But, it isn't clear to me from this article the extent of the difficulty people are having, how many people are having issues, what those issues are, etc., and the overall tone of the piece seems light on information and heavy on righteous outrage. It's in that class of badly written articles that just wants people to be angry but not necessarily better informed.
Right now, a lot of games provide partial accessibility for deaf players by including on-screen captions -- although many of them have insufficient captions for sound effects -- and some games provide accessibility for the colorblind with alternate color schemes or filters. That's about the full extent of accessibility support, AFAIK.
Accessibility for the blind is basically not even on the roadmap. Some games are barely playable by blind gamers (e.g. https://www.polygon.com/2016/1/4/10707692/blind-gamer-beats-...), but that's much more by accident than design.
"Common programming failures that make sites hard to use for the visually impaired included text without enough contrast to distinguish words from the page’s background and images without alternative text explaining what they showed, the WebAIM survey showed. Even worse, portions of the forms on 19 states’ pages were built so that screen readers couldn’t decipher what information a user should enter on search bars or vaccine registration forms."