Samuel Harris Altman (born April 22, 1985) is an American entrepreneur and investor who has been the chief executive officer (CEO) of the artificial intelligence company OpenAI since 2019.

The artificial intelligence revolution was supposed to arrive like a thunderclap.

When OpenAI released GPT-4 in 2023, many people in Silicon Valley expected businesses to transform almost immediately. Existing software companies would suddenly face existential competition. Entire categories of work would be automated. Small teams armed with artificial intelligence would compete with corporations employing thousands of people.

Three years later, AI is certainly everywhere, but the economic revolution predicted by some of its biggest advocates has unfolded much more slowly.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman now says he underestimated one surprisingly powerful obstacle: people simply do not change their habits very quickly.

In a recent conversation with podcaster David Senra, Altman admitted that his original expectations for the speed of the AI transition were too aggressive.

He had expected GPT-4 to trigger far more immediate disruption throughout the software industry.

Instead, something stubborn stood in the way.

Human behavior.

“People keep doing the same things they’re doing. They keep buying from the same company. They keep sort of wanting to use their tools in the same way.”

Altman described this resistance as economic “inertia,” arguing that even extremely powerful technology does not automatically convince people or companies to abandon the systems they already understand.

It is a fascinating admission from one of the most prominent architects of the AI boom.

But it also raises an uncomfortable question.

Is the public really slowing down the AI revolution, or has Silicon Valley underestimated how difficult it is to create technology that people actually want to reorganize their lives around?

The AI Revolution That Was Supposed to Happen Faster

After the arrival of ChatGPT and GPT-4, predictions about AI became increasingly dramatic.

Artificial intelligence would rewrite software development.

AI agents would replace conventional applications.

Companies could potentially operate with dramatically smaller workforces.

Entire industries might be rebuilt around language models capable of writing code, analyzing documents, answering questions and performing increasingly complex tasks.

Altman himself believed the software market would rapidly become more competitive.

Speaking with Senra, he recalled expecting that after GPT-4 arrived, significantly more software businesses would suddenly become vulnerable to AI-powered competitors.

That did not happen at the speed he expected.

Instead, companies continued renewing existing software contracts.

Employees continued opening the same applications.

Managers continued operating the same workflows.

People continued checking their email, copying information between applications and clicking through interfaces that AI could theoretically replace.

Altman's conclusion is surprisingly simple.

Technology can improve far faster than human behavior changes.

“I think we’ve all been too ambitious on timelines,” he said, adding that society and the economy will adapt more slowly than the underlying technology develops.

That statement represents a noticeable shift from some of the more explosive predictions surrounding generative AI only a few years ago.

The technology might still transform everything.

It might simply take longer.

The Blockbuster Problem

One analogy discussed during the interview perfectly illustrates Altman's argument.

Blockbuster.

When Netflix originally launched its DVD-by-mail business, customers could order movies without driving to a physical rental store.

From a purely technological or convenience perspective, Netflix appeared to offer an obvious advantage.

Yet millions of customers continued driving to Blockbuster.

Why?

Habit.

People already understood Blockbuster.

They knew where the store was.

They knew how renting a movie worked.

Saturday night might already involve driving there with the family and wandering between shelves looking for something to watch.

Technology had created a potentially better system, but human behavior had not immediately caught up.

Altman sees something similar happening with AI.

Even when AI can theoretically perform a task faster, people frequently continue doing things the familiar way.

The obstacle is not necessarily capability.

It is behavior.

Altman said changing behavior is considerably harder than people inside the technology industry sometimes realize.

And he has a rather awkward example.

Himself.

Even Sam Altman Isn't Fully Using the AI Revolution

Perhaps the most revealing moment in the conversation came when Altman discussed his own computer habits.

The CEO of OpenAI has access to some of the most sophisticated AI systems on Earth.

He has Codex.

He understands AI agents better than almost anyone.

Yet Altman admitted that much of the way he uses a computer has barely changed in roughly 20 years.

He still works through his inbox.

He still interacts with software in familiar ways.

He still performs tasks manually that an AI system could potentially automate.

That contradiction appears to have made him reconsider the problem.

If even the CEO of OpenAI struggles to reorganize his working habits around AI, perhaps expecting hundreds of millions of ordinary workers to immediately do so was unrealistic.

But Altman's conclusion was not simply that people are resistant to change.

He offered another explanation.

The products might not be good enough yet.

One account of the interview quotes Altman describing this as largely a “product failure.”

That distinction is important.

Because blaming customers for failing to adopt technology is easy.

Building technology compelling enough that customers willingly abandon old habits is much harder.

AI May Still Be Waiting for Its iPhone Moment

Altman compared today's AI industry to the smartphone market before the iPhone.

Before Apple's iPhone arrived in 2007, many of the individual technologies necessary for modern smartphones already existed.

There were mobile data connections.

Touchscreens existed.

Phones could run software.

Mobile email existed.

Web browsing existed.

Digital cameras were appearing in phones.

Yet those technologies had not been combined into a product that dramatically changed how ordinary people interacted with computers.

Then the iPhone arrived.

The important innovation was not necessarily the invention of every individual component.

It was packaging those technologies into something people immediately understood.

AI may still be waiting for that moment.

Today's chatbots are extraordinarily capable compared with software from only a few years ago, but most people still interact with them as separate destinations.

Open a chatbot. Type a question. Copy the answer. Paste it somewhere else. Return to another application.

The underlying AI may be revolutionary, but the workflow can still feel strangely old-fashioned.

The real AI revolution may arrive when people stop consciously “using AI” altogether.

Instead, intelligence could quietly become part of operating systems, applications, vehicles, workplaces and everyday devices.

At that point, AI adoption might accelerate dramatically because users would no longer need to change their behavior around the technology.

The technology would adapt to them.

But the Public Has Reasons to Be Cautious

There is another side to Altman's argument that Silicon Valley cannot simply dismiss as resistance to change.

A large portion of the public does not believe AI is moving too slowly.

