X is only impossible because Y = a lot of closed minded people.
A music game that would work for a blind person? Guitar hero with audio or force feedback ques that makes it easier to learn the songs. A guitar with small actuators under the keys and a demo mode that pushes a key up when it plays. You could feel the notes and patterns as they appear and then play the song yourself.
All it would require is a 3rd party guitar and a very small amount of code added to the game. Financially viable? maybe on a small enough scale. I bet it would make Stevie Wonder proud too.

No, No, NO! Facts do not change just because you are a bleeding heart liberal!
It's like George Carlin said, people are obsessed with euphemistic langauge, and with being offended for someone else. If I don't have legs, I can't pole vault, that's the bottom line. That type of thinking would logically lead to the conclusion that a male could go to court over discrimination for not being hired by hooters. There are absolutes, and accepting them does not degrade our society, or our values.
Trust me, disabled people are WAY less worried about the things that others worry about for them.

Just like how you can't run without having legs?
Oh, wait, you can.

That's not a counter argument. Yoru comparison is flawed, since your statement is not factual, whereas mine is. Saying "You cannot chew without a jaw" is not the same as saying "You cannot play any form of basketball without a working spine", since the latter is a statement which is flawed due to a misuse of the term basketball to mean solely the form which requires a working spine.
I become more and more certain every day that basic Logic and Debating courses should be mandatory at the high school level.

How is my statement not factual? You can run without having flesh-and-blood legs. You were just dismissing the point without addressing it, which is why it seems like you should have to take "not dodging the point" class.
You know, I have never seen you actual address someone's point. You always provide one of two counter-arguments:
1) They are misrepresenting your point. (Which usually turns out to be an incorrect statement anyways).
2) They aren't debating correctly. (Which also generally turns out to be incorrect).
Anyways, I don't know why I'm posting this, because trying to communicate with you is the equivalent of communicating with the television - you may be talking, but they sure as hell aren't hearing what you're saying.

Wait, is Anjohl saying it is a fact that blind people can not play and enjoy video games?
Coz you know, it has already been shown that they can and do.

Just because I can beat up a two year old does not mean I should...........
Just because a company could spend tons of effort on R&D and a product does not mean they should.
Just because something is possible does not mean it should be done, what are the benifits? Costs? I guess we should go invade another country, simply because we "Can".
Nessicty is the mother of all invention. And profits are the daddy...
There are games out there made for blind people, and again and again, that has been shown. I have however not seen any games that cater to 3 year old children that live in Sudan either but do you hear them complaining?

Stevie Effing Wonder worries about this. A blind gamer is suing Sony because he worries so much about this.

Exactly, THEY can but want more options...
As to the THQ thing, about the email, it kind of sounds like that was an autoreply and not an actuall person. I would try and get a petition going. I know guys from some MMO's wrote a list of demands for their class and even had a strike, things then after time changed as the company saw that if they dont have those people who have already invested 100+ hours/Days whatever in that game their game begins to break down more and more.
It is the same way other things get done, I want X law passed (I convince people that without X law the world will come to an end, er at least scare em), if enough people vote for it, Bam we now have a new law.

Why all the hostility? There's no reason why there couldn't be more computer games for the blind. A game designed for a blind person would be dramatically different than the fare us sighted people regularly enjoy, but it's not as if such a title would be have to be blind-exclusive. Heck, the industry could use some more diversity.
I don't see anything wrong with a developer making games that either accommodate or are specifically targeted at disabled people. If that sort of thing pulls in enough money to be worthwhile, more power to them.

http://www.ablegamers.com/
AbleGamers said the voluntary approach to improving accessibility was working and options could be added which the non-disabled gamer would never even be aware of. But the group said it was worried the lawsuit approach would do little to promote the cause or the community of disabled gamers
Yes a blind gamer is suing sony because he is worried about it,
http://listverse.com/2009/01/28/top-10-bizarre-or-frivolous-lawsuits/
Just like for a while in the 1990s, Anheuser-Busch, the producers of Budweiser, ran a series of ads in which two beautiful women come to life in front of two truck drivers. A Michigan man bought a case of the beer, drank it, and failed to see two women materialize. Cue the lawsuit. He sued the company for false advertising, asking for a sum in excess of $10,000.
Robert Lee Brock, a prisoner in Virginia in 1995 wished to be removed from prison and placed in a mental institution. In order to achieve his goal, he decided to sue himself. He claimed that his crime was committed whilst he was drunk, which was a violation of his religious beliefs. He claimed that he had violated his own civil liberties. He sued himself for $5 million but to make matters worse, he claimed that the state should pay as he was behind bars and without an income.
Yep anyone can sue anyone, for damn near any reason. There was a homeless person who sued EA for not making their games at a price range that he could afford..........

