Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

November 10, 2009 -

A disabled, visually-impaired gamer has filed suit against Sony Corporation of America, Sony Computer Entertainment America and Sony Online Entertainment claiming that the defendants are denying people with disabilities equal access to their goods and services.

The suit was filed by plaintiff Alexander Stern on October 23 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Stern seeks to “put an end to systemic civil rights violations” allegedly perpetrated by the defendants.

Stern claims to have sent both physical and electronic mail to officials at Sony requesting “minor modifications” that would remove the barrier to gaming for disabled people. In the complaint, Stern says that a Sony representative told him that “Sony would not offer any modifications whatsoever for persons with disabilities.”

Among other actions, Stern is seeking an injunction to prohibit Sony from violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, a declaration that Sony owns, operates and maintains equipment that discriminates against the disabled, unspecified damages and to have his lawyer’s fees and expenses paid for.

The plaintiff added in the complaint that games such as World of Warcraft do support access by disabled and/or visually impaired people by “providing visual cues through several simple third-party modifications.” Stern notes that other accessibility features are available and have been implemented by “companies whose resources pale in comparison with Sony’s.”

The suit also names “Does 1 through 10,” as the plaintiff “does not presently know the true names and capacities of the defendants.”


|Via GameSpot|


Comments

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

I don't see why Sony can't make a few tweaks. Sony's reply seems to stem from the same arrogance that got us a rootkit and get a 2nd job for the PS3.

With a reply like that the only recourse would be a lawsuit.

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

How much money will these "few tweaks" cost the developer?  Will these tweaks give advantages to those who are not handicapped (i.e. light up all enemies in the grass)?  Can the tweaks threaten to upset the balance for other players?  Games are an interactive medium that have different considerations than static content.

Could Sony have demonstrated a bit more tact in their response? ABSOLUTELY.  But this guy stated his complaints to the company and they dismissed them, so now he sues?  Err....

Again, as I posted above, will meet way: Blind video game star prepared for Mortal Kombat competition in Japan

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

 If he's functionally blind, how can he play the game? Why would you purchase a game if you are functionally blind?

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

If you were functionally blind, couldn't you still play Nintendo's Duck Hunt? And, if you played it enough, occasionally hit a duck?

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

 Well yes, but then if he went to the auction, maybe he could occasionally make money.

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

And if Duck Hunt had a feature which emitted a "quack" when a duck entered the screen, continued quacking and increased the frequency/pitch of the quack as the duck flew further across the screen, and stopped quacking when the duck exited the screen, do you think this feature would increase the possibility of you occasionally shooting a duck? 

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

Meh, it was just more simple to put the gun up against the screen right where the duck was to pass and pull the trigger.  "You cheated!"  "No, I improvised."

Nightwng2000

NW2K Software

http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Nightwng2000 NW2K Software http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

 Right again. But what if the sighted customers were irritated by this quack and the company lost money because they didn't buy the game?

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

Putting aside the first and more practical response which comes to mind, i.e., to have this feature be capable of being switched on or off at the user's choice, I'll go with the more philosophical response:

I'll bet that there were thousands of cafeteria owners in the Deep South who argued that once the Civil Rights Act took effect and their traditional white customers would be forced to rub shoulders with a whole new class of neverbeforeseen black customers, their business would suffer as white customers refused to continue their patronage rather than be forced to rub shoulders. To this argument, I would respond: too fucking bad.

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

The government shouldn't be able to tell me how to run my business and who to serve. If I'm a racist, then black people won't patronize my establishment and go elsewhere. I will lose money, and possibly go out of business. But, I did so because the market decided that they did not want to eat my racist sandwiches, not because the government decreed that I should sell my sandwiches to everyone. This is a free market economy we live in, and the government has no say in who I sell to.

