Hello Chris, thanks for a well thought out and interesting post. I agree that the mail on this list was very discouraging today.
I see this problem from both sides, I buy accessible games myself and I also work with one of the game developers doing tech support and sound engineering and whatnot, although I am no programmer. I don't know what kind of programming you do or have done but it seems that you have a pretty good idea as to what it takes to produce even these smaller games. To get the ones done that I have worked with it took us well over six months, I don't remember exactly how long at the moment. There are many problems in producing a game like those that our sighted friends and family members play, and sure I would like to see some of them be accessible. I am prepared to concede that as you say it is probably possible but the job is simply too great for the type of companies we have working in this industry now. For starters you cannot use the standard game engines and development tools that the sighted game developers use. So you have to either write your own or buy a license to use one and then hope it will do what you want for the game you wish to produce. Then you have to have the programmer or programmers who are familiar with working with the engine and/or other development tools to actually code the game levels. You doubtless know more about that part than I do. You also need a content writer to develop the story line of the game and make it all go together and make sense. There are many other things besides these, and I am probably rehashing some things for you here but I mainly wish for others on the list to have some idea of what goes on in these mainstream titles and at least some of what an accessible game developer would have to do to accomplish the same or similar things. As you said it is obviously not realistic to expect the small companies we have now to attempt this sort of thing, they simply do not have the resources to buy the software we would have to buy and pay the people we would have to pay and if we did then the community would wind up with a game that cost say 300 bucks a copy. It is important to remember that these mainstream companies have staffs of people numbering in the dozens or maybe even the hundreds that all they do is design and write games, that is why they can produce games of the complexity that they do, but they sell copies numbering in the millions so they can afford to pay these folks good money to do this work. So what is the solution. Well I have to say I have no idea. Some folks have talked about contacting the mainstream developers about making their games accessible and I agree this could be done very easily from a technical standpoint and on the surface it sounds like a good idea. While I have no direct knowledge of it myself I have heard from several folks who have tried to contact some of these companies, e.g. Sony, Nintendo, etc. and they have absolutely no interest whatsoever in doing this. They see no benefit to them to make the effort. I can't say as I blame them, knowing as I do the relatively small number of accessible games that are sold. Now to your other point. My "real" job is as an access technology instructor. In this capacity I work with the kind of people you are talking about, many of whom lose their sight later in life. While many of these are senior citizens in their 70's or 80's and most have no interest in computer games of any sort, I still emphasize to my students that they can still play computer games if they wish to. There is indeed some interest both in the older people I have mentioned and in the younger ones who have perhaps played video or computer games before losing their vision, and I agree this is an untapped market although I am not sure how big it would actually be. I'll conclude by simply stating that as a consumer I agree that we need to hold the developers to a high but realistic standard, that is we expect them to be honest and professional with us, I would expect no less from any company I deal with and give money to but by the same token as someone who works in the game development industry, I feel that we as a community need to realize that what they are doing they are doing for precious little financial return, and just because we've paid them their 35 or 40 bucks or whatever for a game it doesn't mean we own them for the rest of our existence. Best regards, Tom --- msn username: [EMAIL PROTECTED] skype username: lord_amexos yahoo username: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Bartlett Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 2:06 PM To: Blind Gamers Group Subject: audyssey: Special standards for accessible game developers? 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 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/
