Content Analysis of Basic Accessibility Features in 30 Top Played Video Games
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Game features can create access barriers that undermine player experience for all users, and impede some users from playing. While segments of the games industry have made headway in reducing the number of barriers that players face, the extent to which these barriers remain present in contemporary commercial game titles has been largely unmeasured. We address this problem by measuring the implementation of accessibility features, and where games can improve. We conducted a content analysis of 30 top-played Steam games using the “basic accessibility features” from the Game Accessibility Guidelines. Our results show a positive trend: nearly two-thirds of basic accessibility features were fully implemented. However, there remains substantial room for improvement, as basic features are intended as a baseline, not a gold standard. Our work highlights that under-implemented accessibility features could be better supported at low cost and effort—highlighting a clear path to improvement for games industry stakeholders.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it