• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Washington Post: For disabled gamers, ‘The Last of Us Part I’ remake is worth $70

Eddie-Griffin

Gold Member
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2022/08/30/last-of-us-remake-price-accessibility/
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.
 

Jennings

Member
Features are features, and as with any other feature the cost of development is added into the price. Just because some users don't use some features doesn't mean they should be free.
 

Punished Miku

Gold Member
I think they intended to just write an article about how the accessibility features are very good.

The headline comes off though like he's suggesting we start upcharging handicapped people. Almost surely not what they intended when they wrote that lol.
 
this article makes ND seem worse than they already are lmao. I mean if they wanted to help the disabled gamers play, they could've added accessibility features to the non-remake as well but instead this just reads as hey pay 70 euros for disabled ppl features you fucking idiots. Jesus christ, stop making topics about these fucking websites.
 

TheDreadBaron

Gold Member
Yeah what a bunch of crap. This person doesn’t speak for all disabled gamers. Wow such revolutionary features of using a hold input, they had to port it to a new to a new engine to make that work, its complicated game dev stuff you wouldn’t understand. 🙄 I’m glad they are adding all these accessibility features but thats not a selling point for most people and adds no value to most people, and shouldn’t have to be subsidized by most people. Easy choice for me I’m just not buying the game I already played it several times, but you can complain about the price hike without considering if price is worth it for someone else who happens to be disabled, good for them, glad they are happy to pay 70 dollars.
 

kanjobazooie

Mouse Ball Fetishist
This guy's "disability" is Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. I myself was diagnosed with CFS too.
It's a shitty condition, but if you have the energy to be a journalist and a writer then I'd not consider it a real disability.

I'd call it a disability ONLY when the condition is SEVERE and the person is not able to do any kind of work to support themselves.

I can post shit on GAF and go to work. This guy can write books and apparently novels too. The fatigue is not disabling me or him from that.
 
Last edited:

Eddie-Griffin

Gold Member
This guy's "disability" is Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. I myself was diagnosed with CFS too.
It's a shitty condition, but if you have the energy to be a journalist and a writer then I'd not consider it a real disability.

I'd call it a disability ONLY when the condition is SEVERE and the person is not able to do any kind of work to support themselves.

I can post shit on GAF and go to work. This guy can write books and apparently novels too. The fatigue is not disabling any of us from that.

Oh wow, I figured he was a different type of disabled, so he went in that hard calling people invaders and he's not even in the shape he implies in the article.
 

Topher

Gold Member
Sony is pricing the game based on what they believe gamers will pay. This isn't a situation where ND said "we can only justify the price if we make it more accessible". TLOU part 2 wouldn't have been any cheaper if they had left out these same features.

Trying to draw a line from accessibility to price is just a weird take all around.
 

01011001

Member
mentally disabled people will absolutely pay full price for this

troll dancing GIF
 
Last edited:

wvnative

Member
And yet for people with severe motor disabilities these options are useless while Sony still forces the dualsense.
 

Hugare

Member
Great lets take advantage of the disabled ....


Washington post 🤦

Accessibility options should be free.
No it shouldnt. Because it costs money and time to develop all those systems.

I'm pretty sure that if it was that easy, lots of other studios would be doing the same.

It sucks, but Sony is a private company, and that's capitalism
 

SenjutsuSage

Halo TV Series Promoter - Live from: Reach
They killed it with their accessibility options, one of the best ever in a major videogame. Kudos to the team.
 

Eddie-Griffin

Gold Member
The Xbox Adaptive Controller is, by far, the best thing for gamers with disabilities on the market. How is that not taking it seriously?

Nintendo was also making one, and then stopped for some reason.

Everyone does accessibilities these days, even smartphone companies.
 

Grildon Tundy

Gold Member
OP appeared to have an emotional reaction to that headline, as I did, too. Regardless of the type of emotion OP and I experienced, I am now more cognizant of:

1) The Washington Post
2) The Last Of Us remake
3) TLOU Remake's accessibility features

than I was about five minutes ago.

It appears that the headline was effective.

I am tired of being manipulated by news media in this manner, and I think more and more the only solution is to:


just dont look GIF
 

Aenima

Member
Since Uncharted 4 that NaughtyDog and a few other PS studios has been offering alot of acessibility options on they games. ND is just updating the remake with what is the norm for them. Sugesting that the game costs 70 because of acessibility options or that is worth 70 for having them, is... well, retarded.
 
Well you obviously gotta be at least a bit disabled to buy the same game for a third time in one decade.

Everyone paying $70 for this is disabled.




jk love my Sony fam!!!

mentally disabled people will absolutely pay full price for this

troll dancing GIF

TL;DR

what’s the argument? you’d have to be mentally disabled to spend $70 on this garbage?

So you are saying i need to cut my arm off to enjoy TlOU Remake...
Got it!

 

Eddie-Griffin

Gold Member
OP appeared to have an emotional reaction to that headline, as I did, too. Regardless of the type of emotion OP and I experienced, I am now more cognizant of:

1) The Washington Post
2) The Last Of Us remake
3) TLOU Remake's accessibility features

than I was about five minutes ago.

It appears that the headline was effective.

I am tired of being manipulated by news media in this manner, and I think more and more the only solution is to:

headline? The argument in the body is the part that's shit, not the headline lol. The Headline is the best part of the article.
 
Top Bottom