A call for a Standardized Accessibility Framework in Videogames
In today’s world, videogames have evolved into a form of entertainment and engagement with global influence, transcending age, geographic, and cultural barriers. They serve as social connectors, educational tools, and inclusive playgrounds for those seeking experiences that go far beyond traditional passive media. Yet even as game development has reached impressive heights of creativity, technology, and financial investment, an important question persists: how accessible are these games to people with varying needs and abilities? Despite an increasing awareness of accessibility, the videogame industry still lacks a unified, standardized framework that developers can rely on to ensure every player has equitable access to game content and mechanics. This essay explores why such a standardized framework is needed, drawing from recent research, industry discussions, and legislative considerations. It presents the obstacles preventing full accessibility, the progress made thus far, and the path toward a more inclusive future for videogames.
Background: The Accessibility Gap in Videogames
The global videogame industry generates hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue and boasts billions of players worldwide. Despite this commercial and cultural influence, large segments of potential players still remain underserved: estimates indicate that 20–30% of the gaming population could benefit from accessibility features—whether related to vision, hearing, cognition, or motor skills (Truong, 2024; Larreina-Morales, 2023). While there have been strides in designing more accessible hardware (e.g., adaptive controllers) and in offering software accessibility settings (e.g., button remapping, colourblind filters), many popular titles still implement these measures in a fragmented or inconsistent way.
A key challenge is the lack of an overarching, industry-wide approach that formalizes accessibility standards. Individual developers or studios often must rely on an assortment of checklists, community feedback, or internal guidelines. This fragmentation results in players encountering drastically different levels of accessibility from one game to another. It also makes it difficult to replicate or improve upon best practices consistently. As Larreina-Morales (2023) highlights, checklists and guidelines do exist—created by stakeholders such as advocacy groups, academia, and select industry leaders—but they are often designed for unique purposes and do not always align seamlessly with each other.
From the player perspective, the consequences can be profound. Players with disabilities are frequently forced to seek workarounds or rely on external hardware modifications just to play. In some cases, they must forgo a promising title altogether. Notably, some studios have demonstrated what is possible. Naughty Dog’s The Last of Us Part II garnered praise for its suite of over 60 accessibility features (e.g., custom controller remapping, fully featured text-to-speech, colorblind modes, motion-sickness toggles). Yet even for that industry-praised example, certain features—like direct compatibility with alternative controllers—remained absent (Larreina-Morales, 2023). Such gaps underscore the reality that, although progress is being made, there is still no universal set of standards ensuring that every game addresses a broad range of accessibility needs.
Fragmentation of Existing Guidelines
The scattered nature of current guidelines is a major barrier to universal accessibility in videogames. Numerous groups have published best-practice lists or recommendations, including:
Industry Associations
Organizations like the International Game Developers Association (IGDA) have special interest groups focusing on game accessibility, publishing resources and checklists.Accessibility Advocacy Groups
Groups such as Can I Play That? and AbleGamers have released valuable, experience-driven guidelines. AbleGamers’ “Includification” covers accessibility features for a variety of disabilities, offering suggestions such as difficulty adjustments, subtitles, and customizable inputs.Academic Researchers
Scholars in translation, game design, human-computer interaction, and disability studies have investigated game accessibility, proposing integrated frameworks for analyzing or designing more inclusive games (Larreina-Morales, 2023). Their work often emphasizes user-centered design, empirical evaluations with players who have disabilities, and unified checklists for consistent oversight.
Although each of these efforts has advanced accessibility, they often diverge in classification schemes, areas of emphasis (e.g., focus on visual disabilities vs. hearing disabilities vs. overall “universal” design), or technical depth (Truong, 2024). For instance, some guidelines offer purely technical instructions (like how to code a colorblind-friendly interface), whereas others suggest broad design principles (such as “keep challenges flexible”). The result is a patchwork of overlapping, sometimes conflicting, resources that developers may struggle to implement consistently.
Why a Standardized Framework Is Essential
Consistency and Predictability
A standardized framework would offer studios a dependable point of reference, reducing guesswork about which features to prioritize. This consistency is critical for developers—especially smaller teams—who might not have the capacity or expertise to research multiple guidelines. It also benefits players, who can expect a more reliable baseline of accessibility offerings across different titles (Larreina-Morales, 2023).Legal and Policy Clarity
Videogame accessibility currently sits in a legal gray area. While the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA) address some components of software and hardware, neither provides thorough guidelines on gameplay design and in-game features (Truong, 2024). The question of whether videogames qualify as “places of public accommodation” under the ADA remains contested. A standardized framework, ideally recognized and supported at policy levels, would help clarify developer obligations and potentially preempt more fragmented legislation.Streamlined Collaboration
Many improvements to accessibility rely on direct feedback from users with disabilities. A unified framework could integrate user feedback channels into a standardized design and testing process, ensuring that accessibility choices in the initial design phase (and beyond) are informed by real-world needs. Moreover, collaboration between studios, hardware manufacturers, and accessibility consultants would be simplified if each party references the same guidelines.Cost Efficiency for Studios
Building accessibility features into a game from the outset is more cost-effective than retrofitting them in response to feedback or legal challenges. By embedding clear guidelines into the development cycle, studios save both time and resources. They reduce the potential for expensive redesigns in later stages and strengthen the appeal of their products to a broader audience.
