Search Unity

  1. All Pro and Enterprise subscribers: find helpful & inspiring creative, tech, and business know-how in the new Unity Success Hub. Sign in to stay up to date.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Dismiss Notice

FCC / CVAA discussion

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by N1warhead, Jan 4, 2019.

  1. N1warhead

    N1warhead

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Posts:
    3,826
    Ne0mega likes this.
  2. Lurking-Ninja

    Lurking-Ninja

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2015
    Posts:
    6,948
    IMHO.

    I like the idea to allow people to communicate, and I have no problem this kind of "overreach". I also highly praise those who develop games our fellow gamers in mind who may not capable of using certain functions because of disability.

    Since the CVAA clearly states communication I have not problem with it, it does not affect game play and I think this angry gamer piece is just an overreaction. (And still, providing easier game play for those who have fine movement problem or repeated actions problems is highly admirable)
     
    TonicMind and Magician_Arcana like this.
  3. N1warhead

    N1warhead

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Posts:
    3,826
    It should still be voluntary though. One day it's communication, the next day it's a law suit because you didn't cover somebodies broken hand into account for controls.

    I have no problem with implementing the systems, if it's what the company wants to do. But it all starts with small things, and then next thing it's another small thing and another.

    But I think the big thing the article writer was trying to point out, was that it's not entirely 'clear' on what it all entails because it wasn't originally written for 'games'.

    I mean read the gov website for it https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/21st-century-communications-and-video-accessibility-act-cvaa
     
    Ne0mega, FMark92 and Joe-Censored like this.
  4. GarBenjamin

    GarBenjamin

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2013
    Posts:
    7,442
    It's something I've thought about often and plan to slowly consider accessibility more & more going forward (just the basics for audio visual). Game accessibility guidelines or so called Inclusive Game Design has been a thing for many years now even though it seems like the majority of Indie game devs don't seem to be aware of it (or if they are that is the usp of the game... I seem to remember a game or two doing this). I don't think it is something that needs regulation but creating more & more laws is just the norm so even if it isn't a requirement this year it probably will be at some point.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2019
  5. Joe-Censored

    Joe-Censored

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Posts:
    11,247
    It is making a big deal about nothing as far as most games should be concerned, though I don't at all like this. This is a law about access to communication services, and there are almost no games that are not playable if their text or voice chat systems weren't usable by someone with impairments. Nothing else in the games will be covered, and nothing is wrong with your game if you can still play the game just fine without the communication features being usable.

    The only games that should be concerned are those which cannot be played without working voice or text chat. I can't think of any right now, but I'm sure something exists.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2019
  6. Joe-Censored

    Joe-Censored

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Posts:
    11,247
    Game development is as much art as it is engineering. There is a problem when the government dictates that certain art is illegal, no matter the intentions of the law.

    This pretty much. No matter what product or service you create, there will always be some people who cannot use it due to whatever their personal impairment is. If every product or service was required to be accessible by every person no matter their accessibility issues, there would be no products or services possible.

    I think the disabled community would be better served with a smaller number of quality targeted products for them, then half assed attempts by most all products to do the bare minimum required by law to accommodate, which will frustrate the disabled constantly and also dry up a lot of the market that really good products targeting them would have filled.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2019
    RustyCrow, hippocoder and Billy4184 like this.
  7. Socrates

    Socrates

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Posts:
    779
    GarBenjamin likes this.
  8. bobisgod234

    bobisgod234

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Posts:
    967
    No law works in 100% of extreme cases, but they don't need to in order to be beneficial overall.
     
  9. Lurking-Ninja

    Lurking-Ninja

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2015
    Posts:
    6,948
    I never stated otherwise. Art should not be illegal I completely agree, even if such art is extreme or offensive.
    But not excluding in-game communication from this law is not making any art illegal. Not even such games.
    On the top of that, I really think it's not a big deal and honestly, I agree with it. Communication should be accessible for everyone.

