Why do we still not have color blind support?
Title
Title
Read THIS post.
Tldr: This is an archived version of the DBD forum, it has all posts, comments and media. The archived data will be published at the end of October. This site is not in any way affiliated with or endorsed by Behaviour Interactive.
Comments
I literally started an account in this forum to ask for it, a year ago. Thread has been going on and on.
It's as easy as letting people choose the aura colors of their preference. Say, from the 3 or 4 options they already have coded into the game.
Gens and BBQ auras should always be the same color, so survivors can hide behind them. But nothing prevents them from letting us choose blue, for example. They already have blueish/whiteish gens during events, so, at this point I just understand it as a negative.
@Condorloco_26
And something for scratch marks.
Meh. I've never even seen them in any of the maps, except for Lery's and the Meat plant.
It never was a problem until they also broke the sounds recently, though.
And honestly, even I would see the problem in changing the color for scratchmarks. What if I'm not colorblind and I turn them neon pink?
But on the other hand, gens, hooks, totems are THE objective.
@Condorloco_26 how do you deal with not seeing gen or hook auras? I’d honestly not be playing if I couldn’t.
While I agree it would be nice. Look at it from a financial standpoint only. How much will it cost them to do and how many extra players would that get them? You're looking at probably less than 4% of the population. Now what small percentage of that would actually be interested in games, much less DBD? That explains why it hasn't been done yet. It costs more than it would return to them.
@TreemanXD
I go curl up in a corner.
They're not completely invisible though, just really hard to see on some maps. Some more than others. It may cost you a wiggle out, a misdirection on a chainsaw sprint, stepping over your own traps or just failing to spot them to pick up, etc. Stuff like that. That's why sound is so important for me. Totems are a no-no, they're just way too hard to spot and defend, so I never play with Hexes.
And there are some maps that are just a waste of time for colorblind people. Ormond for example, it's broken even for normal vision guys. Whenever I get that map I just run around like a headless chicken until I spot/hear someone, and hope I stumble into a hook when carrying someone. I only don't DC because I'm not a chump.
@Blueberry they’ve showed us that they can change the aura to blue so I think they could do it. (Gens have also been white and bright yellow)
@Condorloco_26 that sounds pretty rough. I do believe they fixed the Ormond problem recently though.
Probably because it's not an easy thing to fix. You have to make sure whatever you do only explicitly helps people that need it and can't be abuse by normal sighted people to see better.
If they do already have it done then that's one thing. I don't know what all goes into making a game colorblind friendly. Maybe they feel there would be a lot more to do and not just those few color changes you mentioned.
I disagree with you this time.
They always change hooks and gens for events. They even switch colors mid-game, when the gen or hook has been used, so they've already coded the stuff. No extra work for them.
And, roughly 12 - 14 % of the male population suffers from some degree of colorblindness. That percentage equals some real coin there, in my opinion.
There are a lot of people from the thread I started almost a year ago that I have not seen post again after expressing their inconformity. My guess is they stopped playing.
I think a full reskin of the game is out of the question, and is not what I'm asking for. Claudettes are invisible to normal guys, anyway.
Aura colors would mean a lot, though. And I say that as an average colorblind guy that experiences a tremendous increase in kill rate during events.
They just don't take our concerns serious.
Blue hook auras give you an advantage, as a normal vision player?
I've only played there 2 o 3 times since the rework, and unfortunately I couldn't tell the difference because I was playing as a survivor. I had a rough time spotting hooked and dying state people as always, though.
@Condorloco_26 I think he is talking about scratch marks, still a poor excuse.
Yeah, well. Honestly I wouldn't ask for a change in scratchmarks.
Tbh I don’t even care about scratch marks. I wouldn’t care if they got removed.
😄 LOL I appreciate your solidarity.
But yeah, sound is way more important.
Well firstly, you aren't really disagreeing with me. You're just simply saying that you think most the colorblind features already exist and that's something I was skeptical of. As I said before, if this is true and they are indeed already made then I agree it's a great idea.
