Australia is back.

After years in game development obscurity following the global financial crisis, an article from GameIndustry.biz has called it: the resurgence of Australia’s game development industry. But, of course, there’s more to it than that.

That’s because the true hero of this comeback story isn’t the studios or the broader ecosystem — and that’s not to talk down their involvement and generosity to one another in supporting each and every game release.

But rather, it’s government support, both at a federal and state level. Many new games get off the ground thanks to state government grants. Meanwhile, larger companies operate competitively on a global stage — in spite of higher costs in Australia — thanks to the country’s fairly new Digital Games Tax Offset.

Yet government support can come with its own challenges, and at times puts the industry in a precarious position of constantly having to sing for its supper. Expanding on Ga…

Read more

Many could see the smoke well before the fire, but less than a few months into Australia’s social media ban for under-16s, one of the world’s largest video game platforms for that age group is under scrutiny.

As of last week, Roblox, a sandbox game where players can design their own experiences, is in the crosshairs of both the eSafety Commissioner’s office and Anika Wells, Australia’s Federal Minister for Communications.

The eSafety Commissioner, the Australian government agency in charge of policing the social media ban and other online safety matters, issued a formal warning to Roblox focused on moderating and policing its in-game chat features, putting it on notice over concerns around the potential for child grooming.

This was followed by an open letter from Minister Wells, asking for a meeting to explain how Roblox is ensuring the safety of its users, and that it is seeking advice from Australia’s classification board around the game’s PG (parental guidance required for those under 15) rating.

Roblox’s issues are well documented, stemming back to a report from Hindenburg Research who labelled the platform a “paedophile hellscape” back in October 2024. They rightly called out major issues with the platform and how it allowed adults with ill-intent direct access to children, and allowed them to groom children via player-designed games and experiences.

But it’s worth keeping in mind that Hindenburg’s intentions here aren’t exactly pure. Roblox is a listed company on the New York Stock Exchange. Hindenburg Research is an investment firm that profits off shorting stock, which essentially means they want to lower its share price to profit from it.

This is just one example of the nuance here that’s getting lost in the wash.

So let’s break it down. The goal here isn’t to weigh in on this one way or another, but rather leave you better informed about how the platform works, the arguments, how we got here, and how once again, for better or worse, Australia may be leading the charge in attempting to regulate the digital world.

What is Roblox?

Roblox is best described as a platform for sandbox-style games. Here’s the big misconception: it’s not one game per se, but rather an ecosystem where users can design their own games and release them via a marketplace.

And it is huge. According to Roblox’s latest annual report, the company has 82.9 million daily active users across 180 countries. The vast majority (80%) play via mobile devices, with only 17% playing via a desktop computer and 3% engaging with the game via console. The game’s audience skews young too: over half of its players (56%) are under 16, the majority (81%) are under 24.

There are all sorts of games (which it instead calls “experiences”) on this platform, from racers through to platformers, and even some monster-tamers (Pokémon-style games). While the number has undoubtedly grown, as of December 2024, the company reported that there are over 14 million experiences overall.

The only thing that they have in common: compared to modern video games they tend to (but not always) sport rudimentary mechanics and graphics, largely because they are player-made.

Roblox is currently trying to court developers into its ecosystem to build more advanced games, and is trying to raise the average age of its player base by doing so. But its most popular games are incredibly basic. As the global games industry is currently trying to reconcile: the kids don’t care about advanced mechanics or graphics.

Financially, Roblox just reported a strong Q4 and its next annual report is due out in May. So its latest annualised financial figures are a little out of date. However, Roblox earned $3.6 billion in revenue in its 2024 financial year (ending 31 December 2024), but overall reported a net loss of $940 million, mainly attributed to engaging more creators to build games on its platform. Despite its scale, it’s not profitable yet.

On that, the company mainly makes money through player transactions — it takes a clip of them — and a subscription service on the platform. Objects in-game cost Robux, which players can buy through real-world currency. The majority of these items are cosmetic (new appearances and animations for your avatar in-game). But Robux can also purchase private servers, or unique features in specific games.

What are the major friction points with child safety on Roblox?

It really revolves around two key points:

1. Potential for inappropriate communication between minors and adults (potentially with ill intentions) in-game. This is the eSafety Commissioner’s main concern.

2. Minors being exposed to explicit content in-game, sometimes in high-traffic titles, despite the game holding a PG classification. This tends to be the main thrust of media stories about the platform and the focus of the Communications Minister’s concerns too.

How did we get to the point where Roblox is being pursued by policymakers in Australia?

It’s likely the eSafety Commissioner had an eye on the platform for a while. Its letter is timed about a month after Roblox rolled out its latest protection feature, age verification, which was broadly panned for how easy it is to circumvent.

Though it’s arguable the Australian media played a significant role in spurring on any political action, including the open letter from Communications Minister Anika Wells. Here’s a brief timeline of the major stories:

• The first major story on the company appeared in November 2024 from the ABC’s 7.30 Report, a month after the release of the Hindenburg Report. It came at a pivotal moment in Australian digital policy, as the government was setting up the framework of the under-16 social media ban.

• A year later, The Guardian Australia released its own story on the matter. Its reporter went onto the platform, posing as an eight-year-old for a week, reporting cyberbullying and explicit content, all with parental safety features turned on.

• This month, News Corp Australia, as part of its Let Them Be Kids campaign, released a similar story, with another reporter posing as a 13-year-old on the platform, honing in on games that promoted suicidal messages, as well as explicit in-game content.

It’s also worth noting that News Corp Australia’s Let Them Be Kids campaign was a key driving force for the introduction of the under-16 social media ban in Australia. Which may go some way to explaining Minister Wells’ response.

How easy is it to fix the main problems facing Roblox?

Pretty difficult. But one is easier to address than the other, according to University of Sydney’s Professor Marcus Carter, who studies interactions and play on Roblox.

Talking about minors being exposed to inappropriate in-game content he said: “It’s a probably impossible content moderation challenge.

“There are these role-playing games, where students role-play teachers or students. Now, how can a moderation system, whether that’s human moderators or robots, which often have AI-enabled capabilities in content moderation, know the difference between a high school role-play game and a Sandy Hook school shooting simulator?”

To compound matters, new content is being added to Roblox daily, across most of its popular games.

The second challenge is more pressing in Professor Carter’s view and more addressable. While Roblox has been trying to crack down on the channels in which adults can communicate with minors in-game, gaps still remain.

“Where I think it’s a really significant problem with Roblox in particular is that their monetisation model is really built around enabling these interactions between adults and children,” he explains.

While most other communications channels have been cracked down on by the platform, Roblox’s trade system still serves as a point of connection between kids and adult players. Players of all ages can use this feature to exchange Robux or items for other unique outfits or in-game items for their character.