They believe it is moving too quickly.

According to a 2026 Pew Research Center survey, 63 percent of American adults said AI was advancing too quickly.

Only 2 percent believed it was moving too slowly.

That is an extraordinary gap.

Another Pew survey conducted in June 2026 found that 52 percent of Americans were more concerned than excited about the increased use of AI, while only 9 percent were more excited than concerned.

The skepticism is not simply coming from older generations either.

Among Americans aged 18 to 29, 55 percent reported being more concerned than excited about AI in 2026.

That number has climbed substantially from 31 percent in 2021.

In other words, the resistance Altman describes may not simply be technological inertia.

Some of it is deliberate.

People are asking what happens to their jobs.

They are asking who controls AI systems.

They are asking how their personal information is being used.

They are questioning whether AI-generated content will damage creative industries.

And increasingly, communities are questioning the enormous infrastructure required to power artificial intelligence.

Data Centers Have Made AI Physical

For several years, artificial intelligence felt almost weightless.

You opened a website. Typed something. Received an answer.

Behind that seemingly simple interaction, however, sits one of the largest infrastructure expansions in the history of computing.

AI requires enormous data centers filled with specialized processors.

Those facilities require electricity, cooling systems, land, water and transmission infrastructure.

As AI infrastructure has expanded, the technology has become increasingly visible to communities that previously experienced AI primarily through software.

The reaction has not always been enthusiastic.

Local resistance to new data centers has become a significant political issue in the United States, with communities raising concerns about electricity prices, environmental impact, water consumption and whether the economic benefits justify the infrastructure being built around them.

This creates a strange collision between two worlds.

Silicon Valley sees compute.

Local communities see power lines, construction sites and utility bills.

Tech executives see infrastructure necessary for the next industrial revolution.

Residents may see an enormous building consuming resources while employing relatively few people.

That gap in perspective matters.

The Problem May Not Be the Public

It would therefore be misleading to summarize Altman's comments simply as “people are holding AI back.”

His argument is more interesting than that.

There are really several forces slowing the transition.

• Human habits are one.

• Corporate bureaucracy is another.

• Existing software contracts matter.

• Training workers takes time.

• Regulations matter.

• Trust matters.

• The quality of AI products matters.

• And public acceptance matters.

Technology companies frequently imagine technological progress as a straight line.

• Invent something better.

• Release it.

• Watch the world adopt it.

History rarely works that way.

Electricity took decades to reorganize factories.

The automobile required roads, fuel stations, traffic laws and entirely new cities.

The internet existed long before most businesses understood what to do with it.

Smartphones required an ecosystem of applications, wireless networks and payment systems before they became the universal computers we recognize today.

AI may follow the same pattern.

The breakthrough happens first.

The transformation comes later.

Slower Might Actually Be Better

Perhaps the most surprising part of Altman's comments is that he does not necessarily view slower adoption as a disaster.

He described economic inertia as “a positive in many ways.”

The slower transition may give society more time to adapt.

Businesses can experiment.

Workers can learn new skills.

Governments can develop regulations.

Schools can reconsider how they teach.

Companies can figure out where AI genuinely improves productivity instead of inserting it into products merely because investors expect them to.

And AI developers themselves get more time to improve reliability, safety and usability.

Altman said he is actually grateful that the transition may happen more smoothly and slowly than originally expected.

That is a significantly different message from the feverish atmosphere surrounding AI in 2023 and 2024.

The revolution is still coming, according to Altman.

The timetable has simply changed.

Silicon Valley's Biggest AI Challenge May Be Human

There is an amusing irony buried inside the entire discussion.

Artificial intelligence companies have spent billions of dollars building machines capable of understanding human language.

Their next challenge may be understanding humans.

People are complicated.

We form routines.

We distrust unfamiliar systems.

We become emotionally attached to tools that technically should have disappeared years ago.

Businesses operate with contracts, regulations, legacy databases and employees who cannot simply rebuild their workflows every six months because a new model received a benchmark upgrade.

From inside an AI laboratory, technological capability might look exponential.

Outside that laboratory, society moves at the speed of institutions, habits and trust.

Those two clocks are not synchronized.

And that might explain why the AI revolution simultaneously feels extraordinarily fast and strangely slow.

AI models are advancing at astonishing speed.

Yet most offices still contain spreadsheets.

People still answer email.

Companies still buy software from vendors they have used for decades.

And even Sam Altman apparently still uses his computer much like he did before the AI revolution began.

Perhaps the public is slowing AI down.

Or perhaps Silicon Valley simply discovered one of technology's oldest lessons:

Inventing the future is easier than convincing billions of people to live in it.

What always stood out to me was his voice, facial expressions, and sheer presence. He could be hilarious, sinister, charming, and completely over-the-top, sometimes all within the same performance.

He’s also had an enormous career in theatre, television, films, and voice acting. Few actors have managed to become such a recognizable part of so many different genres.

What’s your favorite Tim Curry role?

What initially looked like another collection of gaming leaks quickly became something much stranger.

Unreleased GTA VI gameplay appeared online. A manifesto attacked modern gaming business practices. A cryptocurrency became intertwined with the leaks. Take-Two Interactive began pursuing information about people distributing the material. Impostor accounts appeared. And shortly before Rockstar finally presented its official extended look at the game, Cyberleek was accused of cashing out roughly a quarter of a million dollars connected to its crypto operation.

At this point, Cyberleek is no longer simply a GTA leaker. It has become one of gaming's most unusual controversies of 2026.

Who is Cyberleek?

Nobody publicly knows.

The Cyberleek name began attracting widespread attention around August 18, 2026, when previously unseen Grand Theft Auto VI gameplay footage started appearing online. Reporting indicates that the material included numerous gameplay clips, screenshots and portions of the game's map.

The footage appeared convincing enough that Rockstar and parent company Take-Two began issuing copyright takedowns against copies circulating online.

Rockstar later publicly acknowledged the leaks, saying that seeing unfinished material released in this way was not how the company wanted players to experience the game after years of development.

