Vietnam takes steps to control online games reports that the Ministry of Information and Communications (MoIC) is working on a draft decision on managing online games in Vietnam.  This has interesting implications for the regulation and sale of games in Vietnam, one of the big games markets in the Far East.

Managing online games:


According to the draft decision, the Government will assign provincial governments to set opening and closing times for Internet cafes. In locations with no regulations, Internet cafes will not be allowed to supply online game service after 10pm.

For games that have interaction between gamers with servers, gamers are not permitted to play the same online game more than 3 hours per day. Those that have limited number of gamers and the interaction between them is simple and low-tension, such as chess, game providers are allowed to provide 24/7 service. Cultural and educational games are encouraged by permitting a gamer to play 4-5 hours/game/day.”

I’ll leave it to wiser heads than mine to comment on why the Vietnamese government feels it necessary to restrict the amount of time in which games can be played at net cafes, what effect that could have on games or, for that matter, on the Vietnamese games industry.  It does seem though to chime in with reports from other Far Eastern countries, such as China and South Korea, that governments are concerned about the effects of long gameplaying sessions on gamers.

The article goes on to state:

To restrict small firms with weak capital and technology from distributing online games, which makes the online game market scattered, MoIC and the Finance Ministry will issue licensing regulations. The draft also encourages Vietnamese firms to develop online games and restrict foreign game imports. Accordingly, game providers have to register games one year before they import the games.”

These measures, if adopted, look like a classic protectionist measures intended to benefit domestic games over foreign games – cue the classic free trade v protectionism debate, albeit in a games context.  It will be interesting to see whether (i) Vietnamese gamers/games industry support them; and (ii) whether legally Vietnam would be able to pass them, given the inevitable international competition issues it would raise (as a side-note, that kind of measure would never get anywhere in the EU due to EU competition rules).

Virtual goods:

This is the really interesting issue.  So interesting in fact that I’ve written a separate post about Vietnam and the battle for virtual goods here!

Follow us at or subscribe to our weekly email newsletter here

Opinion: games and the Byron Progress Review

In 2007, Tania Byron was asked by the UK government to conduct an “independent review looking at the risks to children from exposure to potentially harmful or inappropriate material on the internet and in video games“.  This became the Byron Review in 2008, which made a number of proposals to better protect children online.  In particular, Professor Byron made recommendations regarding the UK games classification system, which went on to become a proposal for a single games classification system based on the PEGI standard.  Professor Byron has now published a Progress Review, which gives a status update on her thoughts on children and games.

Below is a summary of Professor Byron’s findings regarding games and our opinionated opinions on them…

Games classification

The new PEGI classification system is of course still waiting to be become law as part of the Digital Economy BillProfessor Byron recommends that “once the use of PEGI becomes law in the UK, companies associated with the video games industry, the online games industry, retailers, and the Government invest in raising public awareness of the new ratings system including through the UKCCIS public awareness campaign and UKCCIS one stop shop“.

The need to raise public awareness of the PEGI system makes sense of course, but Professor Byron doesn’t give detail on how that should work, beyond saying that everyone who is involved in or with the games industry should spend money on raising public awareness.  How exactly is that going to affect games devs/publishers and how would it affect their bottom line (if at all)?  Isn’t this primarily the responsibility of government? Clearly, this is going to need some further detail.

As for UKCCIS, this is the “multi-stakeholder body on child internet safety” that Byron recommended be established as part of her 2008 report.  I understand her recommendation that UKCCIS coordinate the PEGI public awareness campaign, but it isn’t clear is how this fits in with the Video Standards Council, which under the Digital Economy Bill will be in charge of the PEGI system itself.  I suppose this could be easily answered if the VSC was part of/partners with UKCCIS, but I don’t know is factually that’s correct or not (can anyone enlighten me?).  Or perhaps it is envisaged that the VSC will only be responsible for legal implementation/oversight of PEGI, not public awareness about it (the problem there though is that I’m not aware of any guidelines setting out exactly what the VSC will or won’t do regarding games classification in the future).

She goes on to say: “since my 2008 review, the video games industry has grown and new high-profile familyfocused games have raised the profile of the sector further. To reflect this, video games representatives should be prioritised when filling vacancies on the UKCCIS executive board.”

Fair enough, and I’m sure greater representation will be welcomed by the games industry.