Professor Carter argues that the transaction itself still creates a touchpoint for predators, where they can use the lure of Robux or a unique in-game item to bait children onto an less secure platform.

“If you’re an adult, $8 is nothing to you. But to a child who doesn’t have any Robux, that’s everything,” he said.

“That’s how we’re increasingly seeing adults get children off the platform. So I think a real challenge for Roblox,” he says. Players are charged a transaction fee to any Robux exchanged during a trade, making this a blind spot somewhat enshrined by one of the company’s means of generating revenue.

What is Roblox actually doing about this?

In fairness to Roblox, the company isn’t idly sitting by letting the complaints pile on. In its latest annual report, Roblox’s second-largest expense ($915 million) is attributed to safety measures.

But that spend is bundled in with infrastructure and game hosting costs, making it hard to deduce to what extent this is being prioritised. Given its renewed focus on safety, its next annual report may break this out from other figures.

Moves, however, are being made. In recent months the company announced the following new features:

• AI tool that detects when a player is attempting to pull another player onto a different chat platform and disables the chat.

• The active removal of unrated player experiences on the platform. These ratings however, aren’t in line with Australian classifications.

• The introduction of age verification, and regulation of chat to only allow those of an age group to chat with one another.

• Proactive avatar moderation, an AI tool that checks and moderates changes to an avatar (the player’s character) for offensive content before displaying them to other players.

Most of these were announced in a monthly series the company introduced in October 2024 communicating regular safety updates to its platform.

Where to from here?

The issues with Roblox have a way to run, and there are a few different fronts that require attention too.

Despite content moderation being a consistent challenge for the platform, and a focus point for media coverage, Professor Carter says it’s more complicated than just stamping out all inappropriate content.

“There’s studies that show that if a playground is entirely safe, children never learn to look after their bodies and move through it safely, so they actually end up with more injuries,” he said.

“There’s a comparable argument for digital risky play where digital environments can actually offer children safe ways to kind of encounter and play with objectionable themes... And I think what is age appropriate is a lot broader than what, you know, a lot of the journalists writing about these things realise it is. If you spend much time in the playground, you’ll hear some wild stuff that children say and do when they’re playing.” He does acknowledge though that there are boundaries to that argument.

It may soon get easier for parents to understand what’s appropriate and what’s not on Roblox, at least for Australians. The Classification Board of Australia confirmed to Infinite Lives that Roblox has recently joined the International Age Rating Coalition (IARC), a group dedicated to a globalised age rating system for content. That means that in time, the company will start using Australia’s classification system in its content, in lieu of the broad (and occasionally vague) age recommendations it currently provides.

Meanwhile, the eSafety Commissioner will conduct its own investigation into the communications channels supplied to minors on Roblox. Should they prove inadequate in protecting them, despite their earlier assurances, it could face penalties of up to $49.5 million. That may be the next major flashpoint in this evolving story. Along with any further action following Minister Wells’ meeting with the company.

As Infinite Lives pointed out back in 2024, Australia’s social media ban legislation is fairly open-ended, and at stages during the drafting looked as if it could pivot to include online games. As a nuclear option, an amendment to include a platform like Roblox wouldn’t be out of the question.

Though singling out Roblox may not be the right approach. While Tim Levy, CEO of online child safety platform Qoria, agrees with the government’s latest moves, but warns against its “whack-a-mole” strategy targeting particular platforms.

“The community needs to be empowered through technology to gate access and ensure age-appropriate experiences apply across the entire internet. The technology to achieve this broadly exists today and is used by big businesses to protect employees and corporate data,” he said.

“In short, the government’s efforts to make Roblox safer are meritorious and important, however a more holistic approach to safety is needed to ensure that risk and children don’t simply move to other parts of the internet.”

I’m a parent. Help!

You’ve read this whole article, and it hasn’t answered the one question you had: how do I protect my kids?

For that, I’d turn to Crossplay on Substack. It’s a really excellent dedicated resource for parents grappling with gaming-related challenges. It has over 10,000 subscribers, testament to just how significant this issue is.

There are several articles on Roblox, and its editor Patrick Klepek has been hawkish in calling out all the loopholes—often discovered through his personal experiences with his kids—and issues with Roblox for a while now.

Crucially, he’s a dedicated games journalist, so he understands that element of the platform better than a lot of the general reporters who are dipping in and out of the story. He’s well worth following and subscribing to if you have concerns. I’ve included some links to interesting articles below to get you started.

Crossplay

How Parents and Kids Are Dealing With Roblox's Messy New Age Requirements

The last place I expected to field questions about Roblox parental controls was as my chest was about to explode during one of the most important football game of my life…

Read more

3 months ago · 11 likes · 2 comments · Patrick Klepek

Crossplay

It's Irresponsible How Easy Children Can Make New Accounts on Roblox

On Christmas morning, my nine-year-old daughter got her phone back. Because she’d forgotten her PIN, we also had to wipe the device and start from scratch. Her Google account, at least, meant that we weren’t entirely starting over with things like photos…

Read more

3 months ago · 19 likes · 5 comments · Patrick Klepek

What do you think about Australia’s latest posturing on Roblox? And are you a parent with kids on Roblox? You’ll surely have better tips than me! Let us all know about them in the comments.

I’ve often wondered why October feels so bloody busy.

Every year, without fail, a cavalcade of major games are launched around late September and early October. They often smother one another; before you can finish one, another blockbuster is already out.

You could argue that it’s a fantastic launch window for the run-up to Christmas, with plenty of time to market them ahead of people buying presents. It makes sense.

But here’s a more cynical view: These games could be trying to leverage recency bias to win big at The Game Awards in December. They are judged late October into November. Quick primer: recency bias is where people give disproportionate weight to recent experiences in decision-making.

It’s a question that I think a lot of spectators of the event ask, but it never really gets answered. There’s a bit of added currency to it too, given release date for Grand Theft Auto 6—a sequel to one of the best-selling games of all time—has been moved yet again, from 24 May to 26 November 2026.

This will place it well outside the running for a Game Award next year, and may also make it difficult for the game to score the prize in 2027 too.

So I wanted to look at how release dates of major games affect the awards and if there’s a correlation. Never heard of The Game Awards before? Don’t worry, I have you covered with some additional background below.

Hold up, what are The Game Awards?

Launching in 2014, The Game Awards are an industry awards night run by former games journalist turned events industry entrepreneur Geoff Keighley.

Over the past decade it’s arguably become the main awards night of the games sector, with last year’s event amassing over 154 million viewers via global live-streaming. This year’s awards is being held on December 11.

Colloquially, it serves as the focal point for a myriad of other awards for the best game of the year. Many publications run their own awards. There’s also plenty of other industry accolades including the BAFTA Game Awards, The Golden Joystick Awards and the D.I.C.E. Awards.

