Eddie-Griffin
Banned
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2022/08/30/last-of-us-remake-price-accessibility/
Ok
I don't see a valid argument anywhere in this pile of article, and I personally think that this is doing the opposite of arguing that the price is worth it for disabled gamers, in fact to me this looks like an insult to disabled gamers, and is trying to use their disabilities in order to justify the high price. Yet, I'm sure there have been disabled gamers who also complained about the price and don't think the premium is needed or "worth it", the article is targeting a specific demographic ignoring the others, and is saying by proxy, hey! you non-disabled gamers think the $70 price tag is bad, well, for disabled gamers it's worth it, so you should consider that and realize you should also pay the premium. Smh.
The argument that a disabled gamer is "paying $70 to play a game they never played before" is incredibly poor and sets a precedent that disabled gamers should pay extra for games and therefore so should we, and if a non-disabled gamer points out the price is inflated, and the game in question is missing features from the last two releases, we are called "invaders" really????
Did you see how this writer basically attacked the majority of gamers for not understanding that disabled gamers want to overpay to play less than what we played the last two times? This is one of the most nonsensical arguments I've ever seen. But it's worded in such a way, that if you were to challenge it on social media you would look like the bad guy, even though you aren't.
Listen, if people want to pay $70 for TLOU 1.3 fine, I think it gives devs excuses to keep using that price point, and to get away with cutting features, but it's your money and not mine, so while I won't buy it, you can, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Nothing wrong at all.
But when you have people damage controlling constantly trying to justify the price, and trying to silence people who push back on that justification, then I have a problem. The real message of this article is that disabled gamers WANT to pay the premium because they will have more options, or will play TLOU for the first time because of these features.
That's the same argument as saying that if PS5 had more accessibility options build into the OS in a new model, Sony should charge $900 for it, and if you complain about that $900 price, you are an invader, and the disabled community won't mind paying that inflated price because "it's worth it" and so you should also be considerate, stop complaining about the $900 price and pay it to show acceptance of the disabled gamer community.
Now maybe your view is different, but this article seems misguided to me, if not intentionally devious.
Excitement soured, however, when non-disabled gamers invaded the Twitter conversation to complain about the $70 price of the game (a complaint that has resurfaced over and over since the price was announced earlier this year). Critics claimed the remake is unnecessary as the game has already been remastered, and that the graphical improvements aren’t pronounced enough to justify a price tag equivalent to many new PlayStation 5 releases. “The Last of Us Part I” remake also doesn’t include the popular Factions multiplayer mode of previous iterations.
But for disabled players, the price is fine, reflecting the cost of what is essentially a completely new experience now that accessibility features have made it playable.
As a disabled gamer and journalist, it was hard to watch the conversation devolve into haggling over features and pricing. So, let’s take a moment to recenter the narrative — to understand the misconceptions driving so much backlash against “The Last of Us Part I” and why the game is important to both the disabled gaming community and the video game industry.
Some non-disabled gamers have labeled “The Last of Us Part I’s” price tag as a “disability tax.” The game’s new accessibility features could have been a free patch for “The Last of Us Remastered,” they argue. This belies a flawed understanding of game development, experts say.
“The [accessibility] features don’t exist in isolation,” Ian Hamilton, an accessibility specialist, told The Washington Post. “The price is for the game. The game just happens to be accessible.”
It’s also worth noting: “The Last of Us Part II’s” engine, built with accessibility in mind, is right there. The engine allowed “Part II” a level of accessibility unprecedented before in triple-A games, with more than 60 different features ranging from motor options to turn melee combos into holds, navigational assistance and high contrast displays, to various vibration settings and input remapping. It was considered a groundbreaking achievement for accessibility in the industry, and many of these options are being carried over into the “The Last of Us Part I” remake. Sony recently announced the full slate of accessibility options on offer in the remake. In that same blog post, the developer called “The Last of Us Part II’s” accessibility features a “baseline” on which it built the remake.
Despite a more cooperative engine, the process still takes time, effort and resources — obviously — and this is reflected in “The Last of Us Part I’s” MSRP resembling most new PlayStation 5 releases. But for some players, that price is also reflective of being able to play the game for the first time.
“I won’t be paying $70 for accessibility. I’ll be paying $70 for a new game I’ve never played,” Sherry Toh, a disabled journalist, said.
Ok
I don't see a valid argument anywhere in this pile of article, and I personally think that this is doing the opposite of arguing that the price is worth it for disabled gamers, in fact to me this looks like an insult to disabled gamers, and is trying to use their disabilities in order to justify the high price. Yet, I'm sure there have been disabled gamers who also complained about the price and don't think the premium is needed or "worth it", the article is targeting a specific demographic ignoring the others, and is saying by proxy, hey! you non-disabled gamers think the $70 price tag is bad, well, for disabled gamers it's worth it, so you should consider that and realize you should also pay the premium. Smh.
The argument that a disabled gamer is "paying $70 to play a game they never played before" is incredibly poor and sets a precedent that disabled gamers should pay extra for games and therefore so should we, and if a non-disabled gamer points out the price is inflated, and the game in question is missing features from the last two releases, we are called "invaders" really????
Did you see how this writer basically attacked the majority of gamers for not understanding that disabled gamers want to overpay to play less than what we played the last two times? This is one of the most nonsensical arguments I've ever seen. But it's worded in such a way, that if you were to challenge it on social media you would look like the bad guy, even though you aren't.
Listen, if people want to pay $70 for TLOU 1.3 fine, I think it gives devs excuses to keep using that price point, and to get away with cutting features, but it's your money and not mine, so while I won't buy it, you can, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Nothing wrong at all.
But when you have people damage controlling constantly trying to justify the price, and trying to silence people who push back on that justification, then I have a problem. The real message of this article is that disabled gamers WANT to pay the premium because they will have more options, or will play TLOU for the first time because of these features.
That's the same argument as saying that if PS5 had more accessibility options build into the OS in a new model, Sony should charge $900 for it, and if you complain about that $900 price, you are an invader, and the disabled community won't mind paying that inflated price because "it's worth it" and so you should also be considerate, stop complaining about the $900 price and pay it to show acceptance of the disabled gamer community.
Now maybe your view is different, but this article seems misguided to me, if not intentionally devious.