@ianhamilton_, you may have never said it, but you implied it. And no, auto-centering, also known as auto aim, is not a good idea at all. It makes playing the game nearly impossible because it forces you to always aim at the ground when you spawn. Go play an FPS like Halo (can't remember which game has it but one of them does), turn it on and see how bad you do -- I guarantee that you will not enjoy the experience. Like I said: only menus. Nothing more. Anything more, and you [will] destroy the experience, if not make it more difficult for everyone, disability or no.

Ethin auto centering is not auto aim. Auto aim is where if you aim close to someone but miss then the game decides to still register it as a hit anyway. Auto centering is when for example if you're aiming into the sky and then run forward it moves your cross hairs back down to point at the horizon.

Does that make sense now?

Another example - audio cue for when someone is in your cross hairs. This does not give anyone unfair advantage, because there's already a visual cue if your cross hairs changing colour.

Or a whole bunch more, none would ever think that's killer instinct was ruined for sighted gamers by blind accessibility, and yet check out all all of this really wonderful work some on blind accessibility in that game - https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/305 … stinct.php

I'd kindly ask you to stop telling developers to not consider blind accessibility in games, it's immensely unhelpful.

@29, that wouldn't be very helpful, no. Its simple to re-aim -- just move your right stick downwards a few times. Also, allow me to clarify something. This act is specifically for the Federal Communications Commission. That means, 'communications only'. That does not mean game platforms like Steam. At least, not the entire platform. The communications portions yes, like chat. But the UI? Definitely not, the UI itself does no 'communications'. Game developers and publishers will *not* fall under a 'communicative category'. So, really, I don't see how this solves anything. There are alternative ways to communicate (i.e. Skype, TT, etc). Xbox Live is also an option. Like I said though, this is not going to help. If you want a law that enforces accessibility, it shouldn't apply to the FCC -- but to everyone. Perhaps even make a hole new commission -- something like 'The Federal Accessibility Commission'. But one thing we always need to keep in mind is not to go over-the-top. And ianhamilton_, the main reason I oppose this is because there is a serious, serious risk of this going way, way too far. Like I said, this situation is one of those situations where when you get something, you'll want more of that same thing, and more, and more, and more, and soon there'll be so much that no one will ever use it. I'm one of those people where I want accessibility on the platform the game runs on, not in the game itself. For games, the worst thing publishers/developers can do is add in-game accessibility outside menus, like telling health and things. That's just going to ruin the enjoyment of the game. If you want an example of good accessibility, look at audio quake: in AQ they kept that mainstream feel to the game, kept all the mainstream elements and didn't ruin the gameplay, but they added a few extras. But in FPSes today, we don't need half of those. Like I've said, and I shall reiterate: only the menus. No targeting bleeps, no item bleeps, nothing. Anything more and you ruin the play of the game.
For other games though, it depends on the game. For a game that has decision telling elements and prompts, make the menus of the game accessible, and (maybe) the possible responses. But, again, keep the accessibility to a minimum. This is a careful balance, like a scale: too little and the scale won't pick up anything; too much and the scale will shatter and cut your feet open. In this case, minimum accessibility in a game is perfectly fine.

@Ethan I understand where you are coming from, but as a player of video games, I personally encourage developers to consider accessibility in their games.  Do you know how many games I have tried to play  but I  simply couldn't play due to the accessibility problems in the games.  Let's say for instance, that a company like Nintendo continues to create features for games  like Mario Kart  like steer assist which make the game basically unplayable because it takes away the whole concept of the game, there is where  I can understand where your coming from, which is why I am writing up a complaint against Nintendo to be put out in 2019 with the help of my dad and people who we know, but suggesting that things like an audio system for knowing where the enemy is would ruin  a game is  simply outrageous!  Look, sighted people get visual feedback in games which lets them know where an enemy is in front of them, or basically in their line of fire, so why can't we  as people who can't see, get the same feedback?  Also, sighted people are able to go through menus successfully with out worrying about having to memorize menus and stuff like that, why can't we do the same thing with text to speech menus?  I am not saying it is going to be  easy, as I understand that developers really don't have the final decision as to whether accessibility is added in to games, but calling @ianhamilton arrogant and saying that accessibility can't happen in games which you have basically  implied isn't helping create a more accessible world.  And what might be easy for you as  pressing the right stick down 4 times to reach the level of an enemy isn't easy for all of us, and we want to have a good experience just like you have a good experience. This is why I have decided to do what I do. I don't know if Nintendo is going to listen, and who knows, maybe they will and maybe they won't, but I want this to prove that accessibility  is being fought for, because my dream is to be able to go to Game Stop, pick any game off the shelf, and be able to play it just the same as any person plays it (with out worry).
I know that the law itself isn't going to do anything, but if we as the customers fight for accessibility in games through this law, we will be able to gain more than we ever have, and companies eventually will have to add these features, because other companies added them first.  Look at what happened when the people who made Uncharted 4 made color blind support, and companies like EA added color blind support, other companies started adding it in and then it was just seen as a regular thing. Now, I want text to speech menus to be the same with companies, where when a company doesn't add them, it is seen as bad for business.  This is not bullying companies to add accessibility, this is changing the stigma that accessibility can not be done beyond simply color blind support.  This is my dream for the future, and it won't happen right away, it will take a while, but you saying that it could  never happen and telling people who read this forum not to add  accessibility in to their games beyond menus really discourages developers from trying to add features in the first place. What if for instance, you posted your thoughts and someone like Karen Stevens had read this and said to herself "I really want to add accessibility to my game, but it looks like it would be to difficult, sorry guys." or what if she told people based on your comments not to  add accessible features to their games, we would be screwed.  We have survived playing video games for too long, I now think it is time for us to not only survive when playing video games, but to be just as good as sighted players but  with different tools that we can use to make the  experience just as good for us as for sighted players.