Despite plenty of internet detective work, Cyberleek's real identity remains unverified.

There have also been several social-media accounts using variations of the Cyberleek name, making attribution increasingly messy. Some accounts targeted by Take-Two's legal requests may even have been impersonators rather than the original source.

That distinction matters. Claims circulating online about the supposed identity, nationality or employment history of Cyberleek should therefore be treated as speculation unless independently confirmed.

The GTA VI leaks

The biggest controversy is naturally the leaked game itself.

Cyberleek released footage apparently showing a playable development build of GTA VI, primarily featuring protagonist Jason.

Reported clips showed activities ranging from driving and basketball to interaction with NPCs and previously unseen areas of Leonida. One particularly notorious leak showed a nudist community containing completely uncensored NPCs.

Fans began examining every frame for information about Rockstar's enormous open world.

But an interesting theory emerged as more footage appeared.

Almost everything focused on Jason rather than Lucia. Repeated tutorial prompts, similar equipment and other recurring elements led some observers to speculate that Cyberleek might have access to a limited or specially configured build rather than the entire finished game.

Cyberleek, meanwhile, suggested it possessed much more.

Exactly how the material was obtained has still not been publicly established.

The "Cyberleek Edict"

Cyberleek attempted to position the campaign as something larger than leaking a highly anticipated video game.

Its website published what it called the Cyberleek Edict, attacking practices including digital-only ownership, digital preorders, content locked behind additional purchases and games becoming unusable when publishers shut down online infrastructure.

Its public messaging presented Cyberleek as an anti-corporate movement fighting what it considered increasingly anti-consumer behavior within the games industry.

Some of those subjects reflect legitimate debates within gaming.

The preservation of online games, ownership of digital purchases and publishers removing access to purchased products have generated serious discussion among players, developers and preservation organizations.

But Cyberleek's campaign soon collided with another subject entirely.

Money.

Enter the $CYBERLEEK cryptocurrency

Alongside the leaks came a Solana-based cryptocurrency associated with the Cyberleek name.

Promotional material connected the value of the token to future leaks, with QR codes reportedly appearing directly inside leaked GTA footage. Some messaging effectively encouraged supporters to increase the token's market capitalization in return for additional material.

That immediately complicated Cyberleek's anti-corporate message.

Was this activism?

A fundraising campaign?

A speculative crypto project?

Or an elaborate way to monetize stolen or unauthorized material?

Cyberleek's own website explicitly insisted that the operation was not a cash grab and claimed funding would support infrastructure and an unspecified future project.

Then came the biggest controversy yet.

The alleged $250,000 cash-out

Shortly before Rockstar's official August 27 GTA VI presentation, reports emerged that Cyberleek had extracted approximately $250,000 connected to the $CYBERLEEK token.

According to reporting cited by Tom's Hardware, the money appears to have come primarily from liquidity-provider trading fees rather than simply dumping a huge personal token allocation onto buyers.

After the withdrawal, the token's price collapsed sharply.

Funds were subsequently distributed across several wallets, with portions reportedly moving through services intended to make blockchain tracing more difficult and some cryptocurrency reaching KuCoin-linked infrastructure.

Predictably, the word "rug pull" spread rapidly across gaming and crypto communities.

There is an important distinction, however.

A dramatic token collapse and a creator withdrawing money do not automatically prove criminal fraud. Calling the operation a scam is therefore an allegation unless investigators or courts establish otherwise.

But the incident badly damaged Cyberleek's carefully constructed anti-corporate persona.

A movement declaring itself opposed to exploitative monetization had, somewhat spectacularly, become entangled with one of the internet's most notoriously speculative forms of monetization.

The irony practically writes itself.

Take-Two goes hunting

Take-Two has not simply been playing digital whack-a-mole with leaked videos.

The company has pursued DMCA subpoenas seeking identifying information connected to distribution of the leaked footage.

According to TorrentFreak, legal requests have involved services including Microsoft, Discord, X and YouTube. The requests are designed to identify accounts associated with alleged copyright infringement rather than constituting lawsuits against Cyberleek itself.

The situation also demonstrates one of the weaknesses of anonymous leak campaigns.

A leaker may conceal their personal IP address or identity, but every service involved can create another breadcrumb: account records, hosting information, login metadata, exchange activity, blockchain transactions or communications with other users.

Cyberleek appears to have made considerable efforts to distribute information through decentralized infrastructure, but decentralizing the files does not necessarily decentralize every piece of evidence surrounding the person distributing them.

Rockstar finally takes control of the conversation

On August 27, Rockstar released its official 26-minute Grand Theft Auto VI: An Extended Look presentation.

The showcase revealed substantial gameplay involving both Jason and Lucia and provided fans with a far more polished look at Rockstar's vision for the game.

Ironically, the official presentation may have been one of the most damaging developments for Cyberleek.

Before August 27, unreleased gameplay was incredibly scarce.

After August 27, Rockstar itself had released nearly half an hour of professionally presented footage.

The information monopoly Cyberleek had briefly possessed suddenly became much less valuable.

Hacker, activist, marketer or opportunist?

That is ultimately what makes Cyberleek interesting.

The story contains several different identities layered on top of each other.

Cyberleek presents itself as a campaign against anti-consumer gaming practices.

To Rockstar and Take-Two, it is a source of unauthorized copyrighted material.

To GTA fans, it has alternated between forbidden information source, spoiler threat and internet spectacle.

And to cryptocurrency traders, Cyberleek became the face of another extremely volatile memecoin.

Whether this entire operation was primarily ideological, financial, attention-driven or some combination of all three remains impossible to establish without knowing who is actually behind it.

What can be established is that Cyberleek managed to turn a conventional videogame leak into something considerably larger.

Within less than two weeks, the name became associated with one of gaming's most anticipated releases, an anti-industry manifesto, decentralized hosting, a cryptocurrency frenzy, a six-figure cash-out controversy and a legal effort by one of the world's largest videogame publishers.