But The Game Awards are the closest thing the gaming industry will get to its own version of the Grammys or The Academy Awards.

Perhaps the biggest difference is that the actual awards top and tail the stream, with many of them announced on the night without too much fanfare. Acceptance speeches are kept to a minimum. Viewers are arguably more tuned in for the trailers and launch announcements strewn throughout it. It’s like watching the Super Bowl for the ads.

How are they judged?

The broad strokes of how The Game Awards are judged are public, but some of the more intricate details aren’t as clear. Here’s what we do know:

• First, a jury panel — which has grown over time to hold 100 media outlets and influencers globally — submits ballots to determine the nominees.

• Then the same (or similar) group votes on the nominees to decide winners. This jury vote carries about 90% of the decision.

• Meanwhile, the public can cast online votes (typically opening shortly after the nomination announcement in November). These votes constitute roughly 10% of the decision, and can tip the balance in some instances.

Behind the scenes, the exact mechanics for how each outlet tallies votes, how votes are verified and how ballots are processed remain largely undisclosed. Polygon has an excellent article on this if you are after more details.

So, are you more likely to win Game of The Year if you launch your game later in the year?

At a glance, no.

Looking at an analysis of the past 11 winners to date, slightly more games that received the top prize were actually released in Q2 (April, May, June) of their corresponding year.

But of course that doesn’t explain the glut of games that tend to launch around the September, October, November window. Looking at the total pool of Game of The Year finalists for each year actually paints a much more nuanced picture.

In this instance, there’s a clear trend between launching a major game towards the end of the year and making it into the pool of finalists for consideration — which is still an achievement in itself.

This suggests that there is some form of recency bias involved in the judging process; however, it ultimately doesn’t affect the decision around the winner.

Any interesting outliers?

Generally speaking, games that are launched in December or close to the awards don’t actually make it into consideration for the following year’s Game Awards.

One classic example of this is Marvel’s Midnight Suns, a strategy game that launched 2 December 2022, and despite some acclaim didn’t quite muster a nomination for Game of The Year or Best Role-Playing Game.

There’s one exception to this, however, for the Game of The Year finalists. Smash Bros Ultimate launched 7 December 2018, and it was nominated for Game of The Year in 2019. It’s currently the only game to buck the trend.

This is all interesting, but what’s your pick for Game of The Year this year?

My own recency bias is in play here, but I think Ghost of Yotei, an open-world revenge quest set in 17th century Japan, will likely win it.

I’m yet to review it for this newsletter, but after finishing the game it felt like a clear contender for the top prize, given the game’s excellent pacing, storytelling and artistic style.

I stand by my call earlier this year that Kingdom Come II: Deliverance is a clear contender. But while that was mechanically interesting and really fun to play, the whimsy and storytelling of role-playing darling Clair Obscura surpasses it. If not for Ghost of Yotei, I’d say it would win.

Nintendo is likely out of the race this year. Platformer Donkey Kong Bonanza is lacking a smidge of polish compared to other past Nintendo winners, and it’s also a new console exclusive. And while Mario Kart World is a phenomenal racer, it would be defying the odds to get the top prize.

What do you think of The Game Awards, and who do you think will win this year’s prize? Do release dates matter? Let me know in the comments.

Infinite Lives is free to read, but requires a paid subscription to access over 80 past articles, including more explainers, unique analysis and game reviews. Each paid subscription helps support independent games journalism in Australia.

A month out from the console launch, and players around the world are still finding new and exciting things about the Switch 2 console. But for some users, particularly those in gaming's more technical communities, they're discovering Nintendo's new enforcement policy.

As first reported on Substack by Game File, the legal agreement accompanying Nintendo's new console — its terms of service — includes some significant new clauses. Breaking new ground in the way technology companies police how users interact with their devices, the agreement states that Nintendo has the ability to disable a Switch 2 console or services tied to it if it detects tampering or inappropriate use.

In this case, that largely means modding (modifying the console's software or hardware), altering the console or datamining its games.

But as experts told Infinite Lives, this issue goes beyond piracy or even hacking games for cheat codes or an advantage. It wades into murkier territory like game history preservation, accessibility, and consumer rights in the digital age. It's a complicated topic, so let's break it down.

What's a Terms of Service (ToS) agreement?

Anyone who's used any form of technology over the past few years has likely signed plenty of these documents, possibly without realising.

Terms of service forms outline the legal framework supporting a piece of software or technology and how they are intended to be used. They also spell out your rights as a user of the product and the conditions under which you are able to use it.

As the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) pointed out in a report last month, most users — especially those in a gaming context — do not read these agreements before signing them.

While we're yet to see this play out in a gaming context, terms of service blindness and some clever legal work from companies has led to curious circumstances in other industries. For instance, Disney+'s terms of service famously smuggled in a clause which forced anyone legally pursuing the company into arbitration — a form of dispute resolution — rather than court.

Why would Nintendo do this with their ToS?

For a family-friendly company, Nintendo actually has a long history of legally pursuing companies that either infringe its intellectual property or enable others to do so. Its last prominent case in Australia was back in 2010, when it successfully sued a local distributor of the R4 mod chip.

Intellectual property and technology lawyer for Thomson Geer, Briar Francis, says that this shift in its terms of service agreement is best seen as an anti-piracy measure, aimed at curbing the circulation of illegal copies of their games.

"This tactic by Nintendo puts the pirates to one side, and shifts the focus on consumers of pirated content," Francis says.

"It's probably a clever move because you're not going to convince pirates to stop, but if you've paid $700 for your Switch, you might think twice about modding or downloading pirated content and losing access to your device."

She adds that in Australia there isn't any "cheap and cheerful" traditional legal remedy for IP infringement, meaning any case from Nintendo would typically need to be taken to the Federal Court — a potentially costly endeavour.

"It's definitely more of a problem with games sold at a higher price point — obviously, the more inaccessible a game is, the bigger the demand for a pirated copy."

"Selling 'cracked' software like popular games and industry staples, such as engineering, estimating software and Photoshop, can be lucrative."

What do digital rights groups think of this news?

They're unsurprisingly not happy with the move. However, they argue this goes beyond simple IP protection, and branches into some murkier territory.

America's Electronic Frontiers Foundation special adviser Cory Doctorow said Nintendo's new terms of service actively punishes efforts to preserve video game history or hack games to make them more accessible for those with a disability. Two issues where Nintendo has historically lagged behind its competitors.

"This isn't about protecting honest players from cheaters — it's about protecting Nintendo's shareholders from any legal conduct that they would prefer you not get up to," Doctorow said.

John Pane, chair of Electronic Frontiers Australia, said the new policy challenges the notion of consumer ownership.

"EFA holds strong concerns where hardware manufacturers dictate the use of devices long after they have been sold, impacting repairability, customisation, and even the ability to use legally purchased software," he said.

