I never said anything about the efforts of the developers or players being invalidated nor that there should not be other options as a principle.
I simply respect a developer's choices and will purchase or not purchase based on the merits of what the game does or does not present, not what I feel it should be. In that respect, it is no different than picking a JRPG over a FPS or a platformer over a MOBA. You say it's not the same, but it is in that it invalidates the decisions and choices that someone made regarding their product by saying it should be something it's not.
Should the industry as a whole improve accessibility? Yes, I've even stated as much earlier.
Should that include more than simple difficulty settings? Yes, absolutely, granular settings that can address specific issues should be available to the industry, possibly even at a system-level ideally.
Should there be more accessibility advancements in terms of hardware? Absolutely, and we saw a hint of that with Microsoft and the Adaptive Controller, but it's not quite fully-baked yet.
Should developers be REQUIRED or even expected to accommodate everyone? No, that's unrealistic and I would wager impossible in some cases.
Should a developer compromise their vision for mass appeal? No, and in almost any other industry, that would be what most people call a sellout.
As an industry, they should strive for general accessibility, but there are and likely always will be outliers. Whether it stems from resources, time, viability, or simply a design choice, it is unreasonable to expect 100% accessibility. Look at the future and push for what can be rather than wishing for something that is largely a finished product to be something it's not. Maybe the NEXT Souls game will have accessibility options and maybe it won't, but that's THEIR call, not ours. All you can do is either buy or not buy and politely let them know how you feel. We cannot however MAKE them do anything, only incentivize them to do so on their own.
It is current fact that it is their choice. There's no point to arguing against that at this time. However, they deserve to be judged for not considering those who need non-mandatory options. We should all acknowledge that there cannot be a disconnect between accessibility and difficulty in a video game, as they are one in the same.
Here's a way to satisfy all parties. There are now two modes of gameplay: Artistic Vision Mode and Accessibility Mode. The first will prevent any use of these options that provide an easier experience while the latter doesn't. Wow, more people are happy they can play the game.
I respect a developers choice to a degree. This is however where I draw the line: if you have the ability to make a game accessible with little change to the core content ("oh hey, it's the choice of the player to check this box") , then I'll always believe you should do it.
If you think a developer is right in choosing to refuse options they have the ability to add, to increase accessibility without compromising the core content, then you can hold the torch of someone who doesn't empathize with those who have disabilities. This is so fucking minor and it's absolutely mind-boggling people still rally against it. And sure, resources is always an issue in video game development, but this argument is a dead end. There's no way to really argue against it without knowing the depths of finances and abilities of the team. This could be a shortcut to a "lazy dev" ban. Every dev can simply say "we just don't have the resources" and I guess... Fine? Patch it in when you do (if you eventually have the resources?).
Again, I'm privelaged to be able-bodied and I sometimes use these settings (TLOU2 and Days Gone so far). However, this is irrelevant. Considering this relevant means you are willing to cut off people with disabilities because people like me can also benefit. It's like a Republican who goes against Medicare for All because someone you don't respect (an illegal immigrant for example) will benefits. You'd be nuts!
It's the developers choice and they should be judged harshly for it in this day and age. It's ridiculous that an "artistic vision" can be considered so sacred that cutting off an interested party for reasons of "well the developer doesn't care if they can't play" is acceptable. There is no stuoid analogy that can match this situation because video games are a unique form of entertainment.
Some people here... You're defending the architect who refuses to put in elevators and ramps in his building because it won't look good and will change how navigation within the spaces work.
E: I'm not only responding to your post, fyi. I know you're not saying all of these things I'm putting forward. This is mainly attempting to get some realizations happening.
I hate how people like to construe "Accessibility" and "Difficulty" options as being the same thing. They're not. There's no reason and no justification for not including accessibility options in a game. There are reasons devs may not want to futz with actual game balance and difficulty.
Some disabilities may require modifiers that affect difficulty. Actually, without actually hardware I'm confident there are some that require difficulty modifiers. Accessibility also isn't restricted to disabilities, but if it makes you feel better you can shame someone like myself who enjoys using the settings. Or would you be happier if, theoretically, the devs required verification of a disability to use certain settings that affect the difficulty? What reasons are there to not provide optional modifiers?