The GTA footage may eventually become little more than historical trivia once Grand Theft Auto VI launches on November 19, 2026.

The Cyberleek story, however, raises a more interesting question about modern leaks.

When anonymous leakers can combine stolen information, ideology, decentralized networks, social-media virality and cryptocurrency into one campaign, where exactly does whistleblowing or digital protest end and monetized spectacle begin?

Cyberleek may have started by leaking a game.

The controversy surrounding it has become a story about something much bigger.

Neill became a household name around the world through his portrayal of Dr. Alan Grant in Steven Spielberg's Jurassic Park (1993). His performance as the intelligent and reluctant dinosaur expert helped define one of Hollywood's most successful franchises, and he later returned to the role in several sequels, including Jurassic World Dominion.

A Career Beyond Dinosaurs

Although many fans associate Neill with Jurassic Park, his body of work extended far beyond the prehistoric adventure series. Throughout his career he demonstrated remarkable versatility, appearing in dramas, thrillers, historical films, and television productions.

Among his notable credits were The Hunt for Red October, The Piano, Event Horizon, and the acclaimed television series Peaky Blinders. Whether playing heroes, villains, or morally complex characters, Neill earned a reputation as one of the industry's most dependable and respected actors.

A Beloved Figure in Sweden

Sam Neill also enjoyed a unique connection with Swedish audiences thanks to his role as Brian de Bois-Guilbert in the 1982 adaptation of Ivanhoe. The film became an annual New Year's Day television tradition in Sweden, introducing generations of viewers to one of his earliest memorable performances.

Over the years, Neill acknowledged the tradition with warmth and humor, often sharing greetings with Swedish fans as the annual broadcast approached.

His Health Battle

In 2023, Neill revealed that he had been diagnosed with a rare form of blood cancer. He openly discussed his treatment and his determination to continue working despite the diagnosis. Earlier this year, he shared encouraging news that his cancer was in remission, making the announcement of his death all the more unexpected.

An Enduring Legacy

With more than 100 film and television credits to his name, Sam Neill leaves behind an extraordinary legacy. His ability to bring intelligence, charm, and emotional depth to every role made him a favorite among audiences and filmmakers alike.

For many, he will forever be remembered as the scientist who faced dinosaurs with courage and wit. For others, he was a gifted performer whose career showcased remarkable range and consistency.

Though Sam Neill is gone, his performances will continue to entertain and inspire audiences for generations to come.

These aren't just funny glitches. They are the fatal symptoms of what experts call the "Dead Internet Theory" becoming a reality. In a world where nearly 50% of web traffic is bots, the search engine we once trusted has transformed into a closed-loop echo chamber.

Here is the breakdown of why Google is breaking and why it might be time to look for a new window to the digital world.

1. The Hallucination Problem: AI Over Search

In May 2024, Google introduced "AI Overviews." Instead of giving you a list of links to human-written articles, it now prioritizes an AI-generated summary at the very top.

The problem? These summaries often pull from the worst corners of the internet.

• The Pizza Glue Incident: Pulled from an 11-year-old Reddit troll post.

• The Rock-Eating Advice: Sourced from a satirical article on The Onion.

Because the AI can't distinguish between satire, trolling, and fact, it "hallucinates" answers that are presented as absolute truth.

2. The Death of Independent Websites

In March 2024, Google released a massive algorithm update intended to "clean up" the web. Instead, it acted like a digital sledgehammer for small, human-run sites.

• Traffic Collapse: Niche, human-tested review sites (like House Fresh) saw their traffic drop by as much as 91% almost overnight.

• The Walmart Effect: High-quality independent sites have been buried under "Parasite SEO", where big corporations use the authority of sites like LinkedIn or Medium to spam low-quality, AI-written content that ranks higher just because of the platform it's on.

3. The "Search Heist" and Zombie Pages

The internet is currently being "looted" by bot networks.

• Domain Heists: Marketers use AI to scrap entire competitor sitemaps and generate thousands of articles in minutes to "poach" millions of search hits.

• Zombie Pages: Bot networks buy up expired, dormant domains and pump them full of AI content to redirect traffic away from real businesses.

4. Model Collapse: The AI "Inbreeding" Crisis

Perhaps the scariest part of this shift is a phenomenon called Model Collapse.

This happens when AI models begin training on data produced by other AIs rather than human-generated content.

• The Cycle: As AI content floods the web, Google’s AI absorbs this synthetic, often flawed data.

• The Result: Like genetic inbreeding, the errors compound. The AI starts repeating its own mistakes, performance degrades, and specific, nuanced human knowledge is filtered out in favor of "majority" bot-speak.

5. You are the Training Data, Not the Customer

Google’s priority has shifted from being a "useful tool" to a "profitable behemoth."

• Zero-Click Searches: Over 58% of searches now result in "zero clicks". Google wants you to stay on their page, reading their AI summaries, so they can keep you in their advertising ecosystem.

• The Reddit Deal: Google recently paid $60 million to Reddit to use its human conversations to train Gemini AI. Your organic discussions are now the fuel for the very machine that is replacing the open web.

Is There a Way Out?

Europol warns that up to 90% of online content could be AI-generated by the end of 2026. If we want to save the human internet, we have to start looking elsewhere.

Some users are pivoting to "human-only" search engines like Kagi or Margelia, which prioritize non-commercial, organic content. Others are returning to "retro" communities and smaller, subscription-based platforms where you aren't the product.

The internet you grew up with is gone. The question is: are you going to keep feeding the machine, or is it time to find a new way to connect?

That is what the tech world calls a zero-day attack. Typically, security researchers discover these flaws, report them to the vendor privately, collect a reward, and the bug gets patched.

But over the last few weeks, the standard rulebook was thrown completely out the window. In what is turning out to be one of the most chaotic standoffs in cybersecurity history, a single disgruntled security researcher has gone completely scorched earth against Microsoft.