"While intellectual property protection is important, it must not come at the cost of undermining the foundational principles of privacy, security, consumer protection and device ownership."

"Without transparency in the detection methods and a robust and responsive system for user recourse, such actions are arbitrary and punitive, leaving users with no avenue to defend themselves or retrieve their purchased content and services. There should be protections against this practice under Australian Consumer Protection law."

Could this be challenged legally in Australia?

If there was any country where this could be successfully challenged, it could be right here in Australia.

We have a track record of busting overreaching terms and conditions peddled by video game companies. The ACCC won a case against Valve over its no-refund policy in 2017, and as a result the company has now adjusted its stance on this globally.

In this instance however, the regulator is holding its cards close to its chest. In response to questions from Infinite Lives, the ACCC provided a broader response with the guarantees and protections offered by Australian Consumer Law.

"Manufacturers of consumer electronics may have certain terms in their user agreements regarding protections to prevent the misuse of their manufactured devices," an ACCC spokesperson said.

"However, those terms can only provide the manufacturers with rights that are reasonably necessary to protect their legitimate interests. If this is not the case, they risk contravening the unfair contract terms (UCT) prohibition."

"Whether there is any breach of the ACL in any particular instance will depend on all the circumstances involved."

Thomson Geer's Briar Francis offered a more granular answer. She's not aware of any legal precedent identical to these circumstances, so the matter would need to be settled by a court."While it's been around since 2019, changes to the UCT regime came into effect in 2023 which vastly expanded its scope, so we're still testing the limits of this rule."

"In circumstances where Nintendo can render an entire console effectively inoperable as the result of a single pirated game, Nintendo would say that the clause protects its legitimate interests in enforcing its IP rights."

"But when the purchase of the console itself was above-board, I think there's an argument to be had that it would be more reasonable to only allow Nintendo to render the pirated game itself inoperable on the Switch 2," she says.

"This could be a different story where a user has committed multiple instances of piracy, in which case it might be considered more reasonable to 'kill' the console entirely. I imagine this is why the TOS enables Nintendo to render the Nintendo Account Services or the device itself permanently unusable in whole or in part. Nintendo has afforded itself some flexibility, there."

The implications of Nintendo's new terms of service extend far beyond simple piracy prevention. As digital rights advocates argue, this shift represents a fundamental challenge to consumer ownership rights in the digital age — one that could set a precedent for how other technology companies police user behaviour.

What do you think about Nintendo's new terms of service? Is it overreaching? Is it a reasonable way for them to stamp out piracy, which costs them millions to police? Let me know in the comments.

But what may intrigue you is how I'm introducing it. And what it all means. I'm looking to do something a little different here.

So how will paid subscriptions work?

If you already get my emails, you likely won't notice the difference. But now you'll have the option to support me through Substack's paid subscription tools.

For clarity: Substack takes around 10% and Stripe takes 3% as a payment fee.

Here are the nuts and bolts:

All new editions of Infinite Lives will continue to be free to read. That's right—don't sweat it if you've just signed up. You'll continue to get up to two emails a week from me on gaming.

When I publish a new post, the previous one will be locked to paid subscribers. So the sooner you subscribe, the more of the archive you'll retain access to. The only articles that will never be locked are my Greatest In Gaming Substack collaboration series, as they exist to showcase other amazing writers on this platform.

Paid subscribers will get an additional quarterly update on the publication. You're investing in me—both me and Infinite Lives—and in the long term, the broader Australian gaming ecosystem. I want you to know how that's tracking. This is a starting point. Over time, I'll aim to roll out more perks and benefits for members.

As for my subscription, I'm setting it at $5.50 AUD ($3.50 USD) per month. It's the same price as if you bought me a Melbourne coffee each month.

There will also be an annual plan with a discount ($60 AUD, $38 USD per year) Over time I'll add more benefits to these offerings, but the goal for today is just to get subscriptions started. You can upgrade your subscription using the button below.

Subscribe now

Where will the money go?

I'll be investing in the publication, focussing on a few areas:

Pay for more writers telling uniquely Australian gaming stories. The goal is to run at least one freelance piece on Infinite Lives before the end of 2025. The stretch goal is one per month. I'm missing stories due to a lack of contacts in the indie dev scene here, which I'm slowly building.

Become a Substack bestseller. That's reaching 100 paid subscribers. Substack is a private company, not a charity. Money talks. If gaming publications earn them enough revenue, they will prioritise them and proactively work to grow the ecosystem, rather than ignore it, as they somewhat have done previously.

Overhaul the AI art. A redesign of the site's logo and graphics. The AI art got me off the ground, but I think a human eye would do wonders for creating a memorable brand.

Invest in bringing a broader audience to the Substack games writing community, to benefit everyone here. I've seen many dabble with Reddit and other channels to get more people here. There are various paid mechanisms we can also use, and I happen to know some of the best marketers in the business to help me do it.

Support other quality, journalistic Substack gaming writers. I want to support writers who hold the same principles as me regarding accuracy, interviewing and doing—where you can—the legwork required for a story. Or others that add value to the ecosystem or have a unique viewpoint on the sector.

I’m a new subscriber. What does this all mean?

I've had a burst of subscribers this month (over 40), so I wanted to address new readers directly here.

You'll continue to get my emails for free. And I will be gradually locking my older articles over the course of the next month—giving you time to read them too (if that's of interest).

I recently went about categorising all of them on my homepage to make them easier to find. Here are a few that have stood the test of time quite well:

I’ve also sorted all of my articles into category sections on my homepage to make them a little easier to discover.

The standard playbook for paid subscriptions is to offer limited free articles and then put the majority behind a paywall. I'm trying something different here. I'm hoping it works, but it's been designed to reward older subscribers while still not locking out newer ones.

I can’t afford to subscribe. How can I still support you?

More than reasonable.

I genuinely appreciate everyone who takes the time to read, like and comment on my articles. It's also a great way to find other gaming-adjacent writers on here. I try my best to get back to each of you and, at a minimum, acknowledge your thoughts.

Forwarding my emails to a friend or sharing pieces on other platforms is a huge help for me in terms of getting the word out about my publication. Every link out helps.

Let me know what you think in the comments, especially if you're a long-time reader of my Substack. Thank you again for supporting me, and I hope Infinite Lives brings you as much joy as it brings me to write it each week!

Editors note: Since publication the release date of this game has shifted yet again. Now its launching on November 26, 2026.

Read more

Sony arguably fired the first salvo. Late last year, it launched the PlayStation 5 Pro with a $1,200 ($699 USD) price tag. This represented a hike of over $450 from the base model, with the promise of improved graphics and performance, but no disc drive. Essentially confining would-be buyers to either purchasing their own or relying on Sony's more expensive online store.

