This seems a bit short sighted. Should we not require accessible entrances to shops, banks, etc in law because it should be up to the people who own the building to decide if it's worth the massive expense of making the building accessible for only a few customers?
A videogame is (almost always) an unnecessary, discretionary waste of time for everyone who uses it. A storefront probably serves a purpose; a bank obviously serves a purpose. It might not be that easy to draw the line but it's obvious that "game" is on one side and "bank" the other.
