36 Video Game Accessibility Statistics

by

These video game accessibility figures cover the measurement periods and populations identified in the available source material. Estimates, surveys and forecasts retain their reported scope.

Key Video Game Accessibility Statistics

The main findings are:

  • Limited choice or availability of suitable assistive or adapted technology was a barrier for 22% of disabled gamers (December 2020; Scope survey).
  • In the RNIB sample, 11.2% had played video games in the past but had since stopped (RNIB quantitative study, 2022; RNIB survey sample).
  • Approximately 14% of disabled gamers could not return a game after discovering it was inaccessible (Prior 12 months, surveyed December 2020; Scope survey).
  • In RNIB’s developer research, 75% of participating developers reported incorporating some accessibility features (RNIB research published 2022; RNIB developer research).
  • Inaccessible consoles were a barrier for 18% of disabled gamers (December 2020; Scope survey).
  • In the RNIB sample, 23.5% played daily for 1-2 hours (RNIB quantitative study, 2022; RNIB survey sample).
  • Among gamers unable to play a game because of poor accessibility, 33% could not return it (Prior 12 months, surveyed December 2020; Scope survey).
  • Only 15% of participating developers reported sufficient understanding of gamers with sight loss (RNIB research published 2022; RNIB developer research).
  • Inaccessible games were a barrier for 17% of disabled gamers (December 2020; Scope survey).
  • In the RNIB sample, 23.1% played daily for more than 2 hours (RNIB quantitative study, 2022; RNIB survey sample).
  • Disabled people faced average extra costs of £583 per month in the cited Scope estimate (Scope report; underlying Disability Price Tag estimate; United Kingdom disabled people).
  • Among BPS RNIB participants, 70.8% selected at least one audio feature as having improved their gameplay experience (RNIB quantitative study, 2022; RNIB sample).
  • Disabled gamers were more likely than non-disabled gamers to use Discord: 54% versus 44% (December 2020; Scope survey, UK gamers).
  • PCs were the most commonly experienced gaming platform for 78.1% of the RNIB sample (RNIB quantitative study, 2022).
  • Among RNIB participants with vision impairments, 82.5% wanted at least one audio-based feature in future games (RNIB quantitative study, 2022; RNIB sample).

Contents

  • Limited choice or availability of suitable assistive or adapted technology was a barrier for 22% of disabled gamers (December 2020; Scope survey). (Accessibility in gaming report)
  • Inaccessible consoles were a barrier for 18% of disabled gamers (December 2020; Scope survey). (Accessibility in gaming report)
  • Inaccessible games were a barrier for 17% of disabled gamers (December 2020; Scope survey). (Accessibility in gaming report)
  • Disabled gamers were more likely than non-disabled gamers to use Discord: 54% versus 44% (December 2020; Scope survey, UK gamers). (Accessibility in gaming report)
  • Among Scope respondents, 63% of disabled gamers purchased an in-game add-on or subscription in the prior 12 months, compared with 50% of non-disabled gamers (Prior 12 months, surveyed December 2020; Scope survey). (Accessibility in gaming report)
  • Among Scope respondents, 57% of gamers aged 18-25 had bought an inaccessible-to-them game, compared with 55% aged 26-35 (Prior 12 months, surveyed December 2020; Scope survey). (Accessibility in gaming report)
  • Two in five gamers reported experiencing negative attitudes from other gamers related to disability, impairment or condition in the previous 12 months (Prior 12 months, surveyed December 2020; Scope survey). (Accessibility in gaming report)

Self-reported, survey-based result.

Groups are survey respondents and the figures measure reported Discord use, not platform-wide usage.

Self-reported purchase behavior; not total industry spending.

Age subgroup percentages are not population-weighted estimates.

The page presents this as a rounded ratio; the result is self-reported.

Vision-impairment gaming statistics by frequency, platform and access

Sample composition and recruitment limit generalization.

Self-reported frequency in a non-population sample.

Platform experience is not the same as current primary platform use.

Multiple platform selections were possible and the subgroup is not population-weighted.

These are subgroup perceptions, not objective accessibility scores.

Subgroup result from a survey; it measures reported reason for non-participation.

Subgroup result from a survey; it measures reported reason for stopping play.

Self-reported barrier in a non-population sample.

Self-reported impact and study sample, not national prevalence.

