument is ableism wrapped in a transparent veneer of faux concern and empathy to argue that mere tools are more deserving of society's concern than people. It is proven by your blatant bad faith arguments like, "should playing baseball be made accessible to the totally blind by baseball leagues?" Disabled people like myself don't make those kinds of arguments. Such oppositional arguments are made by those who wish to portray marginalized people as irrational so as to justify partially to completely dismissing whatever it is they're saying and demanding.
Your solutions are as derivative and useless to disabled people as they are old. In all the years they've existed they've never delivered as promised.
@GrandScribe you are making that "baseball" kind of argument right now. How much would it cost (where cost is a representation of time, effort, and resources) for every company to get to your desired level of accessibility? Are you a developer yourself who is able to answer this question with authority? Is it even possible to get there for everyone? How many laws have to be written, how many court cases would it add, how many resources go into enforcing these laws? How many businesses are negatively impacted by regulations that don't really apply to what they do? Does my small business, which uses software designed specifically for us need to ensure accessibility for disabled persons? Which disabilities are reasonable to account for? What would that cost us and our customers? If we're exempt, where do you draw the line? Who decides where the line is drawn? Do you have a background in business or law that makes you able to answer these questions with any authority? These are questions that need to be answered.
You are assuming the cost, effort, and resources required is low. This is your mistake. Accessibility is very difficult and very costly WITHOUT accounting for disabilities. Do you believe that businesses don't already want to expand their market to the 10 million or so disabled Americans? What you're asking for hasn't been done because it cannot be done.
How many Accessibility improvements have been made throughout society over the past 100 years for the disabled? How many are being made today? Are things not getting better over time? Are you taking improvements for granted? To what degree should society realign to fit the needs of tiny minorities, and what are the long term effects? Should every developer of any technology be aware of and accounting for specific disabilities that are 100 times less common than your specific needs? The cost of a solution (if you have one) needs to be weighed against the overall benefit of the solution, otherwise you're being irresponsible.
Is this ableism? No, this is life. All of us have our own problems, our own illnesses, our own circumstances and our own goals, and history has proven that taking agency for SELF improvement away from people can have severely negative effects on society. There are many disadvantages people can have, be they racism, sexism, poverty, disability, or various stigmata. Progress on many issues is never going to happen at the rate we wish it to, but progress is still happening. The adaptive controller, which provides a luxury to disabled persons, is proof of it.
Like I said, promoting the parties who are working on solutions really is your best and most efficient option. Grants and investments for those working on solutions are effective. If that means campaigning to increase these grants, I'm all for it. I'm fine with my tax money going there. Still some red tape, but it's far more efficient. Law that enforces business adhere to more very costly regulations absolutely is not the answer.
Tap here to load 43 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...