The internet recoiled at the price, but Sony's sales tell another story. In its Q3 last year (over the holiday period), the company had its best quarter yet for PlayStation 5 sales. Sony did not break out PlayStation 5 Pro in its results, but its overall console sales infer a bump in units shipped.

Fast forward to last week, Nintendo has now followed suit. The long-anticipated Switch 2 will launch at $699 ($450 USD), with a bundle containing the hotly anticipated Mario Kart World coming in at $749 ($…

Read more

Assassin's Creed is a series known for stealth, subterfuge and of course, assassinations. But in a bizarre twist of fate, the launch of a game known for justifiable murder, could end up unintentionally killing its creator.

One of Europe's largest gaming companies, Ubisoft, has a lot riding on the launch of its next game, Assassin's Creed Shadows (releasing March 20). It’s share price is slipping and takeover rumours are swirling. All the while, the company is in court regarding allegations of workplace misconduct and sexual harassment. And it’s last two big bets — Star Wars: Outlaws and Avatar: Frontier of Pandora — failed to generate traction.

It doesn't take a financial analyst to read the writing on the wall. But how did we get here? And how did a company that actually hit a new record for game sales last financial year end being a takeover target?

Read more

Before Infinite Lives was conceived and launched this time last year, there was another name floating around for this newsletter: Utility Jigglypuff. It was an in-joke among my mates that just wouldn't die.

Hot off watching a video from Aaron "Cybertron" Zheng, a competitive Pokémon player, professional commentator and YouTuber, I was explaining how the hyper-competitive side of this game had given the humble Jigglypuff a new lease at life as a utility Pokémon — a term for one that is focused on opponent disruption, as opposed to dealing damage.

The phrase kinda stuck, and wouldn't go away. It didn't help that much like Jigglypuff in the Pokémon anime, I bite way too easily and get worked up over the smallest things.

I've been watching competitive Pokémon for a while now as my esport of choice. I got into it back during Melbourne's COVID lockdown. Each night, I would log on and play a handful of battles online and over the period of a month climbed to Masterball rank — the highest tier. It didn't sound like much of an achievement to my friends or family. But it was a slog.

It kind of hit me then that Pokémon as a franchise lives this weird double-life. To most, it's a kids game. One where you catch cute monsters, nickname and train them. Yet, for a significant number of players globally, it's one of the most complicated games on the planet, requiring an encyclopaedic level of knowledge, a head for quick math and a knack for anticipating the moves of the other player.

Enjoying this newsletter? Help me grow it! Flick this email to a mate or if you are new here, click the button below to sign up.

Subscribe now

Professional Pokémon streamers and players tend to get a bad rap in mainstream media as adults overindulging in a kids game. But make no mistake, despite its fluffy marketing and child-minded narrative, Pokémon is designed for sophisticated and intricate competitive play. With today being International Pokémon Day, for this week's column, I correct the record and dig into the complexity and slight controversy of the global Pokémon competitive scene.

What is competitive Pokémon?

Competitive Pokémon — or Pokémon Video Game Championships (VGC) — is a global esport set up and managed by The Pokémon Company. It's one of the few major Nintendo-based esports with a global footprint and a significant prize pool. There's three main divisions of VGC: Junior (born in or before 2013), Senior (born 2009 and 2012) and Masters (born before 2008). Yes, there are two 'kids' divisions. But don't be fooled, this is not a kids game.

There's usually exponentially more players in the Masters Division than there are in the Junior and Senior Divisions.

There is a global prize pool, but it's not enough to give up your day job. Many top global players also stream their matches, provide expertise or commentate to supplement their income. The Pokémon Company is offering its largest total prize pool to date, of around $2 million split across all events — including Pokémon Go and Pokémon, The Card Game (TCG). Winning VGC at the championship in Anaheim, California this year will net you $30,000 USD, with second place receiving $20,000 USD.

All matches in VGC are double-battles, meaning you face off your opponent with two Pokémon at the same time. By competing in local offical tournaments you earn points that can qualify you for an invite to the global championship, where the big prize pool is up for grabs.

But hold up, isn't this a kids game? And one based off rock-paper-scissors? How complex can it actually be?

Fair enough. Pokémon is deceptively targeted at kids through its marketing, simplicity of its main game and anime shows. But let me tell you, it's a game of four-dimensional chess if there ever was one.

Regular players will tell me I'm not covering half of it here, but with simplicity in mind, I'll do my best here to describe some of the things running through any Pokemon players’ mind during any given match:

Total number of Pokémon: We've come a long way from the original 151 Pokémon from the first release in 1996. There's now a total of 1,025 Pokémon, with several older Pokémon now having regional variations that you have to be across too. A good 100 or so Pokémon are generally considered usable in VGC, but there's always room for surprises.

Pokémon types: There's 18 types to consider, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. Water beats fire, which is beaten by grass. Each Pokémon has a type (or two), but can also circumstantially learn moves of another type. For instance, Charizard can learn Solar Beam, a grass-type move that helps it 'cover' if someone uses a water type against it.

Pokémon stats: Each Pokémon has a unique set of attributes that govern how it fares in battle. Attack determines how hard it hits with physical attacks. How much damage is taken is mitigated by the opposing Pokémon's defense stat. Some Pokémon have more health, governed by the HP stat. Others move first in combat, governed by the speed stat. You can also train your Pokémon around their base stats, and breed them to have a focus on one stat too.

Pokémon abilities: Each Pokémon has a unique ability that can give it an edge in combat. Some can't be put to sleep. Others have their attack stat doubled. Usually Pokémon have access to around three abilities.

Pokémon moves: Each Pokémon can only retain four moves at a time. There's a total of 934 moves in the game, all with different levels of power and effects. Pokémon can generally operate with a toolkit of around 50 moves that they can run. Knowing what moves can be learned by the opposing Pokémon can help predict what it will do.

Held-items: Each Pokémon can hold an item that can completely change how it behaves in combat. Some enhance its attack or speed stat, but in return lock it into one move. Others allow the Pokémon to switch out for free after just one attack.

Status effects: These affect how a Pokémon performs in battle. Paralysis slows a Pokémon down, and can make it miss turns. Sleep shuts a Pokémon down completely for up to two turns, with a chance to awaken each turn. Used effectively, these moves can win a battle outright.

Weather: Sun, Rain, Sandstorm and Snow are weather conditions that can be triggered by Pokémon and affect various types and moves. The power of Fire-type moves are doubled and water-type are halved in sunny conditions, for example.

That's an overview. There's a lot more to it, including: terastallization types, terrains, softer status effects like confusion, move priority, which circumvents the speed stat. Still think it's just for kids?

So how does a match actually work?

As I mentioned, VGC is a Pokémon Double battle, which means each player controls two Pokémon on the field at a given time. You enter a battle with six Pokémon, then pick four of them to use based on seeing the opponent's team. More often than not, your selection here can outright decide whether you win or lose.

