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.
That probably would be a better solution. Particularly since the rating system is pretty easy to ignore. And if they do start slapping the R18+ rating on games that don't really warrant it like Mario Party, people will be more likely to simply dismiss the entire system.
I would hope that the government and ratings board wouldn't be that stupid, but look at how long it took to give us an R rating for video games in the first place.
I think the government could definitely be doing more, but I don't think it's a bad thing to force companies to clearly disclose the nature of their products so consumers can make informed choices.
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.
It's 662% higher vs 7.62 times. So if x is the amount that big tech is reporting, the actual number is x + 662% or x * 7.62, both gives the same result.
Just make sure your family has a way to access your account. I very much doubt that Valve or most publishers will care that your kids have access to decades-old games after you're gone. Although I could see Ubisoft trying to take action out of spite, but that's only if they're still around by then, they're on pretty shakey ground at the moment.
Better option if this is an important issue for you is to only buy DRM-free. You'll have to wait for most AAA games, but most AAA games these days are increasingly not worth it anyway.
I'm not fundamentally opposed to nuclear. The country's power needs are only going to keep growing, and I could see an argument for having multiple options for sourcing that power. It's a very expensive argument though, and one that's hard to swallow when all the experts are saying renewable is the way to go, and I haven't seen any projections that show that we'd necessarily need anything other than renewables in the foreseeable future.
The thing I'm strongly opposed to with regards to nuclear is rerouting funding away from renewables to pay for it. It's an expensive technology that won't be ready for decades, so I just don't see the need to pivot to it. If we'd started the transition to nuclear three decades ago things would be different, but the LNP was strongly opposed to the technology back then, funnily enough.
And it's absolutely absurd to then announce a cap on renewables spending as part of their plan to get to net zero by 2050.
The whole thing is a farce, and the LNP hasn't given any good reasons why nuclear is the way forward over renewables. They haven't said much of anything other than shout about it being the better option, but then that's been the LNP's go-to political strategy for as long as I've been old enough to vote so no surprise there.
Maybe orcs have always been "soft", but it's taken a cultural shift to get to a point where they're allowed to be themselves.
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.
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.