Truth about epilepsy and why the filter is NONSENSE

[badfinger]

Given the small number of people at risk, and the thousands of video games published over the last 30+ years, and millions of copies sold, why is this just now being recognized as a problem so large by only one distributor that a filter must be added to CoD?

Are other developers experiencing this problem?

Are other distributors demanding changes to current and future video games?

Are there any lawyers on the forum who could look up any law suits involving an epileptic suing anybody because of a bad reaction to a video game? And what were the results of the law suit? Did any plaintiff win, and how much?

This whole thing seems to be coming out of left field, as we say in the US. Could there be more to the release delay?

binky9

[Gamekeeper]

This forum must have set a record for the number of threads started about the same topic.

If anybody is interested in the real facts behind the filter I have published an article about it here

[Azimech]

Originally Posted by ECV56_LeChuck

None of you remember this???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denn%C5%8D_Senshi_Porygon

Never heard about this before.

Terrible for all those people, but there are a lot of people here that know for sure they're not sensitive. I've done pretty crazy things in my life so I know I'm not. One of them was being on a festival, some booth had comfortable chairs where we could wear some kind of glasses with LEDs that produced insanely fast flashes, with eyes closed the brain produces "movies" in full colour and detail of nice scenes. Some kind of new tech back then. Never had an aftereffect even while I was drunk the whole time.

So I want the filter to be an option.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Azimech

Never heard about this before.

Terrible for all those people, but there are a lot of people here that know for sure they're not sensitive. I've done pretty crazy things in my life so I know I'm not. One of them was being on a festival, some booth had comfortable chairs where we could wear some kind of glasses with LEDs that produced insanely fast flashes, with eyes closed the brain produces "movies" in full colour and detail of nice scenes. Some kind of new tech back then. Never had an aftereffect even while I was drunk the whole time.

So I want the filter to be an option.

If you take a look at the numbers, it was viewed by 4.6 million households, and of those 685 viewers were hospitalized, of which two remained in the hospital for more than two weeks. That is an impact rate of 0.14%, using the assumption that each household represents 1 person.

If Cliffs of Dover was expected to sell 4.6 million copies, then the dev team could afford the time and staffing require to make a flight sim photo-sensitive safe. As it is, we would be lucky to sell even a 10th of that.

[Troll2k]

It seems Sony was sued in 2007 for a ps2 video game.

http://www.qj.net/psp/news/sony-vive...e-in-baby.html

Ubisoft was also sued in 2008 for a video game on the Nintendo DS.

Although these are not PC games I guess the handwriting was on the wall.

[Mardescrap]

Originally Posted by Azimech

From this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seizure_trigger

"In some epileptics, flickering or flashing lights, such as strobe lights, can be responsible for the onset of a tonic clonic, absence, or myoclonic seizure[14]. This condition is known as photosensitive epilepsy, and in some cases, the seizures can be triggered by activities that are harmless to others, such as watching television or playing video games, or by driving or riding during daylight along a road with spaced trees, thereby simulating the "flashing light" effect. Some people can suffer a seizure as a result of blinking one's own eyes[15]. Contrary to popular belief, this form of epilepsy is relatively uncommon, accounting for just 3% of all cases[16]. In all other epileptics, such lights are no more capable of triggering a seizure than in a non-epileptic person."

So that ridiculous small amount of people that is photosensitive, probably doesn't even play videogames. There are a lot of possible triggers, and if someone didn't have seizures due to flashing lights in earlier stages in life, the risk they will get it now is incredibly small.

And that fear of being sued is stupid as well. Ever heard of anyone filing a lawsuit against a disco?

Don't care about what you think about it, it is this way, for every game and movie.

You have 2 choices as a consummer, to buy or not to. That's all it boils down to. Everything else is a waste of time.

[badfinger]

I read the Q and A link in Gamekeeper's post. I also read the report in the BBC about what was said in Parliament.

What I took away from it was this quote:

"Where it is not reasonably practicable to follow the Ofcom guidance, and where broadcasters can demonstrate that the broadcasting of flashing lights and/or patterns is editorially justified, viewers should be given an adequate verbal and also, if appropriate, text warning at the start of the programme or programme item."