Developers putting things into games "because they want to" generally means those things are part of the developers' vision for the game, a vision which they ultimately believe people will be interested in buying. This isn't to say that a desire to make money is the driving force behind whatever artistic vision the developers have, but rather that the two exist side by side and in successful development efforts these desires are going to be in harmony. For your particular example, you've already provided a possible financial incentive for the action. I also prefer to deal with more general concepts instead of playing whack-a-mole with purported counterexamples. Basically, to rephrase my original point, if a group of people tell a developer they want something added to a game, the very first thought is going to be "why should we?" Does it contribute to the vision of the game (thus making it likely to sell better)? Will the added functionality ultimately bring in more revenue than it costs to implement? If the answer to these questions is "no" then you're back at the original question: why should the developer implement the functionality that the group wants?
Now, with some functionality that increases accessibility to the blind it very well could end up bring in more revenue than it costs to implement, and in such cases we'll likely see such functionality ultimately included in games. All I'm saying is that when people want changes made to games they need to have a compelling reason as to why such a change should be made, and a small group simply claiming "because we want that" is not particularly compelling. If blind gamers bring productive ideas to the table that could be reasonably and sensibly implemented, chances are we will eventually see such things. If they simply come at it with an entitlement mentality saying "you need to make games more accessible to us" that approach isn't going to get them very far.
I think that has more to do with the guy just being a wanker.

No, the reason a small minority of gog users dislike interacting with me is because I am completely devoid of humility. As such, I don't waste any time on pointless bantering, ego stroking, or sugar coating. My statement, and the logic which follows it, are BOTH correct. I am so sure of that, that I am willing to offer a challenge. If ANYONE can, with proper verification, disprove the logic in my statement, I will leave gog and never come back. Of course, if you try and fail, YOU have to leave gog.
I am willing to make that challenge, because I know it cannot be completed. I have a saying, mean what you say, and say what you mean. Pointless, irrelevant conversation is an insult to both the sender and the reciever, and as such, I will not engage in it.
Just because you choose to strictly follow social norms that I do not belief in, you feel you have the right to destroy my infallible logic. But, that very concept is unworkable, since infallible logic by definition is as solid as it gets.
Again, if you use a comparison to "defeat" a factual point, the flaw is in your comparison, not the original fact. People without working spines cannot pole vault. That is a fact.
I am completely tired of this herd mentality/ignorant conversation. I KNOW that most GOG users are teenagers, or foreigners with only a weak grasp of english and logic, yet I let myself make the attempt, time after time, of helping people to learn the basic tenets of logic and debate. But, it always seems to fail.
Just a thought, has it ever occured to you fine people that the reason I do not engage in "debate" with people who try to defeat my points is due to the fact that said people have not offered a vallid counterpoint? Most of the time, since I tend to argue only from the factual point of view, that style of debate makes no sense anyway, since there is no going forward in a debate where I posit that water is wet, and someone else counters by saying that water burns as fire does, and expects me to counter their point, as opposed to drawing continued attention to their misuse of logic and argumentative technique.
Hence, what appears to be arrogance or "trolling" to my ignorant opponent is actually simply a refusal to step off the proper debate path, to engage in petty semantics and rhetoric.
The very first rule of debate/arguments is that both parties mutually understand the terms/concepts. I have ONLY ever tried to hold up my end of the bargain in this regard, but I fear that the failure of most gog'ers to grasp even the BASIC concepts of debate continues to display my confidence on their cave wall as shadows of arrogance.
Walk into the sun, walk into the sun.

i was thinking about this very subject not too long ago. while it is certainly impossible to make most mainstream games playable for someone who is blind, there should be a market for interactive entertainment for blind people. i think you're reading too much into the whole "demanding" issue. that isnt going anywhere. they are just raising an issue which is completely valid.

Most 3D games have the best blind aid they could possibly have already in place, accurate 3D audio. The best supplement to that is tactile feedback, and currently only something like the novint falcon can provide that. Replacing visuals entirely with audio is an unreasonable challenge. At least when those visuals have any kind of complexity. Most video games are extremely visual and that pretty much by definition precludes blindness. Sure there are some for which adapting blinds would be easier and novelty blind focused games is not unthinkable nor uninteresting. I doubt you'll ever see mainstream blind support beyond what is naturally in place in the shape of audio and increasing tactile feedback.
And besides, blinds aren't the only minority, what about the deaf whom are severly disadvantaged in relation to audio cues and 3D audio? Or the disabled for whom the Wii balance board is a pipedream*?
In the end, disabilites is an unfortunate condition that there really isn't much to do about without ending up spending a dispropertionate amount of effort save curing that disability.
*Or, more relevantly, I have heard a complaint that Microsoft's Natal would be practically useless to a disabled gamer. That's another problem that's hard to get around without crippling what you can do with the thing or spending a disproportionate amount of effort on making two games in one.