Key Elements of a Standardized Accessibility Framework
Drawing upon integrated proposals (see Larreina-Morales, 2023; Truong, 2024) and established guidelines, we can outline a handful of core elements that any standardized framework for videogame accessibility should include:
Multimodal Feedback
Audio Descriptions and Screen Readers: For players with visual impairments, crucial in-game actions and cutscenes should have audio descriptions or text-to-speech alternatives.
Subtitles and Closed Captioning: Not only for dialogue, but also for important sound cues or background music. Subtitles should be scalable in size and must identify the speaker.
Haptic Feedback: Vibrations and other tactile signals can reinforce or replace visual and audio cues, benefiting a broad range of players.
Customizable Controls
Full Key Remapping: Let players remap any input, whether on a keyboard, mouse, or controller.
Input Reduction: Optionally automating quick-time events (QTEs) or button-mashing mechanics helps players with motor or cognitive disabilities.
Compatibility with Adaptive Devices: Developers should avoid restricting hardware input to only official controllers.
Scalable Difficulty and Assistance
Adjustable Game Speed: Slower speeds can help players with cognitive or motor disabilities handle otherwise frenetic combat or puzzle segments.
Skippable or Simplified Puzzles: Ensure that puzzle and platforming sections do not become impossible for some players.
Progression Aids: Include robust hint systems and optional auto-completion for sections that might be physically or cognitively prohibitive.
Flexible User Interface (UI) and Visual Presentation
Large, Clear Text: Text scaling and adjustable font styles.
Color Customization: Options for high contrast, colorblind modes, and text or icon recoloring.
Motion Control: Toggle camera shake, motion blur, and field-of-view settings for players prone to motion sickness.
In-Game Tutorials and Onboarding
Step-by-Step Introductions: Provide thorough instructions for gameplay mechanics.
Reviewable Tutorials: Let players revisit important tutorials or hints at any time.
Ongoing User Involvement
Community Feedback Channels: Offer clear ways for players with disabilities to report accessibility issues or suggest improvements.
Consultants and Testing: Engage accessibility consultants and user test groups throughout development.
Such an integrated checklist would allow developers to systematically evaluate and integrate accessibility features. Over time, these features would become as routine in game design as standard audio and graphics settings, fostering the idea that accessibility is not optional, but essential.
Legislative and Policy Dimensions
Although broad legislation like the ADA and CVAA have encouraged some publishers to consider accessibility—particularly for communication features—they remain insufficient in tackling the full scope of gameplay elements (Truong, 2024). The ADA’s definition of “places of public accommodation” is typically associated with physical or web-based services, often leaving videogames in uncertain legal territory. Meanwhile, the CVAA focuses on telecommunications, not dynamic interactive media. As such, these Acts do not mandate the kind of holistic, in-game accessibility solutions the community needs.
A widely adopted standardized framework could be supported either through industry self-regulation or through updates to existing policy. Given the gaming community’s global reach, it is possible that guidelines accepted in one jurisdiction could spread internationally, much like how some accessibility standards have done for websites. Voluntary adherence might preempt more fragmented legislation across multiple territories. Ultimately, clearer definitions of digital public spaces, additional clarifications about how game communication tools must be rendered accessible, and incentives for compliance are likely needed at a policy level.
Success Stories and Ongoing Challenges
Recent years have seen several games praised for inclusive design:
The Last of Us Part II (2020) by Naughty Dog offered extensive accessibility features addressing vision, hearing, and motor impairments. While missing certain elements—such as built-in audio description and direct hardware-agnostic support—it still became a touchstone for accessible AAA design (Larreina-Morales, 2023).
Forza Horizon 5 (2021) by Playground Games introduced a sign-language interpreter for in-game cutscenes, an effort widely celebrated by the Deaf community.
Spider-Man: Miles Morales (2020) by Insomniac Games provided large, high-contrast UI settings, configurable QTEs, multiple difficulty sliders, and an optional slowdown in combat, benefitting players with various needs.