Then, the battle commences. Your first two Pokémon are sent in, and you see your opponent's Pokémon. Abilities trigger, depending on the speed of the Pokémon on the field. You can then attack the opposing Pokémon or make a strategic switch. There's no limit on switching. You have 45 seconds to decide your moves, then it plays out in the game.

The first player to knock out an opposing team wins that battle. Winning the match is a best of three battles. You can adjust which four Pokémon you bring each battle. Matches go for a total of 20 minutes, after this the player with the least fainted Pokémon, or most games under their belts wins. This is a quick summary, but there's a full rulebook available online.

It sounds like you have to be a walking Pokédex to be good at this game. What is actually fun about it? Pokémon VGC is one of the few esports that relies on pure brain power, game knowledge and anticipation of your opponent. This differs from many other esports that heavily rely on reaction time.

It can be incredibly rewarding building your own team and piloting it to success. Especially if you are creating something unique that nobody else has seen, or that utilises a Pokémon that's not common.

Often, Pokémon can be a game of math. The difference between winning and losing can be as simple as knowing whether a move faints a Pokémon in one, two or three hits. But there's variance here too: Moves can miss, and can also critical hit — dealing 50% more damage. So winning can come down to a bit of luck too.

To what extent is the competitive Pokémon scene supported by Nintendo?

The Pokémon World Championship is more or less the exception to the rule with how Nintendo engages it competitive scene. Nintendo has a dicey history with the sector. It's quashed the ability of others to hold events with prize pools for its fighter title Smash Bros. Its own competitions are significantly lower key than the Pokémon World Championship, offering custom controllers and gaming chairs as prizes.

However, Nintendo only owns a stake in The Pokémon Company which runs the event, it does not outright own the property.

It's arguable that the Pokémon World Championship is in fact a card game tournament at its heart, with the video games bolted on for good measure. This is somewhat indicated by the prize pools tied to the event, winning first place in Pokémon TCG world championship will net you $50,000 USD.

Are there any controversies I should know about?

Of course there are: Competitive Pokémon has its own ongoing cheating scandal.

It takes a lot of time to breed and train Pokémon for competitive play. In my personal experience: one monster can take almost five hours of pure gameplay grinding to get into fighting form, and even then it won't be perfect. Meanwhile, the meta of VGC changes very quickly. New gimmicks and teams come up all the time, and if you don't adjust for them, you will just outright lose through no fault of your own.

The time investment required to maintain competitive viability has led some players to turn to unauthorised methods. Some either hack the game or purchase 'hacked' Pokémon — creatures with optimal stats that are ready for VGC competition. And yes, there are sites that sell hacked Pokémon.

Accounts vary across the web as to how commonplace this practice is. But, to be clear, it's against the rules of VGC. If you hack a Pokémon to do something it can't already do, then that's an immediate red flag and if caught you will be disqualified. But if you are using hacking to simply speed up the process of training Pokémon, it's still illegal if you get caught but it can be harder to spot.

The Pokémon Company could address this issue and eliminate the associated black market by making Pokémon easier to customise when trained in future games. Newer games have progressively made training new Pokémon simpler over time, but not easy enough to completely eliminate the grind of it. As a result, the hacking of Pokémon persists.

I'm interested. What are some good resources for me to follow if I want to start playing?

First off, play the game: Violet and Scarlet are the latest. And to keep up with the VGC meta, you need to own both expansions of the game too. Endgame content in Pokémon games is typically designed to ready players to compete at a VGC level, albeit after an inordinate amount of repetitive gameplay from Pokémon breeding and training.

The fix for this in the current game is rental codes. Using a code off the internet you can borrow someone else's team and give it a whirl. Just look up ‘Pokémon VGC’ on YouTube and you'll see plenty of teams and rental codes to get you started. I wouldn't, however, use a rental team in a proper tournament as it's likely your opponent will know exactly what it does.

If you don't want to go through the rigmarole of trying to train and breed Pokémon to a level where they can compete effectively, and want more flexibility than the rental system, I'd give Pokémon Showdown a go. It's free, and the unofficial training ground for VGC play. It allows you to customise your team on the fly.

And in terms of studying up, Serebii is the go-to resource for everything Pokémon. It has thousands of pages detailing each and every creature, move, ability and type. Smogon University on the other hand, gives you an idea of what movesets and builds you can expect with any given Pokémon.

Beyond that, it's worth watching other players to get a feel for the game and how it works. I'm a big fan of Aaron Zheng and Wolfe Glicke's content, but there are plenty out there.

Has this article changed your mind about Pokémon? Would you give competitive Pokémon a go? Or are you already a pro player? And what was the most surprising thing you learned? Let me know in the comments.

It was a policy blitz like no other. No less than 31 separate bills were passed by our government on 28 November, clearing the way for a Federal Election in Australia at some point next year. Among them, a controversial but broadly supported bill to ban those under 16 from accessing social media. It's generated headlines around the world as, once again, Australia has taken the front foot in attempting to legislate big tech — potentially paving the way for other jurisdictions to follow.

But what does this have to do with gaming?

In the lead-up to the social media bill passing parliament, panic emerged that online video games could be included in the ban. The definition for social media in the draft legislation was broad, and several media outlets had identified that this could mean that any and all online games, and services that facilitate online gaming — such as Steam, Xbox Live and the PlayStation Network — could be in the policy's crosshairs.

Subscribe now

Enjoying this newsletter? Help me grow it! Forward it to a friend’s inbox or share a link on your socials.

While the bill has now passed the Senate and will become law at some point next year, this was later ruled out by a press release from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

'The bill ensures that the law is responsive to the ever-evolving nature of technology, while enabling continued access to messaging, online gaming, and services and apps that are primarily for the purposes of education and health support – like Headspace, Kids Helpline, Google Classroom and YouTube,' the release said.

But gaming isn't quite in the clear just yet. Concerns are emerging that with the legislation opening the door to this kind of regulation, we may be one media storm, moral panic or change of Communications Minister away from gaming tumbling its way into this policy. And with the number of employed journalists who understand and regularly communicate with the sector at an all-time low, it's an easier political target than ever before — especially during an election year.

So how did this all happen? And what could it mean for the year ahead? Here's a primer on Australia's new social media laws and how it interacted with gaming.

How did this policy to ban under-16s from social media emerge?

The iconic January Senate Hearings, where the CEOs from Meta, X, Discord, and Snap all testified to a backdrop of grieving and angry parents — offering everything but an apology — made headlines around the world. But we didn't exactly act on it immediately here in Australia.

A few months later in May, News Corp — Australia's largest publisher — launched a major campaign titled 'Let Them Be Kids' aimed at raising the age limit for social media to 16. It ran stories across its publications and also a major Change.org petition amassing over 54,000 signatures to date.