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

Whether the government should or shouldn't be telling people how to run their business, the inescapable reality is that it can and does. About everything from the number of people you can seat in your establishment at any given time to what you can serve and to whom you can serve it. In fact and as a perhaps interesting aside, there are few businesses which are subject to more government regulation than the food service industry. Which I personally think is a good thing. I'd rather not have rodent droppings hidden inside my ham sandwich, served to me by someone who tested positive for tuberculosis, thank you very much. 

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

The public outcry from people getting TB would lead to massive public backlash against said company, driving it out of business, or forcing the creation of some sort of industry regulatory body. Either way, the government doesn't get involved. We, the consumers, either boycott the company, or force it to change. Democratic governments and businesses are very similar. They both rely on keeping the People happy.

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

The flaw that I see in your theory is that I don't wanna be among the people who are infected with TB and have to make public outcry and force some company outta business or the creation of some private regulatory body. I'm not at all interested in getting TB. If I have to get TB to force some restaurant outta business or the creation of some private regulatory body, then to Hell with that plan. I need some other kinda plan that's designed to head that TB off at the pass and long before it comes anywhere near my ass. 

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

You know, I think this has gotten a bit off topic. I just feel that the operative word here is VIDEO game. Video games are designed for people who can see. It wouldn't be cost effective to place such a cue in the game.

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

You can make the same argument that a non-ADA compliant public restroom stall is designed for people who aren't in wheelchairs and that in many cases it is not, given the amount of patrons in a wheelchair who use the restroom stall, cost-effective to require ADA compliance. However, if you're that one guy trying to force his wheelchair into the stall before he craps his pants, you may take the position that cost-effectiveness ain't the only thing worth considering. And if you're a blind gamer trying to get into a game but can't because you're blind and the decision was made to exclude audible cues as not being cost-effective, you may take the exact same position on cost-effectiveness.

Of course, you can always say that the greater public good outweights the peculiar needs of a minority and, in pure ecomonic terms, it does. But you can also say that the guy sitting in his wheelchair on a pile of his own shit don't give a rat's ass about no greater public good and, in pure sitting-in-shit terms, he doesn't.

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

 Video games are not a need, like restrooms. You don't need to play video games. If a substantial minority requires the modification, then it will be cost effective to modify the game. If it's just one guy who thinks this, then they should not modify it.

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

By the same token, going to see a movie isn't a need, either. You don't need to see a movie. But, nevertheless, movie theatres have been required to make themselves wheelchair accessible despite the possibility that not a single wheelchair patron will ever show up to watch a movie. But that possibility hasn't ever, I don't think, given theatres a good reason not to make themselves wheelchair accessible. Because, I suspect, the response to that argument is, "Too bad. We'd rather have you build a wheelchair ramp that no one will ever use than to not have you build a wheelchair ramp and then have some guy in a wheelchair show up and not be able to get inside your theatre." 

As a practical matter, it is easy to discriminate against minorities, be they racial minorities or disabled minorities or whatever sort of minority, because of the fact that they are minorities. If the calculus which determines when it is or isn't permissible to discriminate is based on nothing more than counting the number of people being discriminated against and concluding that in cases where that number is small, discrimination should be allowed, then minorities are almost certain to always lose. It's the fact that they are relatively small in number that makes them minorities and subject to a greater possibility of discrimination in the first place.

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

Well, this whole situation is a double edged sword in a way. One one side, it has merit that people with disabilities should have the same rights to game as others. However on the otherside it does sound a little unreasonable to expect game companies to for-see that people with severe disabilities (Be it visual, mental, or physical) would play video games. It is a market assumed for those who have full sight, hearing, and mental capabilities.

In a way, it is like a deaf person walking into a record store as one person stated earlier. A CD, MP3, Record, or any form of audio is created and sold for those who can hear. Video games, as I stated before, are marketed for those who can hear, see, and be able to use a controler. It's an item not marketed to those with visual impairments. Yes, some slight modifications could be made for people like this. But there are some problems on Sony's end. 1. how many visually impaired people would by the game with such modifications if any, and 2. If we create a modification, will it be cost effective? Will we lose money rather than gain money?

