Ok, here are the ground rules of this discussion. I do not want to inspire
anyone to flame anyone, or bring up old disputes. My mail reading this
morning was deeply discouraging in this group. Bravo to our mods for their
patience.
I do want to pose a question and write a few thoughts about it that have
been occasioned by conversations over the years I've been a member of this
list.
There seems to be a split among list members and blind gamers in general
about what standards to hold game developers to in terms both of
professionalism and quality of product. The extreme ends of the spectrum
are those who believe that anyone who develops accessible games ought to be
praised for the act of doing so and not held to very high standards, and
those who believe that they are professionals who should be held to the
same standards that a sighted gamer holds a mainstream developer to. Since
I'm posing the question, I'll ramble on a bit; it's only fair.
I think there are some deep social implications to how a blind person feels
about the developers of blind games. (They are probably extensible to the
realm of developers of access technologies in general, but for the sake of
being on topic, I'll stick to games.) Let's face it, whether you are a
cheer leader or a whiner (or that vast collection of people in between,)
being blind is a pain in the butt sometimes, and there is a natural
tendency to be grateful to anyone who makes that life easier, more fun or
in any way, devotes time and effort to improving our quality of life.
On the one hand, this is right and proper. Developing access technology
isn't ever going to make anyone wealthy, and developing accessible games is
even less likely to lead to early retirement. I've worked as a programmer,
and for those who haven't, even if you enjoy problem-solving as I do, the
niggling details are a major pain. For every hour of creative fun, there
are hours and hours of detail work that would try the patience of a
saint. So, those who do this work must have a reason beyond the desire for
filthy lucre to do it, and we should acknowledge that desire for what it is.
On the other hand, there is a danger in dwelling too much on gratitude as a
response to the sometimes lackluster results of these laudable goals. How
many of us have run into the attitude that we only exist on the charity
and/or sufferance of kind souls who look after us. Now, I don't know about
the rest of you, but I work my tail off to support a family of five, with
my wife in school and a ten-month-old baby, and don't need anyone's pity,
charity or anything else, though a helping hand offered in the spirit of
empowerment is surely appreciated.
I wonder sometimes if we don't play into the charity trap by our unthinking
gratitude for any efforts tossed our way, no matter how ill-thought-out
they may be. (I'm pausing to remind people I'm not thinking of anyone in
particular here only because I know this lists' unfortunate propensity to
read things in where they aren't intended.) I think there is something to
be gained in requiring those who would engage in developing access
technology, and in particular accessible games to do so in that spirit of
empowerment, and with a degree of professionalism that we perhaps have not
done before. This can be done with great respect, and requires very
proactive feedback between developers and their consumers. It requires
consumers to expect more from their developers then another rehash of a
1970's video game. It requires developers to invest time in marketing
their products to the large number of blind people who don't participate on
this or the the GMA list.
As a side note, the number of blind people is increasing quite a bit in
this country, and probably world wide as medical advances allow more people
to live long enough for their eyes to go all wonky on them. And many of
these people aren't the people mired in the blindness system that have
formed the base for the gaming industry thus far, but professionals who
have lost their sight later in life, have financial security, but are
unaware of the opportunity to continue pastimes they may have had during
the visually-enabled part of their lives. Where is the marketing effort to
these consumers who could fund the development of bigger, better games?
I think the era of the one-developer shop has had its day. Let me pause to
acknowledge the importance of what these pioneers have achieved. They
proved that games, even fairly sophisticated games, such as those produced
by GMA and others were possible. They made it clear that there is a
constituency for their products.
But it's time to acknowledge the reality that the one-developer shop can't
possibly produce a product in a timely fashion that can rival in complexity
the hundreds of titles available to the sighted gamer. It's not that the
technology doesn't exist, or that research into the methods of translating
complex visual feedback into a form we can use doesn't exist. It's just a
cold hard fact that you can't make a living writing a game of that
complexity for a market that numbers in the hundreds of buyers. (To the
developers, is that an accurate estimate?) The prospect of taking on such
a huge project is understandably daunting for any one individual, witness
the numerous brave announcements of startups we've seen that have been
followed up by an announcement that something is being scaled back or
scrapped due to lack of resources. (And I mean no disrespect to anyone by
pointing that out; of course it's difficult, and if you have people to
support and can only do this in your spare time, then my God, you have my
respect for even attempting it.)
My point, and yes, I'm getting to it, is that the business model just
doesn't work. I will buy anything GMA produces because I have brand
loyalty to them, and my personal dealings with David Greenwood have always
been courteous, professional and honorable. But I'm not going to fool
myself into believing that GMA is ever going to produce a title comparable
in complexity to the games I could buy from Game Stop were I a sighted
player. He's done remarkably well with the limited tools and time at his
disposal, as have other developers. (I single GMA out because it's the
company I've had the most dealings with.)
It's time to take the next step. Some visionary, pardon the pun, is going
to have to figure out how to do business in an entirely new way, or at
least adapt the successful model of the EA Games, Lucas Arts type of
company. Someone is going to have to figure out how to market our games to
that much broader segment of the blind population who has never heard of
Lone Wolf or Monkey Business. Someone is going to actually have to recruit
a professional staff, find capital, find a marketing channel and produce a
professional-quality (and I mean professional by the larger industry
standard) game, to show that it can be done, that it can be sold and at a
price that is competitive with mainstream game titles.
My challenge to this community is to brainstorm on how that might be done,
to inspire those who have the talent and the will to make such a thing
happen. It begins with us who care. It begins by abandoning negativity,
by learning from past phenomena but not being mired in them. It begins by
someone determining that the thing shall be done.
So, I would be interested in hearing what others, developers and consumers
alike have to say about this admittedly long and potentially controversial
posting. (Ron, if you think this is suitable, you can publish it in the
next Audyssey.)
Chris Bartlett
to leave send a blank Email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can contact the list owners/moderators by Emailing [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to go nomail send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
change "nomail" to "normal" to resume messages.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/blindgamers/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