Last point: Professor Byron notes that, since her 2008 Report, there has beenrobust legislation which makes it possible for retailers to be prosecuted for the sale of age-restricted products to underage children.  If the intention is to suggest that this has come into force since her 2008 Report, I think that’s incorrect: the Video Recordings Act 1984 already criminalises the sale of age-restricted products to underage children (with the caveat admittedly that there was a bit of legal hoopla a while ago about that the enforceabilty of that Act, but that’s not the point).  Until the Digital Economy Bill comes into force, the VRA 1984 remains the law.

Online and social gaming

Professor Byron says:

It is important that families have up-to-date advice about new ways to engage in gaming.. This advice should be built on to encompass publishers and hosts of casual online games (games which are free to users as they are hosted on sites funded through advertising) and to look at the issues of bullying and harassment via interactive gaming and casual online gaming…I recommend that the UKCCIS executive board commission the video games working group to examine and report back by September 2010 on whether a code of conduct supported by independent review for online and casual gaming is needed.”

Now, this I do not understand.  Is there evidence of a connection between “bullying and harassment” and “interactive gaming and casual online gaming” and, if so, where?  In asking that question, I’m not at all implying that Professor Byron is scaremongering, since elsewhere she has taken a considered approach to contentious issues of games, children and ‘violence’.  But where is the evidence for this link?  Perhaps there is more credible empirical evidence regarding online games, but social games?  This is particularly important because Professor Byron has recommended that UKCCIS commences research into whether a code of conduct supported by independent review is required.

IF there is evidence of such a link, and IF UKCCIS/government/the games industry support a code of conduct for online and social games, it will be interesting to see how the following issues are resolved:

  • Will it be a legally-enforced or voluntary code of conduct? 
  • Will it apply just to UK games companies or (more likely) any games company which operates in the UK? 
  • If the latter, how will you enforce adoption of the code of conduct?  How will you ensure that an online game based in the USA or China or India complies with the code?
  • If a games company doesn’t comply with the code, would there be any sanctions?
  • What is the code going to say about “bullying and harassment“?
  • Which games will it apply to?
  • Crucially, what burden will all of this place on games companies?  None of them actively encourage bullying or harassment and I would imagine most already have guidelines in place regarding them, but ultimately I would bet games companies would be loath to have actively to police their players to stop bullying or harassment. 
  • What is this “independent review” of the code of conduct to be? By whom?

Parental controls and games consoles

Recently the Home Office commissioned a report by Dr Linda Papadopoulos, entitled the “The Sexualisation of Young People Review”, which recommended that videogame consoles should be sold with parental controls switched on to reduce exposure to the sexualisation of young people and violent content.

Make of that recommendation what you will, but Professor Byron is not a fan.   She said:
I stand by my 2008 conclusion that switching parental controls on by default could contribute towards parents not engaging in, or considering, their children’s safety whilst using their games console and being lulled into a false sense of security that the default setting meant that their child was ‘safe’. Children and young people can just switch the parental controls off without their parent’s knowledge or understanding and play on an unsecured device. Instead, I believe parents need support in understanding how to set up controls carefully (for example, not sharing the password with the child) and how to talk to their children about digital safety“.

She recommends instead that:

By September 2010, in relation to all internet-enabled devices, the UKCCIS executive board commission the video games and industry working groups to:

a) decide whether we need minimum standards for parental controls, for example clear, understandable set up procedures, password protection;

b) examine whether there should be an independent review process for parental control standards; and

c) work with the public awareness working group to ensure that awareness of video gaming parental controls is included in the UKCCIS public awareness campaign.”

So now the government has two proposals on parental controls from two experts which it commissioned to look into the protection of children and games.  Which will it prefer?

Other aspects of the Progress Review

I should also add that the Progress Review does deal with other aspects of child internet safety, e.g. mobile access.  More on that in the Review itself.


As with her 2008 Review, it’s great that Professor Byron continues to look at the issue of child protection in games without any of the headline-grabbing but wrongheaded proposals we’ve seen in the past (though I’m somewhat bemused at the ubiquity of kids’ pictures and quotes from mums in the Progress Review!)  But I can’t help but feel that (perhaps understandably) this Progress Review sets up questions without giving detail, particularly regarding her recommendations regarding online/social games.  More work is needed, hence the September 2010 report date she suggests.

