This is useful for countries where the Steam Deck is unavailable but other handhelds aren't. Here in Australia, Steam Decks are only available as grey imports, and that makes warranty issues a potential headache, but you can walk into most electronic retailers and buy a ROG Ally off the shelf.

That said, I personally wouldn't buy a handheld that didn't have touchpads, so I bought a grey import and have had no issues.

I don't think that's their goal at all. Otherwise we wouldn't see any sequels released on PC, that would be a much better strategy for converting players to console. The only reason publishers require their own logins in games, at least for single-player titles, is data collection. Data is very valuable.

They're referring to Sony's stance that all their PC releases should require you to have and sign-in to a PSN account. That's separate to PS+, you don't need to pay a sub.

A lot of publishers include this requirement on their PC releases, regardless of whether they're single-player or multiplayer, and I think a lot of people are fed up with having to have so many different accounts.

I think the major difference between the two is that in video games, the cost of the loot boxes is deliberately obfuscated through the use of whatever single-use currency the publisher has dreamed up, and made worse by the fact that the currency is only purchasable in select denominations, meaning you're always spending more than you're going to use.

You're not wrong that there are plenty of examples of physical "loot boxes" marketed at children, but at least with those you know exactly how much it costs straight up.

I wish our government would look into the actual predatory practices that these publishers are using in these games, but this is a good first step. At least the EU is looking into it.

Just want to point out that it might not be OP's fault. The ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, not the one folks in the US will be used to) has a habit of switching the headline depending on whether you're viewing on mobile or web. I wish they wouldn't, the clickbait headlines can be a bit of a distraction from otherwise generally high-quality articles.

To be fair, half of the AAA gaming industry is all about trying to clone the latest successful game with a new coat of paint. Maybe using AI to make these clones will mean that the talented people behind the scenes are free to explore other ideas instead.

Of course in reality, it just means that the largest publishers will lay off a whole lot of people and keep churning out these uninspired games in the name of corporate profits, but it's nice to dream sometimes.

For context, the conservative party here in Aus is pushing hard for a transition to nuclear power, rather than renewables.

At least here in Australia, we believe in the right for a select group of billionaires to make money off the land in the form of coal mining, and renewable energy threatens that right.

Now that the world is turning away from coal as much as possible, we're now pivoting to allow a select group of billionaires to make money off the land in the form of uranium mining, and renewable energy also threatens that.

In a few years: "Grandpa, what the fuck is snow?"

Editor: The article is great! All we need now is a quote from social media and we can publish.

Journalist: We haven't been able to find anything suitable, everyone thinks this story is satire.

Editor: Then just post one yourself and then quote that! But don't reference your name, that'll be a dead giveaway.

I appreciate where the author of this article is coming from, but I think they're being a bit too one-sided.

For example, they make the point that zoos don't contribute enough to conservation, donating only around 5% of their spending, as if the millions of dollars given doesn't justify their existence. But if zoos didn't exist, that's a big chunk of money that wouldn't be going towards conservation at all.

They also talk about the education aspect, that visitors don't necessarily read the information about the animals and instead go for the spectacle. But a child isn't going to read those plaques regardless, but seeing animals up close might ignite an interest in conservation later in life.

And one thing that the article doesn't really go into is the fact that humans are still actively hunting animals in the wild, and destroying habitats for profit. And while I think zoos are a bit of a band-aid fix when it comes to endangered species, I'd much rather see an animal in captivity surrounded by zookeepers that care about it rather than extinction.

In an ideal world, zoos wouldn't exist. In a slightly less ideal world, only open-plain zoos would exist. But we are a very long way from that, and I personally believe that reputable zoos are a positive in the world we currently live in.

But Microsoft is doing exactly the same thing, only instead of paying for exclusivity of one title, they're buying developers so not just their next title, but all future releases will be exclusive, up until MS decides they're not worth it and dumps them.

Sony absolutely participates in anti-consumer practices, but let's not pretend that MS is any better.