The more wry view — as pointed out by Australian independent news outlet Crikey — is that News Corp started campaigning on the bans after Meta pulled out of a major agreement to fund newsrooms for their content in late February.

We then saw the South Australian state government lead its own ban against social media use under 16, followed by a Federal Government policy announced in November. There was then a one-day industry consultation on this policy. Interested parties had less than a day's notice to submit their view before the government made decisions on the policy. For context, policy consultations in Australia tend to span weeks, if not months.

And now, as of 28 November, it's law.

What's the reception to the policy?

It's popular but contentious. Its popularity with key polling demographics and the emotion behind it is perhaps one of the key reasons it passed parliament so quickly and with so little in the way of debate and consultation.

It has, however, been challenged by human rights, children's rights advocates and digital industry academics, who broadly insist that it's both going to be hard to police and potentially the wrong approach for managing minors' interaction with this technology.

Reading through the shotgun one-day submissions to the policy, all parties acknowledge there is a problem, but those opposed to the ban are generally advocating for a more nuanced discussion and solution.

So how does this tie in with gaming?

An article by Australia's national broadcaster the ABC in September was the first to broadly throw online gaming into the mix, riffing off comments from South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas.

“Online gaming — with those types of communicative methods where we know that there have been examples tragically of child-sex offenders seeking to prey on young people using those messaging within gaming formats — they would be covered under the proposition from [review author] Robert French unless they can demonstrate a need for or a justification for an exemption,” he said.

This line of commentary was perhaps compounded by the release of a report from stock-shorting analysis firm Hindenburg Research in October which described popular kids' game Roblox as a 'paedophile hellscape' saying that in the firm's own assessment, its avatars were able to engage in broadly accessible sex games and they found groups openly trading child pornography via the platform.

The company refuted the report in its own statement on the matter, pointing towards Roblox's parental controls, AI-powered moderation features and the fact that parents can deactivate online chat functions in the game.

So the bill has passed. Surely gaming is in the clear?

For now, yes. But it's on a knife's edge.

We're moving into an election year and this bill has essentially opened the door for future regulation of the gaming industry in this regard. That's the view of several experts, including Marcus Carter, Professor of Human-Computer Interaction at The University of Sydney. He penned an opinion piece for The Conversation arguing why games should be omitted from the ban.

His point: Looking back at how the ban came to fruition, we may be one moral panic away from a political knee-jerk against gaming. 'I'm gravely concerned that a trigger-happy Communications Minister will respond to a media panic and parental anxiety around digital gaming,' he said. He cited a report from ABC's 7:30 digging into Roblox and the Hindenburg report days after the social media laws passed as an example. Enough fuel on the fire and that could trigger a response.

In Carter's eyes, this should be a warning shot for gaming companies to start taking children's safety seriously. “It would be dishonest to say that video game companies are doing everything that they could to afford young Australians the best play environment,” he said, pointing out that every moral panic has a kernel of truth to it.

Technology law and policy expert, Leanne O'Donnell says that as the legislation currently reads, regardless of what's mentioned in the Prime Minister's press release, gaming could still be sniped by the policy at a later stage.

"The definition of an age-restricted social media platform is deliberately very broad. Many online gaming services would fall within the definition," she explains.

"The Explanatory Memorandum that accompanies the legislation explains that the Communications Minister intends to consult and make rules excluding messaging apps, online gaming services and platforms with the primary purpose of supporting the health or education of end users."

"However, there is no guarantee that any rules made by the Minister will exclude online gaming services."

So if the gaming industry wants to avoid this, what needs to happen now?

O'Donnell suggests the industry and concerned gamers engage with any future consultation process to put forward their position that gaming services be excluded from the scope of the minimum age requirement.

"Even if the Minister does ultimately make rules to exclude gaming, a new Minister — after the 2025 election, for example — could make new rules reversing this position," she says.

"That the Minister chose not to expressly exclude gaming from the new definition of age-restricted social media platform creates uncertainty for gamers and the industry."

But there's also a broader education piece for parents too, says Carter, considering groups representing them may be the key proponents of such a policy shift against online gaming. Many are motivated by protecting old values or ideals as to what childhood looks like, as opposed to managing and embracing what it's become, he says.

He points to an example from one of his studies on the matter: a parent complained to the researcher that their child's engagement with Roblox was getting out of hand as they were now using two screens to play the game. The researcher interviewed the child and found that they were booting up two simultaneous instances of Roblox so they could use one instance to recreate an Olivia Rodrigo music video and another instance to record it. Carter says that if the child was doing the same thing with a video camera in their bedroom, the parent would understand it and see it as normal behaviour. But in a gaming context, it's unknown and therefore immediately deemed as ominous.

What does Australia's games industry peak body have to say about this policy?

Interactive Games and Entertainment Association (IGEA) is the most active industry body representing the video game industry. It didn't make a submission to the one-day policy inquiry process on the social media laws.

But its CEO Ron Curry did offer this statement to Infinite Lives when asked for its view: “Video games are fundamentally different from social media platforms. While social media is primarily about socialising and sharing content, the essence of video games lies in play and this distinction is crucial. Video games are also regulated by the National Classification Scheme, providing clear guidelines on age-appropriateness and content.”

Should those that game in Australia care?

That's a tricky one to answer. I'm not a parent, so perhaps that colours my view on this, but here we go. Most who game — especially those who are also parents — would likely agree that children's safety is an important issue and that gaming companies need to address it. Everyone deserves to feel safe and supported while they play online. Whether the classification system is enough is a complex question and one likely deserving of a deeper discussion.

But, if we take children's safety out of the equation: I think the gaming community, of whom the IGEA's studies say the majority are over 16, will more broadly care if a ban of online gaming platforms for those under that age leads gaming companies to simply abandon Australia as a market.

That would be a drastic move but not entirely unprecedented. Before the introduction of an R18+ classification category, we've seen game companies simply skip Australia for their launch. We're a much smaller market than plenty of other countries, and tailoring a product just for us at some point just becomes commercially unviable.

Are there global ramifications here too?

This wouldn't be the first time a country has attempted to regulate video games for minors. As detailed by The Conversation, China originally introduced legislation against game time for those under 18 in 2019. That was amended in 2021 to introduce limits on online gaming for minors to one hour per week, between 8pm to 9pm on Fridays. However, a recent study found that 77% of minors evaded the checks and measures — which included facial recognition — aimed at preventing them from playing games.

It would be naive to assume that Australia is not the test case here for other countries looking at similar laws, including the US. University of Sydney's Professor Carter agrees: “I'd be amazed if this didn't have an impact on how this global conversation is happening. My only hope for other countries is that they don't rush this through.”

What I'm Playing: Resident Evil Village

There's a lot of hot takes going around about what we should expect to see in terms of trailers at this year's Game Awards on Friday (AEST). But for my money, we're overdue some news on a new Resident Evil game.