So wait, I'm confused.

@Ethin: Are you seriously saying that you like getting menus using OCR, and memorizing them, not to mention being severely limited by the games you can play on a console? Well hey, let's not exclude PC either.

And I'm not talking consistent menus either, I'm talking dynamic menus that change, in some games these can be randomized.

Right now, I'm watching a live play through of Detroit: Become Human, a single player experience that could benefit from some accessibility. Audio queues for navigation, objects to take, etc. My point is, it is the developers job to point out what features are and are not going to ruin gameplay for their game.

You wanna stick to pretty much fighting games only and 2D side scrollers, be my guest, but I for one want to play as many games, in as many a genre that can be made accessible. And really, you're getting pissed because you can't get blind people into gaming, referencing post 16... if you're trying to get blind people into console gaming, the accessibility of them, you know, just might be a factor? In a lot of games, trial and error is not an option when it comes to navigation. I like the idea of live streams. Why would I stream a game where it might take me ten minutes to navigate out of a single area, especially when there's no audio landmarks, just silence, but the echoes of your footsteps.

So seriously, you have no point here, other than me learning that there are actually blind people in this community who don't want accessibility because they think it could ruin gameplay, meanwhile ruining the chances for us to go beyond audio games developed by kids, instead being able to immerse ourselves in a game with high production, quality and gameplay more than once every few years.

Just because you're a game developer, and an audio game developer at that, doesn't give you room to talk about video game development and determine, at least in a small way, if video games ever become accessible to the blind, totally blind if we're talking about us, or at least that's who I'm referring to anyway.

Personally, I'm sick and tired of fighting games, 2D side scrollers, about the only games playable by their very nature right now, but even that's loosely broad, as Comic Jumper is not playable once you hit the first boss. I like fighting games, I'm just not interested in being limited to them, because some idiot wants to ruin accessibility because he thinks he knows all about game balance, when in reality its on a per-game basis. This includes FPS's that, to include accessibility, don't necessarily have to have modifications to auto aim.

To the person that said that I am not willing to change my stand point.
I have tried to get blind people to work with me on many of projects to make life better for us.
However they sit around on social media like that crappy vorail and crappy facebook and fuss and complain that things won't change.
When I have tried to explain to them how and what we can do to make a beffter difference they don't want to do anything.
Be glad that I am not sighted because if I was not visually impaire or totally blind I would not deal with anything releated to blind people.
The reason that I feel this way is because of blind people like you that runs their mouth.

Well, I have tried to state my points. Clearly, I have stated them improperly. My original concern -- long before this massive flamewar started, either by me, ironcross, or someone/something else -- was that, after accessibility was added to one game, and its something simple, what if we start that situation I described, where we just keep pushing for more, making that game practically unplayable? I do know it has happened before on many games, though I can't name them off the top of my head at the moment. How exactly are we going to prevent that? I know that I may have been a bit aggressive. Perhaps someone else will come along and explain what I'm trying to say differently.
@35, I not once said I used OCR. I memorize the options I need to memorize by asking someone who has already played the game (who's very, very partially sited, but has used the internet for answers). It works quite well. I never said that I in particular was an audio game developer; the friend who I quoted said that, and he's played far, far more mainstream games I have, on the PS 2, 3, and 4, as well as the Xbox360 and Xbox1. And I've shown him various responses. Those quotations were his exact responses (with a few edits to remove the swearing). In fact, this very friend, who left this forum because of the drama on it a few years back, grew up on mainstream games. So I think he raised a lot of truly valid points, all of which you have discarded as if they mean nothing. I am in a chat group with... 11 members, if I'm not mistaken, last check at least, and three of them grew up on mainstream games their entire lives. I played a few mainstream games in my earlier years but not many. Like I said, I was quite aggressive, yes; and I probably stated my points in the wrong way. So please forgive me if I supposedly don't know what I'm talking about. Supposedly, mind.