Accessibility information, purchasing and consumer outcomes

  • Approximately 14% of disabled gamers could not return a game after discovering it was inaccessible (Prior 12 months, surveyed December 2020; Scope survey). (Accessibility in gaming report)
  • Among gamers unable to play a game because of poor accessibility, 33% could not return it (Prior 12 months, surveyed December 2020; Scope survey). (Accessibility in gaming report)
  • Disabled people faced average extra costs of £583 per month in the cited Scope estimate (Scope report; underlying Disability Price Tag estimate; United Kingdom disabled people). (Accessibility in gaming report)

Scope derives this from the share unable to play and the 33% unable to return; it is an approximate survey-derived result.

Conditional subgroup result; not 33% of all gamers.

This is a general disability-related cost estimate, not gaming-specific expenditure.

  • In RNIB’s developer research, 75% of participating developers reported incorporating some accessibility features (RNIB research published 2022; RNIB developer research). (RNIB Accessible Gaming Research June…)
  • Only 15% of participating developers reported sufficient understanding of gamers with sight loss (RNIB research published 2022; RNIB developer research). (RNIB Accessible Gaming Research June…)
  • Among BPS RNIB participants, 70.8% selected at least one audio feature as having improved their gameplay experience (RNIB quantitative study, 2022; RNIB sample). (RNIB Accessible Gaming Research June…)
  • Among RNIB participants with vision impairments, 82.5% wanted at least one audio-based feature in future games (RNIB quantitative study, 2022; RNIB sample). (RNIB Accessible Gaming Research June…)
  • Among participants using large text exclusively, 81.8% still wanted audio-based features (RNIB quantitative study, 2022; RNIB sample). (RNIB Accessible Gaming Research June…)
  • RNIB participants desired audio and haptic features at a combined rate of 66.2% in the feature-category comparison (RNIB quantitative study, 2022; RNIB participants with vision impairment). (RNIB Accessible Gaming Research June…)
  • Visual accessibility features were desired by 51.1% of RNIB participants in the feature-category comparison (RNIB quantitative study, 2022; RNIB participants with vision impairment). (RNIB Accessible Gaming Research June…)
  • Instructional accessibility features were desired by 60.3% of RNIB participants in the feature-category comparison (RNIB quantitative study, 2022; RNIB participants with vision impairment). (RNIB Accessible Gaming Research June…)
  • Compatibility with screen readers enhanced gameplay for 57.9% of BPS participants in the RNIB study (RNIB quantitative study, 2022; RNIB sample). (RNIB Accessible Gaming Research June…)
  • Audio description or integrated narrative descriptions enhanced gameplay for 51.3% of BPS participants (RNIB quantitative study, 2022; RNIB sample). (RNIB Accessible Gaming Research June…)
  • Changing font size enhanced gameplay for 42.6% of sighted RNIB participants (RNIB quantitative study, 2022; RNIB sample). (RNIB Accessible Gaming Research June…)
  • Changing audio settings enhanced gameplay for 32.3% of BPS participants and 22.6% of sighted participants (RNIB quantitative study, 2022; RNIB sample). (RNIB Accessible Gaming Research June…)
  • An adaptable sound mix enhanced gameplay for 36.9% of participants with vision impairments and 33% of sighted participants (RNIB quantitative study, 2022; RNIB sample). (RNIB Accessible Gaming Research June…)
  • Affordability of assistive technology was reported as a barrier by 30% of disabled gamers in the cited 2020 survey (2020 survey cited in Royal Society report; Survey population cited by Royal Society). (Disability technology: Exploring how data…)

Participating-developer sample and self-reporting limit industry-wide inference.

Self-assessed understanding in a participating sample.

Participants selected from a list of features; this is perceived benefit, not controlled causal impact.

Preference measure, not forecast adoption or market demand.

Small subgroup context and self-reported preference; not a claim that audio is universally required.

The report’s category comparison combines audio and haptic selections; categories may overlap.

Category selection can overlap with other desired feature categories.

Perceived enhancement, not a controlled usability or performance test.

Perceived enhancement and a study sample, not a population estimate.

Self-reported perceived enhancement; the two groups are not necessarily matched or population-weighted.

The Royal Society cites Scope; this figure differs from Scope’s ranked-barrier wording and should be treated as the cited survey’s affordability measure.

Table of contents