    One thing is very important though. This whole thing is only open up the _possibility_ of an investigation _upon_ complaints at the FCC. Which means someone should make a complain before anything happens. So it does not even make such in-game features illegal.
     
    bobisgod234 likes this.
  10. Antypodish

    Antypodish

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2014
    Posts:
    8,811
    This is pure bs. I can claim, that I am on a game channel without voice language translation and don't understand what people speaking in foreign language. Most games will be English by default. And not native English speakers by default will be offended, as they can not utilize and understand service in proper manner.. Appears to me like dead law already.
     
    Ne0mega and rubble1 like this.
  11. GarBenjamin

    GarBenjamin

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2013
    Posts:
    7,442
    Thanks for sharing that. Very interesting! So it is indeed "a thing" but it applies only to chat and other communication features in the game. That makes it something the majority of Indie game devs wouldn't need to worry about. But there are probably a decent number of folks making multiplayer games that should definitely budget in the extra work to make their games compliant.
     
  12. Antypodish

    Antypodish

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2014
    Posts:
    8,811
    Yep, starting from implementing translators lol :D Like if this is easy thing to do ..
     
    Ne0mega likes this.
  13. GarBenjamin

    GarBenjamin

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2013
    Posts:
    7,442
    I do wonder just how loosely this can be interpreted. Because I am not sure that all graphics, text and audio in a game from menus to in gameplay couldn't be considered a communication feature. Like I wouldn't think it would be that much of a stretch for tiny rpg games that had only audio for NPCs for example to possibly fit within these regulations. So they should all have cc available in this case. I would think since it is the FCC that is has to involve person(s) to person(s) communication and not game to person communication. But who knows how it may evolve over time.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2019
  14. Lurking-Ninja

    Lurking-Ninja

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2015
    Posts:
    6,948
    You seriously should learn the difference between skill and ability. Speaking a certain language is a skill. To be able to recognize certain colors or make distinctions between them are abilities. We're talking about abilities in this context. ;)
     
    Socrates and angrypenguin like this.
  15. Antypodish

    Antypodish

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2014
    Posts:
    8,811
    My ability to communicate with you is because I gained skill in this language. Does that makes sense?
    Otherwise I would be not able (being pedantic). :p

    However, even introducing accessibility for range of disadvantage minority, as mentioned above, it will be impossible to help every one. Which will lead to abuse and often false legal claims. This is what annoys me.
     
    Ne0mega likes this.
  16. N1warhead

    N1warhead

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Posts:
    3,826
    Well I for one will break this law, there's no way I'm going to make every single word in my games translatable to every language known to mankind. Nor am I going to be forced to do so under penalty of lawsuits or even prison, because I'd rather go through both of them than be forced to do something.

    Things like this should not be regulated, rather they should be more incentive for doing it. My game, is my game, if I want to make it have 2000 different language supports then okay, but if I want only English, then that's what I'm going to do regardless.

    If I want to add close caption support, then that's my prerogative and so is not doing it. If I don't want to add colorblind support that is also my prerogative.

    The point is, I should do it if I want too. Not saying it's a bad thing to add these things, but what I am saying is, it should be my choice. Like the saying goes "Are you my wife or are you paying my bills? If not stay out of my business".
     
    Ne0mega likes this.
  17. Lurking-Ninja

    Lurking-Ninja

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2015
    Posts:
    6,948
    No. Speaking English is a skill, to able to speak is an ability.

    ??? I'm sure you're relying on data and it's not just your gut feeling, care to share where did you get this abusement-thing?
     
  18. Antypodish

    Antypodish

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2014
    Posts:
    8,811
    Fortunately not my experience.
    But do we have not enough of stupid law cases out there already?
    This is just another open door, to make money.

    Starting from stupid case like few years back, that obese person has not been allocated two sits in an airplane, in price of one ticket.
    For games is no need much, to claim things.
    We got already plenty of abusement on consumer / developer level. From steam cards selling, and gaining them , by releasing crap games, to abusive mobile achievement and money claims.
    Then on more legal side, hunting for purposely released and copyrighted artwork, if is used anywhere, worth claiming.
    These just to name few.
    Nothing uncommon.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2019
  19. trappist-1

    trappist-1

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2017
    Posts:
    595
    This is laughable, so I'm going to be a low down law breaker now? If ajit pai (all lower case) wants to push this law, he'll lose just as badly as he lost investment interest when he killed Net Neutrality.