I mean, a video game system is not something one needs to live and function. It is a luxury, and sadly, some luxuries in life are not made for all.

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

I'd imagine that there are a number of restaurants who have been forced by the requirements of the ADA to put in wheelchairs ramps, dedicate special parking spots among their already limited parking spots to handicap parking, widen their restroom stalls and install special handrails, etc., etc., etc., and nowhere near recoup those expenses from the 12 wheelchair patrons a year who show up to dine. Is that a good reason to exempt them from the requirements of the ADA?

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

Yep.

--------------------------------------------------

I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

-------------------------------------------------- I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

Yeah, I saw this story on Gamespot, rolled my eyes and said "good luck buddy"... This is only a hair above that douche suing Sony for violating his "first amendment rights". >_>

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

Don't mind me, I am just going to be an insensitive ass right now.

Get a bigger TV.


http://www.deathvanquished.com

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

I'd sue them for makeing games to easy and not offering enough control/button mapping options...that is if I had money to burn.....


Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

Then his suit makes even less sense as there's already precedence that online world's are NOT public places. Therefore SOE can do whatever they please within the world. They could up and cut the person account giving a frivolous reason and they can do so within the law because the user who signs up for the game specifically signs an agreement stating that they allow SOE to do so.

It ceases to amaze me how people think because they have a disability that they should be afforded special priveleges and given preferential treatment. I've got a skin disorder that causes me extreme discomfort / pain when I spend an extended amount of time in an environment with AC / heating, but I don't go off and sue every building I've ever been to because of it. I just deal with it / try to minimize the effects as best I can because unfortunately I have a medical condition.

Again, this is just another case of "only in America".

 

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

Yes, it's "their house", and they can make whatever choices they wish.  How will this suit affect Sony's PR?  Whether win or lose in court, while many will say "so what", others may choose not to do business with them.  A one person protest you might say.  Some folks yell "boycott!", others yell "protest!" and those who don't agree will yell back "You're by yourself!" and if just that one person "boycotts" or "protests", that pretty much the end of it.  After all, who they boycott or protest doesn't HAVE to respond.  On the other hand, a lawsuit, there HAS to be a response.  No matter what the response is, it's affected by and will affect their PR.  There will still be the outcry over the suit and plaintiff.  But they'll get more attention than just chattering for a boycott or protest on blog sites and such.  A lawsuit, for good or ill, gets more attention.

"It ceases to amaze me how people think because they have a disability that they should be afforded special priveleges and given preferential treatment."

That's a bit of a goofy thing to say as what he is requesting is equal access to what others already have access to within the game.  It can't be preferential treatment or special priviledges because others are apparently doing it.  In comparison to your skin disorder regarding AC/heating, while you may follow the "it's their house" in regards to the owners of the building, if other users of the building are allowed to manipulate the AC/heating for their own purposes, but you are denied that opportunity if you so choose, then you are not asking for special priviledge or preferintial treatment.  You're asking to have the same reasonable option as everyone else.

Would you feel the same way in a building or apartment, rented,  that you moved into that you discovered had the option to change the AC/heating and others were allowed to change it to their own satisfaction but you could not because the change you required was outside the bounds of the rules set by the owner of the building or apartment?

For some, they'd simply move.  For others, they'd sue on the grounds that others were allowed to make changes to suit their needs but you were denied that same option.

Again, "within reason" applies heavily here and really needs defining.

Nightwng2000

NW2K Software

http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Nightwng2000 NW2K Software http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

He has equal access to the game; his complaint is about the content of the game.  It's like complaining that a movie theatre did not include subtitles for the hearing impaired.  As for his complaint about the website, it appeared to rely on text rather than images, so unless you can't navigate it with tab and enter, I can't imagine that it is any less accessible than any other website (out of curiosity, does anyone know how ebay complies with the ADA).

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

Does he have equal access to the ability to play the game and, if he doesn't, is that inability something which can be reasonably rectified by an accommodation of some sort? That's the question which needs to be answered.  