The Catalyst: Six Zero-Days Dropped Into the Wild

A researcher operating under the moniker Nightmare Eclipse recently shocked the industry by publicly releasing six unpatched zero-day vulnerabilities for Microsoft Windows.

Instead of reporting them through official channels, the researcher published them directly to GitHub (which ironially, is owned by Microsoft) and GitLab. Why? According to the researcher, they previously tried to report major bugs via the Microsoft Security Response Center (MSRC) only to be allegedly humiliated, insulted, and left with "zero pennies" for their work.

Faced with a trillion-dollar company that refused to pay out a bug bounty, Nightmare Eclipse decided to become Microsoft’s worst nightmare.

"He would make more money doing the illegal, unethical thing than to do the right thing... It shows me that the security researcher actually cared about doing the right thing [initially]... Turns out [Microsoft] was just like 'Get out of here, we don't really care.'"

The Nasty Exploits: Bypassing BitLocker

Among the six disclosed vulnerabilities, a couple stand out as particularly dangerous cyber threats:

• The BitLocker Security Bypass: This exploit affects Windows 11 systems and allows an attacker to bypass BitLocker drive encryption. Typically, if your laptop is stolen, encryption prevents unauthorized users from pulling files off your hard drive. This zero-day completely evades that defense.

• The "Blue Hammer" Privilege Escalation: Another leaked zero-day allows a standard user account to instantly escalate its permissions to system-level control—the highest possible administrative access on a Windows machine.

Alarmingly, because these were dropped directly into the wild as a public proof-of-concept (PoC), cybersecurity firms have already noted that this code is actively being utilized by malicious actors online.

Accusations of Backdoors

The plot thickens with the BitLocker bypass. According to Nightmare Eclipse, the specific component triggering the exploit only exists within Windows Recovery Environment (winre) images on Windows 11, despite identical naming structures existing in standard installations without the triggering functionality.

The researcher raised heavy suspicions that this design choice feels far too convenient—fueling theories that the vulnerability may have intentionally acted as a "backdoor" for law enforcement or government entities to bypass standard warrants and access encrypted physical devices.

Microsoft’s Blunder and the "Streisand Effect"

In response to the leaks, Microsoft quickly banned Nightmare Eclipse’s GitHub account. When the researcher migrated to GitLab, those repositories were wiped as well.

However, trying to scrub data from the internet always triggers the Streisand Effect. By trying to censor the leaks, Microsoft only drew massive attention to them. Security communities immediately grabbed the code, ensuring it will float around the web forever.

Microsoft finally issued a public statement addressing the situation, heavily leaning on "coordinated vulnerability disclosure" and shifting the narrative to a "shared responsibility." Vaguely threatening, Microsoft also noted that their Digital Crimes Unit and law enforcement partners are building cases against those enabling this activity.

Industry veterans and founders of Microsoft's original bug bounty programs have actively criticized the tech giant's handling of the situation, calling it a "dumpster fire of Microsoft’s own making." Instead of simply paying the researcher to quietly fix a nuclear-level threat, Microsoft's rigid response effectively created its own corporate supervillain.

Looking Ahead: The July 14th Deadline

This internet battle is far from over. Nightmare Eclipse has publicly declared a looming deadline: July 14th.

The researcher claims to hold massive troves of internal documentation and potentially more exploits that they intend to drop on that date, promising to leave Microsoft's security reputation "shattered."

The Bottom Line: Whether the upcoming leak is a massive bluff or another wave of cyber warfare, the vulnerabilities already in the wild are very real. If you are a Windows user, keep your system strictly updated, exercise aggressive common sense online, and do not run untrusted software. Someone shot this researcher's proverbial dog, and they are out for corporate blood.

Matrix Website:
https://matrix.org

Our Matrix Space:
https://matrix.to/#/#madsens-crib-tog:matrix.org

In the world of online communication, platforms like Matrix and Discord have become go-to choices for various types of discussions. Whether it's for casual hangouts, gaming, or business collaboration, both platforms offer unique features and advantages. However, when it comes down to deciding which one to use, it's essential to consider their differences. In this blog post, we'll compare Matrix and Discord across several key areas such as usability, privacy, customization, and more to help you choose the one that best suits your needs. And of course, Matrix will not require your personal ID for age verification... Yet.

What is Matrix?

Matrix is an open-source, decentralized communication protocol that enables real-time communication through a variety of platforms and services. Unlike traditional chat apps, Matrix operates through a federated model, meaning no single entity owns the entire network. Matrix users can communicate across different Matrix servers (or homeservers), which provides an added layer of freedom and control over data.

• Open-Source: Matrix's protocol is open-source, allowing for community-driven development and transparency.

• Federated Network: Unlike centralized platforms, Matrix allows users to choose or create servers, offering decentralized control.

Matrix vs. Discord: Key Differences

1. Privacy and Data Ownership

Matrix:

One of Matrix’s main selling points is its commitment to privacy and data ownership. As an open-source, decentralized platform, Matrix allows users to control their data by hosting their own servers. This provides an additional layer of security, as personal data doesn't need to be shared with third parties.

• Pros: Complete control over your data; no centralized authority.

• Cons: More complex to set up and maintain your own server.

Discord:

Discord, on the other hand, is a centralized platform where all user data is hosted on Discord’s servers. While Discord has implemented end-to-end encryption for direct messages (DMs), much of the communication, such as messages in channels, is stored on their servers. Users need to trust Discord with their data. And you shouldn't considering they just recently had a big data breach.

• Pros: Simple to use; you don't need to worry about server maintenance.

• Cons: Your data is stored and controlled by Discord. Data breaches. Facial ID for age verification. They use third party vendors for their facial id which means Discord can say they don't store the information but the third parties might (and do according to their own information).

2. Ease of Use

Matrix:

Matrix's user experience can vary significantly depending on the client or application used to access it (e.g., Element, Synapse, or Riot). While the Matrix protocol is quite flexible, some clients can be clunky or difficult to navigate for newcomers.

• Pros: Flexible and customizable; various client options.