I don't try to be over-extreme. I just feel that certain ideas, like accessibility in a video game, or things that we desperately want, are those ideas what result in destructive ones; that is, they result in those ideas where we just keep adding more and more of the same thing to make the game "more playable", and it ends up to have the opposite effect. Its the equivalent of adding a billion different features to something; you won't know what to do or where to go to do shit. I didn't mean to be so aggressive on this topic; its just that certain comments made towards my thoughts on this topic just irk me the wrong way. I get that developers look at this forum. I understand that. Do I think they'd be completely deterred from visiting this forum just because of a comment I made that might've been offensive, depending on its interpretation? No. Do I think they'd not visit this forum because of one thing I said? No. I trust that they are able to determine how to interpret my comments and determine whether they like it or not. I trust that they are able to determine who to listen to and who to not. As I have pointed out here more than once on this topic though, we keep approaching videogame developers to implement accessibility. For Indi developers this is fine. For mainstream full-on game studios this isn't the wisest course of action, and may not accomplish anything unless the studio is a publisher (like EA is). In those instances, wouldn't it be much wiser to approach the publishers to see if the publishers are open to the idea? Shouldn't it be obvious that we shouldn't hide behind blind organizations who obviously are incompetent at what they do: representing the blind community? Shouldn't it be clear-cut that we shouldn't hide behind laws (that may or may not have hidden agendas, or not do what they claim to do) to accomplish our goals? If the publisher/company we approach isn't open to accessibility, shouldn't it be wise to leave it alone, since they might not be open to it ever again? And, while we're at it, shouldn't we consider what the gamers themselves -- the sited gamers who have played these games far longer than most of us have -- think about our ideas for mainstream games before we just go strait to the top of the chain? After all, you will be playing with those sited gamers. They're input may be scalding, it might be very negative. But if your going to suggest something so major as accessibility (and yes, that is a very major thing), the sited gamers should be consulted as well, whether you want to or not.

We should get back on topic.
The topic is about any updates that have been made concerning accessibility features with EA sports games.

Single player games, OK you do whatever you want to and its fine for accessibility, whatever. It's when you get into the multiplayer games that I think the sighted players do have valid concerns about if the game has features for blind players, or any other type of disability, I see two concerns. The first being what if the accessibility is so good that it doesn't make the playing field level, it gives an advantage to the blind players the sighted ones can't deal with, so they get pissed off. The second is actually what if the sighted people use the accessibility features even though they don't ened them, to get like eyses in the back of their head and so forth, so its a precarious position, and its something the developers are going to have to figure out over time, and will there be missteps, probably so, but hopefully it all turns out to the good and we can co-exist with our sighted gamer counterparts.

@46, Danny has just enough site that he can see what he's doing, but I've gamed with him on Xbox 1 when that site is unhelpful and only makes things harder for him. Here's what we need to do if we're going to add accessibility:

1. If the game provides a feature that aids the sited gamers in doing what they're trying to do (i.e. a map to find an area), then we only need to make that feature accessible. We cannot add anything else. We cannot add any navigation beeps or other indicators if the game does not provide an according visual indication.

2. If the game does not provide a feature that assists a sited gamer in doing what they want/need to do (i.e. in open-world games, where exploration is key), then we must not add it in.

If we break these two fundamental rules, we will be entering the field where blind people have the advantage and sited people do not. If you guys want blind people to have any form of advantage over a sited player, then we might as well not implement accessibility at all. If the sited people rightfully complain about a blind person having an advantage over a sited player, it would not be hard for said sited player to get that feature, if not all accessibility features removed, law or no law. This is one of those opportunities where we only get one chance. If we blow this chance, the chance that we'll get a saying i what features are/are not added will go down to practically nil. This is a fine line that we need to ensure we do not cross. If we do, you can kiss your accessibility desires goodbye.

I'm of the opinion that we should be trying to campaign for accessibility that gives us equal access. What that means is yes, as Aaron's example, I do believe we could have certain navigational aids for things in plain sight, for a quest marker, etc. I do share the advantage concern though. There are gamers who, well, no other way to put it, are just douche bags. They're loud about their dislikes, vein, etc. If we start entering the gaming world, especially in multi player games, there's gonna be a lot of push back from other gamers. Some people will be like, "Aw, that's so cool that X made their games so blind people could play." Others would be like, "God damn fucking no eye ball having faggots, who the fuck do they think they are playing our god damn games." So to best combat this attitude, we sort of need to have all our ducks in a row. That way, if someone, or a group of someones starts moaning loudly about that we have an advantage over them, the publisher / developer can come right back with nah bro, here's our report on the situation, we did specific testing, balanced our audio queues and accessibility features and the final result is its not as equal as possible, no advantage.