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

The ADA governs the ability to participate in an activity, not the ability to do well at it.

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

And guarantees that the ability to participate isn't unequal to others on account of a disabilty. Is Stern asking for anything more? 

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

Yes, he is.  So far as the game is concerned, he wants an adjustment to his ability to perform, not his ability to participate.  As far as the auction site is concerned, there doesn't appear to be anything critical that a screen reader couldn't handle.

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

The only way to upwardly adjust his ability to perform would be to somehow reduce the extent of his disabilities (e.g., if he has 60% sight, give him 75% sight). Is that what he's asking? I don't think so. I think he's asking that the content of the gamesite be changed to accommodate the fact that he only has 60% sight (or whatever his disability actually is). Which, to me, is not much different than the guy in the wheelchair asking that the business widen their entrance by 12 inches so his wheelchair can pass through it and he can thereby participate in the business going on inside. 

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

You are mixing the two different complaints he had.  As I said, so far as his complaint with the game goes, he is asking for changes to allow him to perform better, not to allow him to access the game, itself.  As far as the website goes, it is not heavily image dependent, so it should already be accessable through a screen reader.

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

I'm not so sure I'm mixing two different things as we're just looking at the same things from different angles. Taking the whole auction thing outta the picture, what you see as his asking for changes to allow him to better perform at playing the game, I see as his asking for changes to allow him greater ability to play the game (which may or may not lead to better performance but I'd assume it would tend to increase his performance). I think were looking at the same line, just different points along that line.

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

How does it give him a greater ability to play the game?  The changes he is asking for can't be accessed until he is already playing the game; they have no bearing on his access to the product.  What they do is make the game easier for him to do well at, but that isn't a requirement under the law.

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

Because, according to him, audible cues would compensate for his inability to see visual content. If he doesn't have those audible cues, then he's not playing the game on a footing equal to those who have sight and can rely on the visual content. So, while I guess you can say that the audible cues make the game easier for him to do well at, they would also make the game equally easy to do well at for him as it is for a person with sight and who doesn't need the audible cues. And it is the disadvantages which the disabled experience in comparison to the non-disabled that the ADA was intended to remedy.   

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

Also, according to federal caselaw, the only physical locations can be considered public accomodations (Access Now v Southwest Airlines):

In interpreting the plain and unambiguous language of the ADA, and its applicable federal regulations, the Eleventh Circuit has recognized Congress' clear intent that Title III of the ADA governs solely access to physical, concrete places of public accommodation.

 

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

You'll notice the hesitation of the Court in arriving at that conclusion, however. Indeed, the Court goes as far as to admit that if it was sitting in the Second Circuit (which had already ruled that a health plan, which isn't found on Title III's list of enumerated facilities and has no real physical, concrete ability to accommodate, is a public accommodation), then it may have been forced by precedent to come to the opposite conclusion. It also quotes the very well respected federal judge Posner's opinion that to find a Congressional intent to protect the disabled in a brick-and-mortar facility but no Congressional intent to protect them in a virtual facility is pants-on-head retarded.

Nevertheless, you are correct when you say the Eleventh Circuit precedent holds that a virtual facility is not a public accommodation. But that doesn't mean that another Circuit is bound by that precedent and, clearly, the Second Circuit has a precedent which suggests the exact opposite finding is more in order. Now, if Stern was bringing his lawsuit in the Eleventh, I'd tend to conclude that he's screwed. But he brings his lawsuit in the Ninth Circuit, where that Court isn't necessarily bound by Eleventh Circuit precedent. The Ninth Circuit may well ignore the Eleventh Circuit and find the reasoning of the Second Circuit more persuasive. I do.

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

But that is not what the ADA is for.  The ADA ensures that he has equal access to the product, in this case the game.  It does not ensure that the content of that product caters to his disability.  Rather than resembling putting braille in the elevator of a theatre, this is more like requiring open captions during the show.

Also, would the requirement to include new visual elements be in conflict with Sony's right to free expression?

