For months before Starfield’s release, the silence that surrounded its accessibility features said more than Bethesda may have liked. This was only exacerbated when, pressed on the subject by Kinda Funny Games, Todd Howard put the onus on the Xbox Adaptive Controller and a limited “large font mode” to carry the game’s accessibility mitigations. It thus came as no surprise when Starfield launched with remarkably few accessibility features.
The degree of inaccessibility will, naturally, vary from player to player. But it’s becoming more common for publishers to release accessibility information ahead of release, and Bethesda’s out-of-touch move contrasted with a cohort of AAA developers—including Sony and other studios at Bethesda parent Microsoft, as well as indies—pushing for greater transparency around accessibility.
Accessibility concerns are gaining mainstream attention, but the way such design features are communicated is critically important. That’s certainly the view of Kolo Jones, a content creator working under the handle helloitskolo. “The primary thing that I believe can, for me at least, make the biggest impact in gaming accessibility is communication,” she says. “That is communicating accessibility options [and] communicating the accessibility options in advance.”
Silence remains the norm, however, as we seek to break through that stubborn inertia. When we consider how much time nondisabled players have to formulate their impressions of a game before launch, it’s only reasonable that disabled players have access to the information necessary to do the same. But as the industry plays catchup after years of neglect, what does that look like? Is the progress we’ve seen as substantial as it appears?
The answer is both yes and no. Relative to, say, two years ago, it’s a monumental leap forward to see AAA and indie developers sharing accessibility information in advance of release. But “as always in accessibility there is room for improvement,” says Antonio Martínez, editor in chief of Game Accessibility Nexus. “These practices are still not the norm, as they should be. But I see the progress, and it’s just a matter of time.”
How much time exactly is uncertain. Players are understandably impatient to see better access, but there is plenty of room for optimism.
“There has been a tangible increase in transparency on this topic over the last few years,” Jessica Roache, senior corporate communications manager at Ubisoft, tells WIRED. “However, it’s still very inconsistent across the industry—in terms of the content, as well as the timing of getting accessibility information out to players.”
Ubisoft aims to address this inconsistency with internal targets that push for Accessibility Spotlight articles—like that seen for Assassin’s Creed Mirage—to drop at least one to three months before a game’s launch.
“The sooner the better,” Martínez says. “It helps players to not just set their expectations, but to participate in the communities.”
That’s not dependent solely on when information is released but also on what is communicated. Much as disabled players need to understand what makes a game accessible, it’s often as valuable to know what doesn’t.
“For example,” Jones says, “a game is releasing in two months’ time and there’s been no communication about accessibility issues or accessibility functions, I really wish the developer would just communicate and say ‘here they aren’t.’ That would be great.”
Publishers are understandably reticent to announce what they are lacking for fear of pushback. But that transparency is vital for building trust, especially in an informed community that quickly sees through attempts to mask inaccessibility. “Transparency is better,” Martínez says. “Players value that honesty.”
At the very least, being upfront about limitations and challenges exhibits an understanding of the problem and the possibility of a later solution. The opposite often smacks of apathy, despite how clear it is that many developers understand the importance of transparency. Roache says, “I’ve seen a positive shift in this mindset as more developers are understanding that players with disabilities deserve to know whether or not they can play a game before making a purchase decision.”
Every development team is different, and their capabilities around accessibility differ. This is a reality that could stymie attempts to implement standards, but it does not excuse a lack of consideration. When accessibility is not communicated effectively, it often comes down to admin failure. “I’ve found that my colleagues are overwhelmingly supportive of accessibility efforts,” Roache says. “When we fall short, logistical challenges are the main culprit.”
These challenges can be magnified for smaller studios with limited resources. Yet, many indie studios and publishers are overcoming these hurdles better than their AAA counterparts. Lisa Mior, communications director at Whitethorn Games, highlights how the indie publisher is trying to “make sure that these features are always communicated in all of our messaging so that the information itself is accessible.”
To do so, according to Mior, communications teams for indies need to understand the depth of accessibility features in games they talk about—something helped along at Whitethorn Games by the presence of a dedicated accessibility officer.
All of this demonstrates the need for a holistic approach that doesn’t stop with accessibility-first design driven by disabled players. “It starts with the development team making accessibility a priority as early as possible,” Roach says. “But it’s also crucial to have marketing and communications teams on board from the get-go.”
When communications teams can plan for such considerations early, it allows them to craft a more diverse and timelier program. This is important, as a “variety of media types (video, graphical representations, text),” Mior says, lets the audience access “this information in a way that best suits them.”
But we can take this holistic approach further. While publishers need to spearhead improvements to accessibility communication, quality media coverage can be just as valuable. We’re seeing progress here, too. WIRED and Eurogamer feature accessibility coverage from a range of voices, while IGN has launched a regular accessibility column. This is tempered elsewhere, however, where coverage—if it exists at all—is about following trends and farming engagement rather than a sincere and critical examination of accessibility.
Indeed, one of the media’s most valuable potential resources for accessibility information remains well behind where it could—and should—be. Reviews can provide information that allows nondisabled players to make informed decisions about games, and they should do the same for disabled players.
“The challenges and skill sets needed for a review on accessibility are many and varied,” Martínez says. Current evidence suggests inexperienced accessibility reviewers are struggling to meet this bar. “Without someone who understands these from experience, mistakes can be made, the information might be not complete or not exact.”
Some specialized sites like Can I Play That? provide extensive accessibility information through reviews, but the majority of reviews in mainstream media that include accessibility—and it’s not many—come from nondisabled journalists, and accessibility is reduced to a list of options which, despite the claims of some editors, have little bearing on how games are assessed.
After all, if we are going to critically examine how accessibility is communicated by publishers—and we should—it behooves us to own up to our own deficiencies.
Looking at this wider landscape of communication, the consensus on solutions sounds remarkably simple on paper. First, accessibility information is at its best when it is user-focused, which comes from disabled people being involved in the process. Second, the earlier this happens, in both implementation and communication, the better the results.
It’s not that easy, of course. Communicating accessibility is replete with challenges, but disabled players deserve the information. Anything that builds trust and transparency can only be a net positive for the gaming industry—creating a healthier environment, bringing disabled players into the hype, and providing important avenues for feedback throughout the development process.
In focusing too much on the technical aspects of accessibility, it’s easy to forget about communication. This can happen in the media, and it certainly still happens at a publisher level, which means vital information fails to reach players.
Martínez says this approach “misses the main point.” He continues, “Accessibility is necessary for the players, and highlighting it doesn’t just help make well-informed purchases but also tells the players that they are a valued part of their community.”