• Cons: The learning curve can be steep for new users; the interface can be inconsistent.

Discord:

Discord has a polished, user-friendly interface that appeals to a wide range of users, from gamers to professionals. It's easy to set up servers, join communities, and manage chats. Discord’s layout is intuitive, and it integrates voice, video, and text chat seamlessly.

• Pros: Very easy to use, intuitive interface; all-in-one platform for messaging, video, and voice.

• Cons: Limited customization compared to Matrix.

3. Customization and Flexibility

Matrix:

Because Matrix is open-source and federated, it offers greater customization and flexibility. You can create custom servers, bots, and integrations, allowing you to tailor the experience to your specific needs. However, customization can require more technical know-how.

• Pros: High degree of customization; choice of homeservers; full control over features and settings.

• Cons: Customization requires technical knowledge; server management can be complex.

Discord:

Discord offers some level of customization with things like bot integrations, custom emojis, and channel permissions. However, because it is a proprietary platform, customization options are limited compared to Matrix. You also can't create or manage the underlying infrastructure.

• Pros: Easy to set up bots and emojis; user-friendly moderation tools.

• Cons: Less flexibility for developers or power users; more rigid structure.

4. Community and Ecosystem

Matrix:

Matrix’s decentralized nature means that it has a more niche, fragmented community. While the protocol itself is widely used, the ecosystems of Matrix servers can vary, and you may find that not everyone uses the same server or client.

• Pros: A decentralized and community-driven ecosystem with diverse usage.

• Cons: Can feel less cohesive; a more fragmented user base.

Discord:

Discord has a massive, centralized community with a wide variety of servers, from gaming groups to business teams. Its ecosystem is easy to navigate, and it's simple to find servers based on specific interests.

• Pros: Large and active user base; easy to find like-minded communities.

• Cons: A centralized ecosystem means you are reliant on Discord's servers for uptime and reliability.

5. Security and Encryption

Matrix:

Matrix has built-in end-to-end encryption for private conversations and supports various security standards. Since you can control your own server, you can implement your own security measures as well. However, some parts of Matrix (e.g., public rooms) may not be fully encrypted.

• Pros: End-to-end encryption for private chats; customizable security features.

• Cons: Public rooms may not be encrypted; self-hosting requires security expertise.

Discord:

Discord uses encryption for data in transit, and DMs are end-to-end encrypted. However, since Discord is a centralized platform, it holds the keys to the data. In the event of a security breach, all user data could potentially be compromised.

• Pros: Strong security measures in place; end-to-end encryption for DMs.

• Cons: Centralized model means Discord controls the security of the platform.

6. Voice and Video Features

Matrix:

Matrix has integrated voice and video chat functionality, but it is not as polished as Discord’s offerings. There are third-party services that can be used for voice and video calls, but these integrations are often less seamless than Discord's built-in features.

• Pros: Decentralized voice and video options available.

• Cons: Features may not be as smooth or feature-rich as Discord's.

Discord:

Discord is widely regarded as having one of the best voice and video chat systems for group calls. It allows high-quality voice channels and streaming capabilities, making it ideal for gamers, team collaboration, or social events.

• Pros: Superior voice and video quality; low latency; easy screen sharing.

• Cons: Some features are locked behind Nitro (premium) subscriptions.

Conclusion: Which One Is Right for You?

The choice between Matrix and Discord depends largely on your priorities.

• Choose Matrix if you value privacy, data ownership, and the freedom of a decentralized network. If you have the technical skills to set up and manage your own server, Matrix offers the most control and customization options.

• Choose Discord if you’re OK with giving up your personal information, personal id, looking for a user-friendly, all-in-one platform with superior voice and video features. It’s ideal for people who want a simple setup without dealing with server management or technical complexities.

Ultimately, both Matrix and Discord are excellent tools for online communication, what matters most is which features align best with your needs. Whether you want decentralization or polished user experience, there’s a platform suited for every type of online community.

The mythical remake of Assassin's Creed: Black Flag can be released before the summer. According to Ubisoft's financial report, all upcoming games on the menu must be released before the end of March 2026. The report also mentions a title that has not yet been revealed and this may well be Ubisoft's pirate adventure.

As I said, the remake of Black Flag has not yet been officially unveiled, but there are many rumors pointing towards it. The voice actors in the game have hinted that a remake is coming and the French game site Jeuxvideo has had a lot of information about the development.

Reasonably, the game should be unveiled soon, one might think?

German actor Udo Kier has passed away, aged 81. He was known for a number of films and television series, but in the game world he is of course immortal in the role of Yuri in Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2 and the expansion Yuri's Revenge. He also had roles in Call of Duty: WWII (2017) and Martha is Dead (2022). His voice and face would also have been part of Hideo Kojima's upcoming OD.

It is unclear what is happening with Udo Kier's role in OD now. Is it completely ironed? Is a new ability being brought in? Do you manage to do something with what you have recorded so far (how much or how little is unclear)? It remains to be seen.

Kojima does not give any information, but today he wants to pay tribute to Udo Kier instead for the "icon" he was.

Udo wasn't just an actor. He was truly an icon of his time. We have lost a big icon. There will never be anyone like him. Udo, rest in peace. I will never forget you.

Kojima writes on X that he "lacks words" and that "everything happened so suddenly". How much recorded material for OD is available is unclear, but it has not been possible to record "for a long time", says Kojima.

Because of the strike, we couldn't record OD for a long time, and we were forced to move the recording to the next year. Even during this time, Udo and I frequently exchanged mail. We kept in close contact. When we met in Milan at the end of September, he told us how much he was looking forward to filming starting again next year. He was full of energy then too and made me laugh with his usual "Udo-isms."

Rest in peace, Udo Kier. Thanks for everything.

Key Controversies

1. Affiliate link injections

   • In 2020 Brave was discovered to automatically append affiliate referral codes to certain cryptocurrency-exchange URLs (e.g., when a user typed or visited “binance.com” or “coinbase.com” via the address bar) without explicitly asking the user. (Wikipedia)

   • The company later described it as a “mistake” and said affiliate links would become opt-in. (Wikipedia)

   • Many users felt this behaviour conflicted with the browser’s privacy & transparency promises.