Moreover, in practical terms control now appears to be moving towards UKCCIS and it’s not yet clear how that will work or how the games industry will achieve full representation on it (as Prof Byron recommends).  It’s also unclear at this stage what additional burdens all of this will place on the games industry, which hitherto has focused on making the PEGI standard into law, only now apparently to be faced with a further series of enquiries.

Still, roll on September 2010…

Follow us at or subscribe to our weekly email newsletter here

Should Griefing Be Criminalised?

I just read a paper by Leslie Garfield, a Professor of Law at Pace University in the USA, about whether intentional infliction of emotional distress over the internet (e.g. cyber-bullying) should be criminalised.  This has got me thinking – should griefing be criminalised too?

Follow us at or subscribe to our weekly email newsletter here

Digital Economy Bill may become law before election

A quick one: the Guardian reports that “senior media industry figures believe” that the Digital Economy Bill will become law before the forthcoming general election (expected in April/May 2010).
Interesting to speculate who these unnamed sources are, or why they think the Bill will be pushed through soonish.  To us, at the moment, there seems to be a healthy amount of opposition to the Bill in the House of Lords, and it hasn’t even got to the House of Commons yet – all of which suggests it may take longer than expected for the Bill to get through.  Still, the point is that the Bill genuinely could become law in the next few months.  Our thoughts on the Digital Economy Bill and its implications for games are here.  Since we wrote that post, matters have moved on somewhat, since the controversial clause 17 has been voted down.  This has led to fresh controversy however over whether its replacement is even worse!
We’ll report more on the Bill and games as and when there is a further, more ‘final’ version of the Bill (and once it becomes clearer if the Bill is actually like to become law before the next election).

Follow us at or subscribe to our weekly email newsletter here

[image author: Andrew Dunn, obtained via Wikipedia]

Need to Know: Games and the Digital Economy Bill

The UK Digital Economy Bill has real implications for all UK creative industries, including games, meaning gamers and the UK games industry should be paying attention to the Bill’s progress through Parliament.  This post summarises what the Bill is and why it matters.

What is the Digital Economy Bill?
The Digital Britain Bill (“DEB” for short) is essentially the UK Government’s attempt to bring UK technology/IP law up to speed with the challenges of modern technology, particularly online piracy.  The Government’s Explanatory Notes give further helpful background here.
DEB actually covers a whole range of reforms, from IP to digital infrastructure to digital radio switchover.  But the aspects of DEB which are most relevant to games, and which also happen to be the most controversial generally, are these:
  • A new online copyright infringement regime (known popularly as Three Strikes, but it’s not really – see below) and
  • Proposed new Government powers to amend copyright laws without Parliament’s prior approval
DEB also proposes a new games classification system – more on that here.
New copyright infringement regime
The old deal…

Under the existing law right now, if a dev/publisher (i.e. the rights holder(s) for a game) wants to take legal action against a illegal downloader of that game (call him/her ‘X’), very basically the dev/publisher needs to:
  • Identify how and where the illegal downloading took place;
  • Find out the IP address of X;
  • Get a Court order forcing the relevant ISP to disclose the account details for that IP address, so that it can work out who X actually is; and
  • Commence legal action against X and prove to a judge that s/he did the illegal downloading and therefore infringed its copyright.
This can be expensive, difficult and lengthy because: (i) ISPs have historically refused to help rights holders to sue their own customers (hence the need for a court order); and (ii) actually finding the illegal download requires the rights holder to expend IT resources.  (It is mainly for this reason that the music industry in particular has tried to use these kinds of lawsuits to make examples of high profile pirates, rather than trying to sue everyone who downloads copyright materials illegally).
The new deal…

DEB now proposes a new legal regime which would go something like this:
  • When a rights holder (i.e. the games dev/publisher) believes that an ISP customer has infringed copyright (e.g. by downloading a pirated game), the rights holder can send a “copyright infringement report” to the suspected pirate’s ISP.
  • The ISP will then send a notification letter to the account holder and must add that account to a register of customers who are believed to have infringed copyright.
  • The Government would then be able to require ISPs to take “technical measures” against the suspected pirate.  This seems likely to include wide reaching action like broadband throttling or ultimately even account suspension (though the Government doesn’t intend to specify exactly what “technical measures” means or how they will actually work until after DEB has become law).
This proposed new regime is meant to be easier and cheaper because: (i) rights holders and ISPs work together; and (ii) a lot more action can be taken against pirates, potentially even suspending their net access altogether.  However, there is no suggestion that the Government is proposing a ‘three warnings and then we cut you off’ scheme.  So DEB does not = Three Strikes; it’s more complicated/nuanced/vague than that.