So, Ubisoft seems to have gone admirably overboard in adding this filter to their games, when all that is required is "adequate verbal and also, if appropriate, text warning at the start of the programme ".

At that point, it should be up to the player to make a decision.

binky9

[Azimech]

Originally Posted by Mardescrap

Don't care about what you think about it, it is this way, for every game and movie.

You have 2 choices as a consummer, to buy or not to. That's all it boils down to. Everything else is a waste of time.

There are people that fall asleep at the wheel because they set the heater too high. That doesn't mean the car industry has to lower the maximum temperature of the ventilation, it means drivers need to use their heads.

Or the idea that song lyrics drive some people to commit unhealthy acts - the RIAA came up with that "parental advisory" label back in the 80's. That should be enough, albums with explicit content are still sold everywhere. It should be our own responsibility.

[Vevster]

Originally Posted by binky9

Given the small number of people at risk, and the thousands of video games published over the last 30+ years, and millions of copies sold, why is this just now being recognized as a problem so large by only one distributor that a filter must be added to CoD?

Are other developers experiencing this problem?

Are other distributors demanding changes to current and future video games?

It's not one distributor. It's an editor.

And they test all their games.

So do other editors. So yes, they must ask for changes to games if they fail the tests.

I've posted about that in one of the many thread mentionend.


binky9: in the UK, all TV shows are now tested tested to broadcast.

http://www.videogameseizures.org/Pre...trategies.html

"In December 2008 video game manufacturers in the UK agreed to test their video game images for seizure safety prior to release"


http://www.gamesradar.com/ds/rayman-...05165411533021


"If the UK law changes, it would bring video games in line with TV and film, both of which are already required by law to be screenedfor any risk of causing photo-sensitive epilepsy seizures."



My take on that: to avoid a drastic laws & control by a governement organization, editors agreed to test the games themselves. They are now bound by this promise


http://spong.com/article/15691/Ubiso...s-for-Epilepsy

"John Penrose, the Conservative member of parliament for Weston-Super-Mare used yesterday's session in the Commons to ask Margaret Hodge*, the Minister for Department for Culture, Media & Sport, just why video games publishers didn't face the same regulation as television broadcasters when it comes to photosensitive epilepsy. (..)

All was not happiness and, excuse the reference, light with Mr Penrose however, as he also told Hodge that, "The point is that some games manufacturers may decide to do that, but there is a huge number of games-makers and manufacturers throughout the world. Some are large and responsible, such as Ubisoft, but as in any industry, there is a large number of manufacturers who are relatively tiny, and although some may be responsible, we cannot be sure. (..)
However, there is a point at which he appears to have gone slightly over the top. Hodge highlights this in her opening remarks when she states, "The honourable gentleman calls on the Government to make it a legal requirement for computer games publishers to test their products before publication, and to remove scenes that could trigger a photosensitive epileptic seizure."









http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2008/07/wipeout-hd-fail/

"CVG is reporting that Wipeout HD, a futuristic racing game that moves at a fast clip and features lots of shiny neon decorations, "fails the epilepsy tests so much that it has to be re-engineered"

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by binky9

I read the Q and A link in Gamekeeper's post. I also read the report in the BBC about what was said in Parliament.

What I took away from it was this quote:

"Where it is not reasonably practicable to follow the Ofcom guidance, and where broadcasters can demonstrate that the broadcasting of flashing lights and/or patterns is editorially justified, viewers should be given an adequate verbal and also, if appropriate, text warning at the start of the programme or programme item."

So, Ubisoft seems to have gone admirably overboard in adding this filter to their games, when all that is required is "adequate verbal and also, if appropriate, text warning at the start of the programme ".

For many games there shouldn't be a problem with making the game work within the requirements. This would appear to be one of the cases where it is not reasonably practical to follow the guidance though, because this is a simulator. If you are simulating flashing gunfire, it isn't practical to stop the gunfire from flashing.

If the filter is a long term problem, then hopefully someone will find a way around it for those that don't suffer from epilepsy.