    Oh and by the way, I'm not developing a "game". I am developing a "VR Tool Suite". Loop Hole!!!!!! Right??
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2019
    Ne0mega likes this.
  20. Lurking-Ninja

    Lurking-Ninja

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2015
    Posts:
    6,948
    Having a law and having a lawsuit aren't really related this way. Anyone can claim that certain thing hurt them and can claim compensation. And it's up to negotiations and/or the court to decide if the claim is valid or not.
    You don't need law like this for that.
     
  21. Antypodish

    Antypodish

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2014
    Posts:
    8,811
    I fully agree.
    We making product, we targeting customers as we want to.
    If I have resources to implement assistance, I would happily do it.

    But rather than speculating, I would like to see, if this become a real thing at all, or is another noise in ether.
     
    N1warhead likes this.
  22. Antypodish

    Antypodish

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2014
    Posts:
    8,811
    But this would make claims stuff easier. Just saying.
     
  23. Billy4184

    Billy4184

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2014
    Posts:
    5,708
    Ridiculous stuff. What about making every bicycle have to be rideable by someone without legs?

    Everything to do with a game is a question of creative expression, because a game is not a public service and they do not have a defined and consistent purpose. It doesn't matter whether it has to do with how people communicate in the game, or what limbs you use to interact with the game, or what gender your protagonist is, or whatever else. You cannot regulate anything about it whatsoever, without interfering with creative expression and frankly the freedom to do whatever you want with your own product.

    And nothing about your freedom to make your own product according to your whims interferes with the ability of someone to make another game inclusive of or directed specifically toward disabled people.

    Where is this going to end up? Bad laws are always grown on the most defendable foundation possible, because there are always specific things left out by good laws that most people agree would be a good idea to regulate, but are almost impossible to do without opening up all sorts of negative repercussions.

    And lastly, the question of how to design an interface for a disabled person is something that a lot of the time is a fantastically difficult thing to do. It's not something you pass a law about on an industry full of amateurs and part timers.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2019
    Ne0mega, rubble1, RustyCrow and 2 others like this.
  24. trappist-1

    trappist-1

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2017
    Posts:
    595
    just emaild my congressman about this.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2019
    Ne0mega, rubble1 and Antypodish like this.
  25. Antypodish

    Antypodish

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2014
    Posts:
    8,811
    Do you think getting any resealable response? Hope you will share with us such reflections.:rolleyes:
     
  26. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    27,203
    I don't believe in any form of laws governing what people can make or can't make. I'm much more into freedoms for the individual even if it's not inclusive. I have my own problems and am excluded from certain things, but I would hate it if they had to accommodate me by law. I would feel self-loathing at that. VR would also just be problematic as a concept. How do you not exclude people?

    Although having said that, I think the right way is just to praise the games that do well with inclusion, and this is the right way to work: you praise what people do right instead of beating people for not being perfect or they forgot someone.
     
  27. trappist-1

    trappist-1

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2017
    Posts:
    595
    Yes! Positive reinforcement vs. socialist conformity
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2019
    BrokawayGames and Ne0mega like this.
  28. N1warhead

    N1warhead

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Posts:
    3,826
    @hippocoder - That's exactly what I was trying to point out in so many words, you said it just right.
     
    Ne0mega likes this.
  29. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    13,684
    The Gamasutra article mentions the following..:
    I certainly hope that anything which would require fundamental changes to the nature of a project ("righto, we need to redesign this bicycle to work without legs") would immediately be ruled out on that basis.
     
  30. Billy4184

    Billy4184

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2014
    Posts:
    5,708
    In legal terms though, making an argument is not a simple thing...I also dislike the part where they say that they intentionally left the wording vague to avoid 'micromanaging' people - when the law is involved you dont do anyone a favor by being vague. Either this is sheer stupidity or an attempt to get a foothold where feet should not go.
     