Anyway, the proposed new regime has caused a great deal of controversy in both mainstream media and teh internets, to say the least…(that much is clear from a quick Google of “Digital Economy Bill” if nothing else).  Here’s why…

Practical issues
  • How exactly would the new ‘technical measures’/three strikes regime work?
  • How will rights holders actually find pirates?  If it is through technology like deep packet inspection, that will itself cause a lot of controversy (remember BT and Phorm?)
  • Who will pay for all of this?  The rights holder or the ISP, or both?  What about the legal costs if cases are taken to court?
  • Even if you can get the address of the account from which the piracy took place, how do you prove on the evidence who the person in front of the pc actually was? (Remember the complaints against Davenport Lyons?)
  • What rights of compensation (if any) will customers have, particularly if technical measures are taken against them wrongly?
  • What impact will this have on rights holder/ISP/customer relations in the long term?
  • How will the ‘technical measures’, like broadband throttling, actually work?  Who will be accountable for their use?
Humans Rights issues/The right to a fair hearing?
How is the customers’ side of the story to be heard when ‘technical measures’ are taken against him/her?  The right to a fair hearing is a fundamental human right and is given legal force in the UK by the Human Rights Act 1998 and European Convention on Human Rights, but – so far – DEB has little to say about this.  This report from Parliament’s Joint Select Committee on Human Rights explains the issue succinctly:
We do not believe that such a skeletal approach to powers which engage human rights is appropriate. There is potential for these powers to be applied in a disproportionate manner which could lead to a breach of internet users’ rights to respect for correspondence and freedom of expression. We set out a list of points that the Government should clarify in order to reduce the risk that these proposals could operate in a manner which may be incompatible with the [European Convention on Human Rights…
There is little detail about the right to appeal in the case of copyright infringement reports or decisions about the inclusion of certain individuals’ information on copyright infringement lists. We consider that statutory provision for a right to appeal to an independent body against inclusion on any infringement list would be a human rights enhancing measure.”
In fairness, we should point out that attempts have been made to address these issues so far; it is not at all as if DEB has sailed through Parliament so far.  For example, Lord Lucas in the House of Lords has been active in trying to reform DEB generally, and particularly regarding this new ‘technical measures’ regime (more here).


In a nutshell, not a great deal has happened to address these concerns.  DEB provides that a consumer has a right to appeal to court if “technical measures” are made against him, but there is a great amount of detail about how this is meant to actually work that just isn’t clear yet.

Changes to copyright law
DEB also proposes to give the Government the power to amend copyright law through a shortcut procedure that bypasses Parliamentary scrutiny (this proposal is known popularly as ‘clause 17’).  The Government’s reasoning seems to be that it needs to be able to act fast in order to meet the increasing technological challenges to copyright protection. Example off the top of my head: the Government changes the law to make it easier to sue and heavily punish people who attempt to circumvent DRM protection.
This proposal has also come under heavy fire, so much so that the Government has had to back down and water down its original proposals.  Even so, it is not enough for some.  Again, the Joint Select Committee summarises the issue:
The broad nature of this power has been the subject of much criticism. In correspondence with us, the Secretary of State explained that the Government intended to introduce amendments to limit the power in Clause 17 and to introduce a ‘super-affirmative’ procedure. The Government amendments would limit the circumstances in which the Government could use their powers to amend the Act by secondary legislation and would provide a system for enhanced parliamentary scrutiny.”
Despite the proposed amendments we are concerned that Clause 17 remains overly broad and that parliamentary scrutiny may remain inadequate. We call for a series of clarifications to address these concerns.”


Under heavy criticism, the Government appears now to have effectively shelved clause 17.  However, at around the same time, the Lib Dems proposed a new section which would give a court the power to take actio against web sites which host “substantial” amount of copyright-infringing material, potentially forcing the entire site offline.  Critics pointed out that this could mean sites such as YouTube being shut down.  Then, further controversy was caused when it emerged the amendment had in fact been drafted by the BPI.  You couldn’t make it up, eh?

