[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.