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

If he, because of his disability, can't actually play the game, then what kinda "access to the product" is that? That's like telling the blind guy in the SouthWest case that as long as he can manage to log on and visit SouthWest's on-line ticket site, he's got access to their products. But he doesn't really have meaningful access to the product under those circumstance. Access to the product would mean he can actually purchase a ticket if he wanted to do so. But he can't do so because the SouthWest site had no audible-type cues. The objective of the ADA can't be to simply allow him the same access as a sighted person has to visit the on-line site. The ADA's objective is to put him in the same position as a sighted person to be able to actually buy a ticket at the on-line site. 

And if the decision in SouthWest had gone the other way (i.e., their on-line site is a public accommodation), you can bet that SouthWest would have been required to add sufficient audible cues or similar visually-impaired accommodation to the site so that the blind guy can actually buy a ticket there if he wants to do so. Just like I'm willing to bet that if the decision in this guy's case finds that Sony's on-line site is a public accommodation, Sony will be required to add audible cues sufficient to allow the guy to actually play the game. 

I wouldn't see much of a First Amendment issue raised in requiring the addition of audible cues. No more than implicated by requiring a brick-and-mortar to post a sign stating which particular restroom among many is the one that's wheelchair accessible. I'd imagine the requirement would be held to the rational basis test and it doesn't strike me as being completely irrational.   

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

Are DVDs required to have subtitles?  Are bookstores required to carry books in braille?  What makes video games so different that this law allows regulation of the content as well as the access to the product?  In the Southwest case, the website was not the service; it was the method of accessing the service.  In this case, the game is the service; it is closer to the tickets sold by Southwest than the website they are bought on.

Also the Southwest case did not go the other way; that argument is tantamount to saying, "Well, if the law were not the law, things would be different."

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

Because, in your example of a bookstore (which is a public accommodation), the owner-operator has no control of the form of the books he sells. He buys them wholesale and sells them retail. In whatever form he gets them, he turns around and offers them for sale in the same form. It would be unreasonable to require a owner-operator of a bookstore to carry a book in Braille when they aren't responsible in any way for the printing of that book. That's not the facts of the matter in Sony's case. They have 100% control over the site and game content at issue. Making it perhaps entirely reasonable that they be required to modify that site and game content. 

And, yes, the SouthWest case went the other way. But does that preclude us from surmising what would have been the required accommodation if it had been found that the site was subject to ADA requirements? It is, I believe, a legitimate rhetorical question to pose without it being construed as an attempt to re-write the law. It certainly begins to explore the issue of what would have been an appropriate remedy if the plaintiff had a case to be remedied. I guess you can say that he didn't and close the matter on that basis but doing so certainly doesn't much lend itself to a fuller exploration of the issue.   

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

Fine, then, not the bookstore, but the publisher.

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

The publisher doesn't create a public accommodation merely by publishing books. The have to also, like the bookstore, create some sort of location to which the the public is invited to come and purchase their books. If there's no public accommodation, then the requirements of the ADA wouldn't apply and the publisher, therefore, can't be forced to make any accommodations for the disabled.

And I forgot to give you props for actually going out and finding some relevant law on the issue. Unlike most, who just run their mouths with no idea of the relevant law. Kudos. 

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

Both Random House and Harper Collins allow direct purchase from their website.  Then there are the physical entities that you send off to in order to subscribe to various magazines and newspapers.  Their offices would also be considered public accomodations, as the public is invited to purchase services from them, even if it is not in person (I believe that was mentioned in the health care case you linked).

edit:  Heading down the hill, most likely won't be able to respond again until tonight.

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

If we assume those sites are public accommodations to which the ADA would apply, then the question would be, I imagine, whether it is reasonable to require that they also make Braille versions available to the blind. Intuitively, that strikes me as a bit too much to ask.  