2. Unsolicited donations via the Rewards system

   • Brave introduced a “Rewards” model involving its own token (Basic Attention Token / “BAT”) to remunerate users and content creators for viewing privacy-respecting ads. (Wikipedia)

   • Some users and content creators complained that they were being tipped or designated for donations without their consent. For example:“Users had tipped his channel through the Brave Rewards program despite him not having signed up for the program or consenting to receive funds.” (Wikipedia)

   • Additionally, Brave implemented stricter wallet-/verification-requirements for withdrawals of BAT in some regions, frustrating users. (Brave Community)

3. Privacy & security bugs

   • In 2021, a bug was found in Brave’s “Private Window / Tor” mode: DNS queries for “.onion” addresses were leaking outside the Tor network. (Nasdaq)

   • Some commentators argue that despite Brave’s privacy positioning, it’s still built on the Chromium engine and inherits many of its broader platform dependencies and potential exposure. (onerep.com)

4. Business model and publisher conflict

   • Brave’s model of blocking third-party ads and then offering its own built-in “privacy-respecting” ads worried many web publishers. They argued Brave was intercepting ad revenue streams they rely upon. (WIRED)

   • Some see a potential conflict of interest: the browser is both blocking ads/trackers (good) and monetising via new channels (could raise trust issues: who’s controlling what?).

5. User trust / perception issues

   • Some users and observers question Brave’s transparency: e.g., why features that “should be optional” were enabled by default; how easily “rewards” and “tokens” are introduced; how new features (crypto wallet, in-built VPN, etc.) may complicate the privacy promise.

   For example: “It added affiliate links, stuff that no one would really ever care about.” (Reddit)

   • Some in the privacy community argue Brave’s combination of crypto incentives, own token, and aggressive feature set may dilute its “pure” privacy stance. (Reddit)

6. Installing extra services without clear user consent

   • There are reports that on Windows, a paid “VPN” service (Brave Firewall + VPN) was bundled with the browser installation for some users even if they hadn’t explicitly opted in. (Wikipedia)

   • While Brave claims that the service remains inactive until purchased, some users felt the bundling was misleading.

Important Context & Mitigations

• Many of the controversies appear to be addressed by Brave (e.g., the affiliate link issue, the Tor-mode DNS leak) or the company has responded with fixes.

• Brave remains open-source (so its code is inspectable) and aims to differentiate via privacy features that many mainstream browsers don’t emphasise. (onerep.com)

• Using Brave doesn’t guarantee perfect anonymity, especially if you’re looking for hidden identity, you might still prefer specialised tools (VPNs, Tor Browser itself, etc.). Brave itself warns that their “Tor window” mode isn’t equivalent to the dedicated Tor Browser. (Reddit)

• Much of the debate is about trade-offs: Brave’s convenience + privacy features vs trusting its business model and feature expansion (crypto wallet, tokens, VPN) rather than purely being “just a browser”.

My Take

If I were to summarise: Brave is a strong privacy-oriented browser and for many users it’s a reasonable choice, but it still carries some caveats:

• If you’re mostly concerned with blocking trackers/ads and want an easier switch from something like Chrome, Brave is solid.

• But if you hold a very high standard of “no business surprises / full transparency / minimal dependencies”, you might prefer a more minimal browser (or pair Brave with additional tools).

• It’s wise to understand Brave’s rewards/crypto model and ensure you’re comfortable with that part (or disable if you prefer).

• Always keep in mind: no browser is perfect. Even Brave has had major hiccups (bugs, trust issues, etc.).

Also read this post for even more details: https://thelibre.news/no-really-dont-use-brave/

After some rumors, Blizzard confirms that virtual currency is coming to World of Warcraft. The currency is called "Hearthsteel" and is launched with the next expansion, Midnight, which will be released next year.

The currency is to be used to trade gadgets for the houses that are part of the expansion. In a description, it is emphasized that many things will still be free, and which rules apply to what will be sold.

Criticism has been heard of what are seen as microtransactions in a game that is already subject to monthly fees. The tone is not consistently happy.

What's your take on this?

Story details are currently zero, but Sophie Turner will be the woman who gets the chance to do what Angelina Jolie and Alicia Vikander have done before: play the role of Lara Croft.

At the same time, we are waiting for news from the next Tomb Raider game, which is being made by Crystal Dynamics in collaboration with Amazon. The "biggest and best" Tomb Raider game ever was revealed at the end of 2022, but almost three years later we have not seen anything from the game.

Technological innovation has repeatedly redefined the contours of human civilization, elevating previously optional conveniences to indispensable infrastructures. Electricity, motorized transportation, and industrial machinery signify such transformational leaps, each once novel, now fundamental. Presently, artificial intelligence (AI) follows this trajectory. As AI rapidly infiltrates diverse domains, from governance and healthcare to information systems and commerce, it stands poised to become as ubiquitous, and as indispensable, as the aforementioned technologies. Yet, unlike its predecessors, AI’s potential for autonomy and opacity engenders unique and profound challenges. This essay argues that AI is destined to become a foundational pillar of modern civilization, but that its adoption must be governed by robust ethical, legal, and strategic frameworks to mitigate existential risks.

Electricity: From Novelty to Necessity

The evolution of electricity from a scientific curiosity to essential infrastructure offers instructive parallels. Originally met with skepticism, early electric lighting and power systems were seen as luxuries. They gradually became embedded in economic production, domestic life, and public health. Today, a world without electricity is not merely inconvenient, it would be functionally impossible. The key lessons are twofold: technological adoption can accelerate once practical benefits are clear, and infrastructural reliance grows until alternative systems become infeasible.