The Current status of the Digital Economy Bill


On 15 March 2010, the Bill passed the House of Lords and has now gone to the House of Commons.  In theory, a bill is first introduced to the Commons (the first reading, which is really a formality), then properly discussed for the first time in the second reading, then it goes to a committee/report stage for a fine tooth-comb analysis, before finally it has a third reading (essentially a closing debate).  Then, if the bill came from the House of Lords in the first place (which DEB did), it goes back to the Lords so they can review what the Commons have done for the bill, and then finally there is a vote.

BUT, there are several reports that the Government intends to ram DEB through before the general election, by having an extremely short second reading and dispensing with the committee/report stage altogether.  You can make up your mind as to whether having DEB brought into law before it has gone through the normal parliamentary process is a good or bad thing.  So far, the games industry and gamers seem pretty divided on the issue.

Of course, even if for some reason DEB doesn’t become law this term, then a new Labour or Conservative government would just have to deal with it after the general election.

Why is all this important for the UK games industry?

The games industry will be at the forefront of these developments. If the UK Government adopts via DEB a legal regime that permits technical action to be taken against the net access of suspected online pirates/copyright infringers, it would give the UK games industry a powerful weapon to deploy against games piracy/copyright infringement – which is of course often said to be the single greatest threat that the industry faces. So, in principle it would be possible to deploy ‘technical measures’ against individuals who repeatedly download and distribute illegal copies of games – which could for example prevent a repeat of Spore, said to be one of the most pirated games in history.
In fact, it may cover rather more than that – in principle, it may in the future be possible to take technical measures against all forms of online copyright infringement relating to a game, including individuals who distribute unauthorised game modifications (eg additional game levels or a total conversion mod) and/or who create user-generated content relating to games (eg unauthorised in-game footage posted on YouTube).
So the person who distributes a brilliant but unauthorised mod of a defunct but well-loved game, or the person who repeatedly posts unauthorised footage of upcoming or released games online, could potentially face technical measures against his/her internet access in the future. Obviously, the devil would be in the (legal) detail but, clearly, if this kind of action was possible it could transform the games industry.
BUT, and it’s a big but, time and again gamers have shown themselves to be hostile to what can be seen as attempts by the games industry to impose limitations on the way in which they can play and interact with games (as seen recently for example the continuing DRM saga).  The games industry would likely have to tread a fine line between relying on technical measures to protect their games but, at the same time, not alienating their customers or stifling the enjoyment and innovation derived from the creation and use of mods and other post-release user generated content.  It’s worth noting on that front that many games industry figures have already spoken out in favour of market-driven solutions to games piracy for example, rather than just relying on a legal regime.  But, one way or the other, in an industry which depends heavily on the loyalty and enthusiasm of its customers, this is likely to become an issue of great importance in the future. 
Ultimately, the question for the games industry may not be whether they can legally deploy these strategies to defend their games, but whether commercially they can risk it.
[image author: Andrew Dunn, obtained via Wikipedia]

Games, Disability and Anti-Discrimination Laws

Sony succeeded last week in defeating a lawsuit by a disabled US gamer, who had claimed last year that Sony games like EverQuest violated the Americans With Disabilities Act by denying him “full and equal enjoyment” to the games. The gamer, Alexander Stern, who apparently has impaired vision, argued that Sony should provide him with “auxiliary aides and services” so that he could enjoy the games fully and compete with other gamers equally.  This has got me thinking about an interesting issue: should gamers be protected by anti-discrimination laws?

So what do anti-discrimination laws do?

The key purpose of anti-discrimination laws is to ensure that employers/providers of services in the public sphere cannot discriminate against a person on the basis of his/her personal characteristics (e.g. physical disability, belief, gender, nationality, ethnicity etc).  In the UK, the principal legislation which sets out these protections are the Equality Act 2006 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

The ‘public’ element is critical: anti-discrimination laws generally only cover things that happen in public.  So, for example, it is generally illegal to refuse someone else access to a restaurant based on their nationality, but you could refuse them access to your home for pretty much any (peaceful) reason.

It’s important to bear in mind that anti-discrimination laws do not generally apply between private individuals.  If person A makes racist comments to person B, that’s not a matter for anti-discrimination law (it might be a race-related offence in your jurisdiction, though).  In other words: discrimination laws only kick in where you need something from someone, but they won’t give it to you because of your personal characteristics.

Why should games be protected by anti-discrimination laws?