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

What is the difference between the that and requiring that a game company add features to accomodate the blind?  I mean aside from the fact that installing a braille embosser is not going to require anywhere near the same amount of time and labor? (The QA alone on that kind of project is going to be a major pain in the ass)

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

I can't intelligently say. I don't know much about programming websites or games or about printing books in Braille. But I thought you at one time said it is technologically feasible and has been done for other games by third-parties. So, too, says Stern. If he can't prove the point that it's a relatively easy fix and one which lies within Sony's ability to provide or Sony can prove he's wrong on the point, then I guess he's S.O.L.

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

There is a difference between a community mod and official content; community modders do not need to test as stringently and do not need to be as concerned about the effects on other aspects of the game.  Unlike community mods, you can't release an update to live servers in an alpha or beta state.

And yes, it is feasible and has been done for WoW; he mentions that in the papers he filed.  Considering that Everquest 2 also allows client-side mods, he is basically blaming Sony because he and other players have not bothered to create mods similar to those made by WoW players...that or what he is asking for is not actually within the scope of such mods.

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

It'll be interesting to see how his complaint shakes out. Either way, he may have a better case than would appear at first glance. 

Re: Disabled Gamer Sues Sony

The question is, are the changes that he is demanding going to offer a greater advantage to a player who isn't legally blind?  Will these changes make the game unbalanced for a majority of the audience? Example: light up all enemies hiding in the grass.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
prh99Portlandia, though I don't watch a lot of sitcoms. Heard it was good though.09/15/2014 - 8:02pm
E. Zachary KnightSitcom recommendations for someone who like Parks and Rec but hates The Office: Go.09/15/2014 - 6:08pm
NeenekoEven if they do change their policy, they can only do it moving forward and I could see the mod/pack community simply branching.09/15/2014 - 12:50pm
Michael ChandraAs for take the money and run, the guy must have a networth of 8~9 digits already.09/15/2014 - 10:33am
Michael ChandraMe, I'm more betting on some form of mod API where servers must run donations/payments through them and they take a cut.09/15/2014 - 10:32am
Michael ChandraEspecially since they want it for promoting their phones. Killing user interest is the dumbest move to make.09/15/2014 - 10:32am
Michael ChandraGiven how the EULA actively allows for LPs, I'm not sure Microsoft is ready for the backlash of disallowing that.09/15/2014 - 10:31am
Matthew Wilsonthey wont do that, the backlash would be too big.09/15/2014 - 10:25am
ConsterSleaker: how is that a flipside? Sounds to me like that's basically what Notch himself said, except rudely.09/15/2014 - 10:18am
MaskedPixelanteOn the plus side, no more lazy Minecraft LPs, since iirc Microsoft has a strict "no monetization period" policy when it comes to their stuff.09/15/2014 - 10:13am
james_fudgeBut it continues to sell on every platform it is on, so there's that09/15/2014 - 10:09am
james_fudgeOh, well that's another matter :)09/15/2014 - 10:08am
E. Zachary KnightNothing against Notch here. I think it is great that he made something so cool. I just can't understand how it is worth $2.5 bil09/15/2014 - 9:59am
InfophileWhat a world we live in: Becoming a billionaire was the easy way out for Notch.09/15/2014 - 9:42am
james_fudgelots of hate for Notch here. I don't get it. Sorry he made a game everyone loved. What a monster he is!09/15/2014 - 9:37am
SleakerOn the flipside, Notch has been a horrible CEO for Mojang, and the company has grown on sheer inertia, DESPITE being mishandled over and over.09/15/2014 - 9:33am
SleakerI can understand Notch's statements he made to Kotaku about growing bigger than he intended, and getting hate for EULA changes he didn't enact.09/15/2014 - 9:32am
MaskedPixelantehttp://pastebin.com/n1qTeikM Notch's statement about the MS acquisition. He wanted out for a long time and this was the easiest way.09/15/2014 - 9:08am
ConsterEh, I can't blame him.09/15/2014 - 9:01am
IanCNotch has left Mojang. Classic take the money and run situation.09/15/2014 - 8:57am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician