Sony sued by Blind Man. Wins

Last November, a visually impaired man from California sued Sony Computer Entertainment claiming their inability to make videogames accessible to the blind constituted a violation of the American with Disabilities Act.

The man stated that Sony's games are to be considered public accomodations and thus should be made accessible to everyone, including the blind. Now the court has dismissed the case, concluding that videogames cannot be defined as such.

I found myself wondering: what was he thinking? Did he really think any jury would have agreed with him? I mean, a blind man suing Sony for not making games for the blind is like a man suffering from vertigo suing the city of Paris because he can't go on top of the Eiffel tower. They are called 'video' games for a reason. Also, why Sony? Why not Microsoft or Nintendo? Why would Kratos be a "public accomodation" and not Mario ot Master Chief?

Obviously this is in no way an argument agains blind people, still, are you guys with me in calling nonsense this lawsuit? Or can you see some reason behind it?

Thanks for the new info, I remember reading about the lawsuit and going "Oh man, this poor guy doesn't have a chance in hell!"
But still, I thought the suit had more to do with the rights of people with disabilities as a whole than it was for that one person lobbying to be able to play games. In essence, one person forging a path to uncharted territory. Someone has to be the first, right?

There are resources out there for gamers who are hearing and/or visually impaired so that they can enjoy games, but for a large portion of them, the said resources are scarce at best or have funding that is stretched far too thin to even hope to encompass the current output of new games. I think it's a cool idea to have more titles that enable disabled people to enjoy them, but in reality, it's a pretty mammoth task, and I imagine that the "injured party" had a pretty good idea of the scope of it.

Either that or they were just hoping for some seriously dumb luck. :P
But hey, it's a start right?

Wow. I'm glad they dismissed the case. There's a reason they're called "video" games.

Wow. I'm glad they dismissed the case. There's a reason they're called "video" games.

Phoenix534

my thoughts exactly

Wow. The blind dude needs to get over himself.

What would a blind man do with all that money if he won?Pvt_r3d

Wow, looks like a Lemming/Sheep finally took system wars to the next level.

[QUOTE="Pvt_r3d"]What would a blind man do with all that money if he won?SSBMFighter

What a load of BS.

Sad.

I'm glad it ended the way it did, though.

I hate these stupid, frivolous lawsuits.

And I think the fact that he only targeted 1 company takes away from his case. If he really was trying to be a pioneer for his cause, he would have gone after the big 3. Only going after sony really makes me think he was just out for a paycheque.

Thanks for the new info, I remember reading about the lawsuit and going "Oh man, this poor guy doesn't have a chance in hell!"
But still, I thought the suit had more to do with the rights of people with disabilities as a whole than it was for that one person lobbying to be able to play games. In essence, one person forging a path to uncharted territory. Someone has to be the first, right?

There are resources out there for gamers who are hearing and/or visually impaired so that they can enjoy games, but for a large portion of them, the said resources are scarce at best or have funding that is stretched far too thin to even hope to encompass the current output of new games. I think it's a cool idea to have more titles that enable disabled people to enjoy them, but in reality, it's a pretty mammoth task, and I imagine that the "injured party" had a pretty good idea of the scope of it.

Either that or they were just hoping for some seriously dumb luck. :P
But hey, it's a start right?

Teekal

Thanks for the new info, I remember reading about the lawsuit and going "Oh man, this poor guy doesn't have a chance in hell!"
But still, I thought the suit had more to do with the rights of people with disabilities as a whole than it was for that one person lobbying to be able to play games. In essence, one person forging a path to uncharted territory. Someone has to be the first, right?

There are resources out there for gamers who are hearing and/or visually impaired so that they can enjoy games, but for a large portion of them, the said resources are scarce at best or have funding that is stretched far too thin to even hope to encompass the current output of new games. I think it's a cool idea to have more titles that enable disabled people to enjoy them, but in reality, it's a pretty mammoth task, and I imagine that the "injured party" had a pretty good idea of the scope of it.

Either that or they were just hoping for some seriously dumb luck. :P
But hey, it's a start right?

Teekal

The guy is a scumbag or a nut (anyone that paints a picture is violating my rights cause I can't see it!) not a civil rights activist. The US really, really needs tort reform to reduce the amount of frivolous lawsuits.

That's ridiculous. What's next? A deaf man suing a record lable because he can't hear music?

Thanks for the new info, I remember reading about the lawsuit and going "Oh man, this poor guy doesn't have a chance in hell!"
But still, I thought the suit had more to do with the rights of people with disabilities as a whole than it was for that one person lobbying to be able to play games. In essence, one person forging a path to uncharted territory. Someone has to be the first, right?

There are resources out there for gamers who are hearing and/or visually impaired so that they can enjoy games, but for a large portion of them, the said resources are scarce at best or have funding that is stretched far too thin to even hope to encompass the current output of new games. I think it's a cool idea to have more titles that enable disabled people to enjoy them, but in reality, it's a pretty mammoth task, and I imagine that the "injured party" had a pretty good idea of the scope of it.

Either that or they were just hoping for some seriously dumb luck. :P
But hey, it's a start right?

Teekal

VIDEOgames, by deffinition, need to be seen. they are 50% visual. It is unfortunate that he lost his eyesight, but hisdisability has to exclude him from certain things.

In the same way that a blind man can't sue a car manufacturer because he can't drive, or that a deaf man can't sue a record company because he can't hear music, (thanks to the previous poster) this lawsuit was without merit. I can't believe a lawyer would actually take the case.

So I wonder if some guy who is deaf will sue the RIAA for not making music for the deaf?

it is just not possible to make video games in braille or they would be doing it.

and this is a serious matter....don't you know any sight impaired people?

They would love to be able to play games if there were any way it could be done.

there are forms of sport using a beeper in a ball and blind skiiers use a partner with sound emitting device who skis in front of them.

there are a couple of disabled people in California who search out restaurants and stores who are not up to code in order to sue them.

They have been interviewed and fully realize they are targeting small businesses that can not afford the upgrades and will be put out of business but continue the efforts regardless and are not held in low high esteem even by the disabled community.

Members of my family have disabled plates but try not to cause extra trouble .... most places have access, it is not worth causing problems to the few that can not afford to make the change.