    Ne0mega likes this.
  31. Billy4184

    Billy4184

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2014
    Posts:
    5,708
    I totally agree. This is a situation where goodwill and social pressure should sort out when a developer is simply being lazy.
     
  32. trappist-1

    trappist-1

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2017
    Posts:
    595
    Lazy, maybe. But what about if it's a prototype (early access) and the developer just wants to test the conceptual waters. Maybe they will continue to improve the application if fish are biting. But otherwise it would be utter agony to have to conform to all requirements for something such as an alpha or beta release?

    It's what I see as FCC showing blatant impulsive, power-grabbing indiscretion. And they have been on some real kick lately.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2019
    Ne0mega likes this.
  33. BIGTIMEMASTER

    BIGTIMEMASTER

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Posts:
    3,797
    For each new law written and proposed, be it mighty or be it small, one member of congress shall select from a hat a name at random belonging to a fellow member of congress and the former shall devour the other and not leave the supper table until it is finished.

    Why is this not in the constitution? Founding fathers were idiots!



    I don't know why people think to drag the fast down with the slow is noble. It's not. You pick the slow up. You empower them. They are humans too. They have dignity. This crap belittles them.
     
    trappist-1 likes this.
  34. Antypodish

    Antypodish

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2014
    Posts:
    8,811
    There is common saying, "If you don't know what is about, is about money."
     
  35. BIGTIMEMASTER

    BIGTIMEMASTER

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Posts:
    3,797
    That's a good saying. Never heard it before. But what's that got to do with my genius proposal for congress members to each other though?


    edit -- just disregard. I don't have anything useful to add here. Just wanted to toss in my "harumpph."
     
  36. trappist-1

    trappist-1

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2017
    Posts:
    595
    Could you maybe, please (and possibly) try tossing some "harumpph" towards your local congressman too?

    Maybe inspire other to do so as well? I still have faith in our system (just not the FCC)..
     
    Ne0mega and angrypenguin like this.
  37. Antypodish

    Antypodish

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2014
    Posts:
    8,811
    Is nothing wrong with your proposal. But I am sure, someone could find it uncomfortable, to reject it. Hence my quotation.

    I would suggest, that you put faith with your game system, than anything else. All rest is corrupted to hell.
     
  38. Kiwasi

    Kiwasi

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Posts:
    16,787
    Seems like a fairly decent law to me. I don't really see the problem. Most of the requirements will actually make games better.

    Having subtitles as an option is a good thing, even for your players with full hearing. Having a coulor blind mode is a good thing. Having an option to skip QTEs is a good thing. And so on.

    I really can't see anything bad comin out of this.
     
    Magician_Arcana likes this.
  39. trappist-1

    trappist-1

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2017
    Posts:
    595
    It's added time, cost and complexity for entry level developers like myself that makes me upset. I could never hope to satisfy all requirements. I'm too small time, so it feels like a law that's against me. If it only applied to games that grossed +$500k or whatever, then that's fine.. but not indis and startups..
     
  40. N1warhead

    N1warhead

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Posts:
    3,826
    So that means I can say adding them features presents undue stress on my ability to function and get my work done. So that means it is bad on my health, I can then be free and clear to not be 'forced' into it.
    The problem with it, is that it is still open to interpretation. Lets just say for a moment that it's purely for language stuff.
    What happens if I don't cover one of the thousands of languages we have? (roughly 6,500 of them). Well, I just broke the law not doing so. The law doesn't say only popular languages, but doesn't really say much of anything realistic. I don't know an indie that can not only afford to make sub titles for every language on the planet, but by not being able to do it just excluded most of the world's population, and this is where things get sorta in a gray area. How can I adequately make def people aware to things in my game if I can't address it to them properly in their native language? Not being able to do so opens up the door for Government interference in the name of "justice", it always starts with small things like this.