Secondly, 12-14% isn't an accurate number in the least. I've got the statistics here in front of me and it is much, much lower than that.
Maybe you're taking into account numbers from a mostly white population. I come from a different ethnicity though. I also mentioned a percentage of a male population, as females are very rarely affected by it.
Maybe I'm out of the park wrong, but I assumed DbD is played *mostly* by males. Maybe 70% at least??. I don't have any numbers about that, though, so it is a rough guess only.
I don't really see the issue. Auras and scratches are already bright and meant to be highly visible, so I don't think changing the colors should be a problem. Changing something like blood pools from red to blue would be an issue, but if it only changed when highlighted by Bloodhound then I'd say it's acceptable.
The data I'm using is world wide and not limited to strictly one population.
DBD is mostly males. For strictly males we are looking at a blanket worldwide amount of 8%. Now cut that 8% down for the ages that typically would be playing games. Now cut it again for the small percentage of those aged males that play games that also happen to like Dead By Daylight by chance. You're realistically looking at probably a 1% or around there. It is a very, very minute amount.
Ok, so 8% global male then.
No need to cut any more out of that.
Outside of ethnicities (which already have been taken into consideration, lowering the number to 8%) colorblindness has no ties to age, social or economic status, hobby predilection, or videogame genre preference. Meaning, the 8% will most likely translate unchanged.
What I'm trying to say is, out of roughly - let's say - 14,000 *male* Steam players (we have no data for consoles, unfortunately), you'll still find approx 8% of those 14,000 living their lives affected by colorblindness.
That amounts to 1,120 guys only on Steam. Now add console players. Now multiply all those by the $$$/per capita. I'm sure it's a considerable amount.
8% is more than threefold Freddy's pick rate LOL, and they're reworking him for the sake of those poor souls.
@Condorloco_26
"Outside of ethnicities (which already have been taken into consideration, lowering the number to 8%) colorblindness has no ties to age, social or economic status, hobby predilection, or videogame genre preference. Meaning, the 8% will most likely translate unchanged."
You're missing my point entirely.
You can't consider 8% in terms of the potential DBD players that would want to play because of this change. The vast majority of that 8% would not be interested in DBD regardless of the change, that is my point.
"you'll still find approx 8% of those 14,000 living their lives affected by colorblindness."
You can't parallel those two things. 8% of the population would not mean 8% of the steam player base.
"That amounts to 1,120 guys only on Steam"
That isn't an accurate number because of the stipulations I mentioned above.
"I'm sure it's a considerable amount."
Based on the things I've stated above you are coming to an inaccurate assumption. It is much, much lower than you are presuming.
@Blueberry
I have a degree in Science (Biology) and work with statistics everyday. I'm not trying to sound pretentious or anything, what I'm saying is you're making incorrect assumptions. I'll try to make myself as clear as possible.
The *8* is the percentage of males affected globally.
If you take a sample of 1000 random males in the world, you'll find more or less 80 colorblind guys. As you repeat your samples over and over, the 8% will consolidate even further.
i.e. If you pick 1000 random carpenters, you'll find roughly 80 colorblind guys. If you pick 1000 random kindergarten kids, you'll find roughly 80 colorblind boys. If you pick 1000 random truck drivers, you'll find roughly 80 colorblind guys.
Unless the activity we talk about involves any *weeding out* where colorblind people have already been filtered (airplane pilots, electricians, air traffic controllers, etc), any activity where you take your sample from will include roughly the same 8% of colorblind males.
As far as I know, videogames don't require passing any colorblind tests. So we can infer 8% of all *male* gamers are colorblind, regardless of what game they choose to play.
So ---> Out of the total 14,000 estimated male DbD players, we will find roughly 1,120 colorblind males.
If you're talking about how much of the 8% global colorblind males would actually be drawn into videogames ---> DbD, then you should consider your base number is
320,000,000 or 320 millions
because that's the global number of colorblind males living today.
@Blueberry
8 % of 4,000,000,000 males
amounts to 320,000,000
We also need audio optionsoptions and advanced brightness settings