Capcom typically pumps out these titles every two to three years, alternating between remaking an older game and pushing the overall franchise forward. The last title was a remake released in 2023, so perhaps we're in for a new game? For posterity, I recently replayed Resident Evil Village, which was initially released in 2021. It's not the latest in the franchise, but in terms of the series' notoriously bonkers story, it's the most current.

The basic premise is that the protagonist of the last game, Ethan Winters, has a baby and moves to Europe after the horrific events of Resident Evil 7. Just as Winters and his wife Mia are settling into their new life, their baby daughter is kidnapped, taken to a strange Eastern European village, and Ethan sets out to find her.

A new biohazard? Tick. A conspiracy? Tick. Wacky, larger-than-life characters that aren't entirely supported by the plot? We have a trifecta!

Village continues with the series trend of pushing into a first-person perspective, making it more akin to other shooters like Call of Duty than your typical survival horror game. Village also leans more into the shooter genre, with significantly more action and gunplay sequences than what we saw in the prior game, Resident Evil 7.

Arguably the best part of this game is actually in its first few hours in Castle Dimitrescu — the home of the game's viral giant vampire lady. Not only is Lady Dimitrescu a really interesting character, but the maze-like setup of her castle and your lack of firepower and resources really amp up the game's tension. She ruthlessly pursues you around the castle, making even mundane areas tricky to navigate. On harder difficulties, it feels like she's got a light jog on when she's hunting you. Sadly, she's removed from the game within its first five hours, despite having a starring role in all the game's previews and hype trailers. Perhaps one of the biggest disappointments of this release.

Can I also say: Playing on harder difficulties doesn't exactly make the game more fun. I gave it a go on the game's ultra-hard 'Village of Shadows' mode and didn't really find it that enjoyable. Most guides on this suggest unlocking weapons with infinite ammo as a strategy for getting through this mode — which completely defeats the point of a survival horror game in the first place.

Village sits in a weird space where I wouldn't recommend it as a shooter, but I wouldn't say it's a solid survival horror game either. The remake of Silent Hill 2 is perhaps my go-to for the best example of the latter from this year. There are genuine moments of horror in Village — including a lot of body mutilation — but the resource management tension that these games usually conjure just isn't there. It's hard to feel scared when you're running around with a semi-auto shotgun and a fully automatic rifle.

For what it's worth, the game is still very fun and has aged pretty well. It's also quite quick and doesn't muck around, coming in at around the 12-hour mark for a playthrough. The plot beats are questionable, but hey, it's a Resident Evil game.

Depending on what's announced on Friday, there could be a brief resurgence for this game ahead of a new release next year. But if a new game is coming, I really hope it will be a remake of Resident Evil: Code Veronica.

Worth trying if you like: The Evil Within series, Dead Space, Alan Wake 2.

Available on: PlayStation 4, PlayStation 5, Windows, Xbox One, Xbox Series X/S, macOS, Nintendo Switch (the port likely isn’t great), iOS, iPadOS.

Thanks for reading. If you enjoyed this post, and want to help me grow Infinite Lives, flick this email to someone in your network. Catch you next week!

Share

In nine months of writing about the games industry — but over two decades of playing them — never have I heard so much about one platform that I knew so little about.

Steam came up in most interviews, panels and events, often framed as the centre of the gaming universe. Yet, I've only used it once to download the enhanced version of Baldur's Gate 2, which was on sale.

Being a console gamer, I rarely needed to interact with Steam. But, if your main gaming device is a PC, chances are you can't avoid it.

From what I learned, game developers essentially plan their entire launch and marketing campaign around the whims of this one platform. Getting onto the front page of Steam can be the difference between a title succeeding in terms of sales or fading into obscurity.

With the Steam Deck landing in Australia this week, and it inevitably pulling more gamers into the Steam ecosystem, I’m penning the article I wish I'd read nine months ago. I’ll be answering some burning questions about the his…

Read more

This weekend I dropped spiky blocks on my mates' heads, attempted to cherry-pick them off a conveyor belt and ultimately defeated them by stealing their stuff.

It was all in the name of a good time, of course. Surely they enjoyed it as much as me? And to be clear, it was done virtually, through playing the latest Mario Party game.

There's perhaps no other video game series quite like Mario Party. It's accessible for new players, yet can be incredibly frustrating for any who pick up the controller. It's formulaic, yet creative. It's also a game series where each sequel isn't necessarily an improvement.

Subscribe now

Curiously, there are very few other games like it in the market. That's remarkable when you consider that almost every big title these days has a doppelganger floating about.

With Super Mario Party Jamboree — the 19th game in the series — out late last week, I wanted to …

Read more

Australia rarely makes global headlines when it comes to video game legislation. And when we do, it's not always for the right reasons. But last week, we became one of the first countries — next to China — to regulate loot boxes and gambling content in games. So what does it all mean? This week we dig behind the headlines to offer some context on this key change that could roll out in some form globally.

Subscribe now

What does this change actually mean?

This is the second major change to Australia's game classification system in the past decade — the first being the introduction of an R18+ rating in 2013. It can be broken down into three major changes:

1. Games that contain loot boxes, or mechanics that trade in-game purchases for a chance at acquiring an in-game item, will automatically be classified M15+ in Australia. This is aimed at deterring the exposure of loot box mechanics to minors.

2. Games that contain "simulated gambling" will automatically be classified as R18+…

Read more

When Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg attempted to explain the metaverse during the 2021 rebrand of Facebook to Meta, there was one group of gamers that fully understood what he was talking about.

They were the players of multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs), one of the most prolific yet misunderstood genres of gaming. These games are micro digital universes, bundled with their own economies, cultural movements, languages, rules, and policing mechanisms. Some of the more popular global games in this genre include World of Warcraft, Destiny 2, Final Fantasy XIV, Elder Scrolls Online, and Fallout 76.

They are a mysterious group of very social games. I've seen MMORPGs create more tension in relationships than just about any other genre. Inversely, they've also galvanized friendships and generated memorable experiences you really can't find elsewhere in gaming.

The late…

Read more

One of Australia’s largest eSports events, DreamHack, is being held in Melbourne this week — but you could be forgiven for not knowing much about it. 

Despite a growing number of global fans, eye-popping prize pools and ongoing discussions around creating high school pathways for young eSports players, eSports is still an emerging field in Australia. We’re actually still debating whether eSports is legally considered a sport.

Part of the mythos around eSports is that if you get good enough, you can build a career — possibly even get rich — off beating others at video games. So is this the case? And if you crack the top 100 how much can you expect to earn? 

Subscribe now

Hold up… what even is an eSport? 

Fair enough if you are new to the concept. It’s been growing in popularity, but the sector sells to its fans and doesn’t do a lot in the way marketing itself to the mainstream — other than creating this impression that people are …

Read more