    I mean look, I have no problem adding CC and stuff to my games, - if - I want to do it. Nobody should be forced to do it under punishment, but rather incentiveized for doing it.
     
    trappist-1 and Billy4184 like this.
  41. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    27,203
    Put simply, it's a step back.

    Consider the increasing inclusion we've had in gaming? It's increasing month by month, we didn't need stifling, ignorant totalitarian regulation causing damage to the progress of diversity and inclusion that was already naturally happening thanks to well meaning developers, gamers and press. The people had this nailed.

    We don't need another dinosaur causing problems.
     
    BIGTIMEMASTER likes this.
  42. Billy4184

    Billy4184

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2014
    Posts:
    5,708
    The problem is that it's a law, and it's vague.

    A law is not something that should ever come from a 'seems like an OK idea' situation. It should only be used where non compliance would be flat out morally wrong. A law is a threat of punishment not a request.
     
    FMark92 and trappist-1 like this.
  43. trappist-1

    trappist-1

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2017
    Posts:
    595
    What if I deem my game to be unsafe for select disabilities. Can I recommend that people with certain disabilities be prohibited to play my game (eg. epileptics).

    And I shun from saying like this, but maybe this law actually sets a good foundation where games can be CVAA compliant and sell to entire market freely, but then ALSO may add warnings to explicitly prohibit certain disabilities from being allowed to play it.

    This is a bias outlook, maybe. But it's a give/take philosophy, and I will gladly accept the reduced market exposure if I my be excused from crazy obligations to said market.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2019
  44. FMark92

    FMark92

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Posts:
    1,244
    Next thing you know, they'll be permitted to breed...

    Edit: What do we do with dyslectics?
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2019
  45. Kiwasi

    Kiwasi

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Posts:
    16,787
    Sure. And the courts will came up with a decent interpretation over the next few years.

    Laws governing video games should be vague. The political system is too slow to effectively come up with specific laws as the digital environment changes. Just look at the mess that copyright is in at the moment.

    Specific laws will be out of date in just a few months, and will produce ridiculous headaches. But guiding principles can be adhered to even if the environment changes quite a bit.

    Some people had this nailed. And for those people, nothing is changing at all.

    But other people were completely ignoring the issue or actively moving in the wrong direction. The law brings them into check.
     
  46. FMark92

    FMark92

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Posts:
    1,244
    Oooh I have a brilliant solution in mind.

    Remove communication from game entirely.
    Tell players to just use discord/teamspeak/ventrillo/skype/whatever.

    FCC SUCCessfully played.
     
    hippocoder likes this.
  47. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    16,911
    Allowing accessibility support to be voluntary has shown it won't work.

    Go watch the video made by the IGDA (International Game Developers Association) at the link below. The initial article gave an awful explanation (though at least they corrected it). It's solely for chat functionality. It has nothing to do with gameplay.

    Additionally they make accommodations for developers with low budgets.

    If you don't have the resources to implement handle these requirements then the simplest solution is to just not make a multiplayer game (having no way to chat between players might work too).

    https://igda-gasig.org/additional-information/cvaa/
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2019
    Moonjump likes this.
  48. FMark92

    FMark92

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Posts:
    1,244
    Allowing people giving me money to be voluntary has shown it won't work. So here's a gun.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2019
  49. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    16,911
    This is definitely a viable solution. Modern PC gamers almost always have some form of commication open at any time.

    That said the best solution here would be an asset that implements chat functionality while satisfying these requirements for an affordable price.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2019
    Lurking-Ninja and Kiwasi like this.
  50. Billy4184

    Billy4184

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2014
    Posts:
    5,708
    That's not the point though. The goal is not simply to provide accessibility at all costs, but to also preserve individual freedom that doesn't interfere with anyone else's. Nobody has a right to my game and it's design, the same way that I don't have a right to their bank account.

    Of course it's limited in scope now, because otherwise it would stand far less chance of gaining authority and traction.

    The premise of this law is no less than the regulation of creative expression to suit a particular group, and that's something that can go to all sorts of undesirable places.
     
    Ne0mega, FMark92 and trappist-1 like this.
unityunity