[curlypaul924]

I would think the same thing, but playing video games blindfolded is a thing. Look up ponktus Super Metroid 100% blindfolded and zallard1/sinister1 2p1c blindfolded Punchout for examples.

If it's possible for someone to beat these games blindfolded (at a competitive pace, no less!), then it's possible for a blind person to beat it too.

The old consoles didn't have screen readers, but watching zallard1 play Wii Punchout blindfolded, I can see where they would help. Amazing fights, yet painful to watch when using the menu system.

[throwaway316943]

That’s up to the person or company creating the video game to decide though. It can’t be a legal requirement any more than you could require painters to also produce a 3D model of their work so the visually impaired can enjoy it too.

[esteth]

This seems a bit short sighted. Should we not require accessible entrances to shops, banks, etc in law because it should be up to the people who own the building to decide if it's worth the massive expense of making the building accessible for only a few customers?

[scythe]

A videogame is (almost always) an unnecessary, discretionary waste of time for everyone who uses it. A storefront probably serves a purpose; a bank obviously serves a purpose. It might not be that easy to draw the line but it's obvious that "game" is on one side and "bank" the other.

[curlypaul924]

It absolutely can be a legal requirement, though I am not arguing that it should be one. I was specifically addressing the comment "I don't think people who need a screen reader are going to be playing a twitch-reaction shooter game." Apologies for being unclear.

[anonymousab]

The people typically playing the games blindfolded had first beaten them countless times with normal sight. You typically will see this on games where core gameplay elements are not influenced by any significant randomness.

Outside of that lack of randomness, I doubt there are any purposeful or even accidental affordances towards blind players in those games.