The Sony case itself shows that there is a need for games companies to take discrimination of disabled gamers seriously, even if the discrimination was inadvertent.  Similarly, consider the following hypothetical examples:

  • A MMO bans men from playing as women and vice versa
  • Another MMO bans gay people from playing it
  • A game is released in a multilingual country (e.g. India) in only one little-spoken language
  • A game is released on terms that it can only be sold to a particular ethnic group  

Seem far-fetched? One of them (the first) has already happened.  In each of these situations, there would be an argument that gamers are discriminated against.  Unless they have legal protection, the only real way they could respond would be to vote with their feet by leaving the game, which for many would be unacceptable.

That said, on the other hand games companies would no doubt be understandably concerned at the cost that all of this could involve (for example, the cost of making an AAA game fully accessible to both fully and partially sighted gamers).  So clearly there would have to be a balancing exercise, with protection for gamers but not at extortionate cost to games companies. A legal regime could help to resolve this situation – hence the argument that anti-discrimination laws should protect gamers.

Do anti-discrimination laws already cover games?

Following the Sony case, the answer for the USA seems to be: no.  Judge Percy Anderson ruled in this case that Alexander Stern’s claim failed because US case law had already established in 2000 that the anti-disability discrimination law on which he relied (the Americans with Disabilities Act) only applies to “places of public accommodation”, which the judge said means actual physical places and not games.

Therefore, the judge said the US anti-discrimination laws would cover Stern if he was unable physically to enter one of Sony’s games conventions, but would not cover Stern being unable to play Sony games themselves.  As a result, the judge did not go any further into how games could be protected by anti-discrimination law (and, in particular, whether game playing is ‘public’ or ‘private’ – more on that later on).

That decision seems effectively to exclude US gamers from the protection of anti-disability discrimination laws.  This is a pity, particularly since the learned judge seems to have taken a pretty unenlightened approach to online games, even if he was required to follow the established case law. 

But, other countries have not adopted that same legal analysis.  The UK analogy to the Americans with Disabilities Act (called the Disability Discrimination Act 1995), for example, does not have the same express US requirement that the discrimination must take place in relation to a physical place.  So, leaving aside the slightly odd idea that discrimination has to have occurred in relation to a physical place, I ask…

How should games be protected by anti-discrimination laws?

The basic framework is already there in the US and UK laws (i.e. the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995):

(i) Prove there was actually discrimination; and
(ii) Prove it took place in the public sphere.

Whether there was actually discrimination will always depend on the facts of the case, so not much more I can say about that.  The interesting question though is whether game playing takes place in the public or private spheres.

Is playing games a private or public activity?

I think there is a good argument that game playing is a public activity simply because games are open to absolutely everyone, assuming of course gamers have the minimum level of hardware and have paid for the game of course. The argument is strongest for multiplayer games, especially MMOs, where gamers are encouraged to make the game as public as possible (by that logic though, playing single player games is less likely to be a public activity).

Take a real world parallel: going to a theme park.  You have to pay to get in, but otherwise you are pretty much free to go on the rides and play the games as you wish, with whoever you wish.  To my mind, that is no different to playing a multiplayer game with your friends.  Therefore, if entry to theme parks is covered by anti-discrimination laws, why not playing games too?

Conclusion: there is a good argument that playing games does take place in the public sphere, and so we pass the first and main hurdle for anti-discrimination laws and games (the idea that games take place in the public sphere has a much wider application of course, but that’s a topic to discuss on another day…)Now, in relation to discrimination such as arbitrarily banning certain people from playing your game, the response would then be straight-forward: you are legally prohibited from doing it.  But disability discrimination and games could be harder to deal with, because at that point we get into a balancing exercise between protecting disabled gamers but not to the extent of bankrupting the games companies or ruining games for everyone else.   In particular, games companies would have a strong argument that the simple reality is that some games simply cannot feasibly be adapted for disabled gamers. Getting the balance right would be difficult, yes, but just because it is difficult doesn’t mean it should be ignored.

Of course, the Sony case seems to settle the position in the USA for the foreseeable future and, unless and until there is a court challenge in the UK or elsewhere, we don’t seem likely to see any movement towards a more explicit way of helping disabled gamers, or protecting gamers from discrimination more generally.  This is yet another growing legal issue in gaming about which we will have to watch, wait and see…News source: THR, via Virtual Policy Network

Follow us at!