However, a persistent gap remains: consistency across different studios and game genres, even within the same company standards vary, for example Ubisoft titles vary massively in accesability offerings. Some developers add difficulty sliders but overlook colourblind filters; others focus on subtitles but fail to allow button remapping. The presence of these features is often championed, but their absence in other games signals that many teams treat accessibility as an “extra,” to be implemented only if the schedule or budget allows. A standardized framework would encourage planning these features from the earliest stages of development.
The Call for Collaboration for Inclusive Gaming
Moving from concept to real-world impact requires collective action across multiple fronts:
Industry Adoption and Education
One crucial step is to ensure that all developers—especially small to mid-size teams—know how to integrate accessibility features practically. Workshops, certification programs, and readily accessible digital resources (such as the integrated checklists proposed by researchers) can equip designers with essential tools and knowledge.User-Centered Research and Playtesting
Continuous input from gamers with disabilities is invaluable. As underscored by Larreina-Morales (2023), player reviews are often the best source for identifying new barriers or verifying that new features truly improve accessibility. Formalizing user testing and feedback channels can help ensure a loop of iterative improvement.Support from Platform Holders
Console and storefront owners (e.g., Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Steam) can take the lead by instituting accessibility standards for any game published on their platforms. Providing software development kits (SDKs) with built-in accessibility APIs, along with clear documentation, can encourage more widespread adoption of best practices.Potential Certification or Rating Systems
If an official set of accessibility standards is accepted, a game might display an “Accessibility Verified” label or rating. This concept parallels how games list content descriptors (e.g., violence, language) from rating boards. Such a label could help players quickly determine whether a title meets core accessibility criteria, creating consumer-driven incentives for developers to comply.Legal and Policy Modernization
Although voluntary adoption can be effective, additional legal support may be necessary for a complete paradigm shift. At minimum, clarifications within disability law, or new legislation covering digital interactive media, could strengthen the impetus for consistent accessibility. This would help ensure that disabled gamers benefit from the same protections guaranteed in other public spaces and mediums.
Emerging Industry Efforts and Global Legislation: Toward a Unified Standard
While no universal framework exists yet, several major initiatives represent important steps toward standardizing accessibility in videogames:
Xbox Accessibility Guidelines (XAG): A comprehensive set of actionable guidelines developed by Microsoft, offering technical and design recommendations. However, XAG is voluntary and platform-specific, leaving gaps in cross-platform consistency.
PlayStation Accessibility Guidelines: Sony has published internal guidelines aimed at ensuring accessibility, reflected in games like Spider-Man: Miles Morales, but these too are limited to their ecosystem.
Game Accessibility Guidelines (GAG): Community-driven and widely referenced, GAG offers one of the most comprehensive publicly available checklists, but lacks formal adoption by all major studios and platforms.
In the global legal sphere, emerging legislation adds new momentum:
European Accessibility Act (EAA): Coming into effect progressively, the EAA mandates accessibility in digital services, including software, and may apply to certain videogame elements, especially communication and UI.
Accessible Canada Act (ACA): Requires federally regulated entities to improve accessibility, and though focused on broader sectors, sets precedents that could influence game accessibility laws.
These initiatives show that the building blocks of a standard are already in motion, but without unified adoption and enforcement, accessibility remains uneven. A universal framework would consolidate these efforts into a coherent, actionable, and globally recognized standard, benefiting developers and players alike.
Simply Put
The growing recognition of accessibility in videogames signifies a remarkable cultural shift, reflecting an industry and community now more attuned to issues of equity and inclusivity than ever before. Nonetheless, a unified, standardized framework remains the missing piece. While voluntary guidelines, user-centred playtesting, and platform-based initiatives have each advanced accessibility, their cumulative impact is still fragmented. The Last of Us Part II and other notable successes prove that robust accessibility is possible—indeed, it can even become a selling point—but also highlight that consistency remains elusive without a coherent set of industrywide standards.
Standardizing accessibility features would streamline the integration of best practices for developers, reduce confusion, and let players enjoy consistent baseline features across all genres, studios, and platforms. The vision for a future where anyone can pick up a controller (or adapt one to their needs) and step confidently into a game world is within reach. Achieving it, however, depends on the videogame community, legislators, researchers, and advocacy groups working together to formalize and enforce the standards we already know are effective. When accessibility becomes a recognized and required pillar of game design, we all move closer to an industry defined not just by its profitability and ingenuity, but also by its inclusivity and sense of shared fun. In an entertainment medium dedicated to creativity, challenge, and delight, it is only natural that everyone—regardless of ability—deserves a place at the table.
References
(Additional references and resources mentioned in the essay are based on discussions and research findings included in these primary sources.)