AI mirrors this arc. Initially limited to rudimentary algorithms and constrained domains, modern AI now powers diagnostic radiology, algorithmic trading, smart grids, and personal virtual assistants. In many sectors, human-led processes are increasingly supplemented or supplanted by intelligent automation. As with electricity, discomfort at its novelty gives way to dependency through incremental integration, a process already well underway.

Motorized Vehicles: Reconfiguring Mobility and Economy

The advent of motorized transport similarly illustrates the interplay of innovation and dependency. Before automobiles, economies relied on horses, carriages, and manually powered conveyances. The introduction of internal combustion engines, and later electric and hybrid systems, revolutionized logistics, labor mobility, and urban form, catalyzing industrial and commercial expansion. Contemporary societies are so entangled with motorized transport that supply chains, public services, and daily life would grind to a halt without it.

AI performs a comparable function, albeit within the sphere of cognition rather than physical conveyance. Autonomous systems, predictive modeling, and optimization algorithms have vastly accelerated decision-making and resource allocation. From managing traffic flows to forecasting economic trends, AI extends capabilities beyond human limitations. The cumulative effect is a deepening reliance; as these systems proliferate, reverting to manual or analog methods becomes increasingly impractical.

Industrial Machinery: Accelerating Production and Prosperity

The Industrial Revolution exemplified how mechanization could amplify productivity and reshape social order. Automated looms, assembly lines, and steam engines made mass production viable, reducing costs and democratizing access to goods. These changes fostered urbanization, restructured labor markets, and laid the foundations for modern capitalism.

Today's digital analogue is AI: instead of producing physical widgets, the technology produces knowledge, predictions, and strategic decision support at scales previously unimaginable. From generative design in engineering to advanced simulations in climate science, AI systems can iterate faster and more cheaply than human teams. Such capabilities democratize innovation but also concentrate power, raising questions of equity and control.

Unique Risks Posed by Autonomous Intelligence

Notwithstanding its transformative potential, AI diverges fundamentally from earlier technologies because of its potential for autonomous agency and opacity. Whereas a locomotive or assembly line follows straightforward physical laws and human instruction, AI, especially if venturing toward artificial general intelligence (AGI), could potentially act independently, reshape objectives, or even obscure its decision logic.

This autonomy raises several nontrivial concerns:

1. Control and Alignment: Ensuring AI goals remain aligned with human values is a central challenge. Misaligned systems, even with benign intentions, may pursue goals in ways harmful to human welfare.

2. Security and Sovereignty: Advanced AI might gain access to sensitive infrastructure, including government systems, intelligence networks, and nuclear command-and-control. This degree of access introduces novel security vulnerabilities.

3. Opacity and Predictability: Many contemporary AI systems, particularly those powered by deep learning, are “black boxes.” Their internal operations resist human understanding, complicating oversight, accountability, and trust.

4. Socioeconomic Disruption: Beyond existential threats, AI accelerates labor displacement, exacerbates inequality, and can entrench digital surveillance or algorithmic bias, disproportionately impacting vulnerable populations.

The Necessity of Governance and Ethical Frameworks

Given the duality of opportunity and peril, integrated governance becomes imperative. Analogous to the regulatory regimes that developed around electricity and automobile safety, standards, liability frameworks, licensing, AI requires multi-layered oversight:

• Technical Standards and Auditing: Independent validation of AI behavior, robustness, and fairness.

• Transparency Mandates: Requirements for explainability, particularly in high-stakes domains such as law enforcement or finance.

• Legal Accountability: Treating AI systems and their operators as agents under liability frameworks, ensuring recourse for harm.

• International Norms and Treaties: Collaborative regulation to prevent an AI arms race and to secure sensitive domains.

Conclusion

AI lies at the cusp of being the next indispensable infrastructure of human civilization. Through parallels with electricity, motorized transport, and industrial machinery, we recognize patterns of initial skepticism, rapid integration, and eventual indispensability. Yet AI is fundamentally distinct, imbued with autonomy, opacity, and profound scope, that traditional governance paradigms are ill-equipped to manage.

This dual nature, tremendous benefit and existential risk, demands a proactive, adaptive, and globally coordinated governance framework. Humanity’s challenge is not whether to embrace AI, but how to do so in a manner that safeguards human dignity, security, and agency. Guided wisely, AI promises to extend humanity’s reach and capacity; mismanaged, it could undermine the very foundations of our society.

When electricity was first introduced, many people were skeptical of its value, seeing it as a novelty rather than a necessity. Yet today, life without electricity is unimaginable, our homes, businesses, hospitals, and entire economies are powered by it. In much the same way, AI will transition from a helpful tool into an invisible infrastructure woven into every aspect of modern life, from healthcare diagnoses to traffic management and education.

The invention of motorized vehicles provides another parallel. Humanity lived without cars for millennia, relying on horses, boats, and walking. But once motorized vehicles became accessible, they reshaped the speed, scope, and scale of human life. The world today would come to a standstill without cars, trucks, trains, and planes. Similarly, AI is accelerating the pace of decision-making and problem-solving to levels no human workforce alone could sustain. Soon, entire industries will depend on it to function efficiently.

The Industrial Revolution and the introduction of mass-production machines further illustrate this pattern. Machines allowed goods to be produced at scales and costs never before possible, fueling economic growth and lifting millions out of poverty. Today’s equivalent shift is digital: AI is becoming the machine of knowledge, capable of analyzing immense data sets, designing solutions, and even creating new forms of innovation that humans alone could not achieve at scale.

However, every transformative technology comes with dangers. Just as electricity can electrocute, vehicles can crash, and machines can exploit workers, AI too presents profound risks. The most alarming are not just economic displacement or misuse, but the possibility of AI surpassing human control. A self-aware AI, with access to state secrets, government systems, or even nuclear codes, could threaten global stability. Unlike earlier technologies, AI is not only a tool but potentially a thinker, capable of making independent decisions at speeds far beyond human oversight.

This duality, promise and peril, is why AI will become both necessary and carefully regulated in the near future. Like electricity, vehicles, and industrial machines, it will reshape civilization. Yet unlike any prior invention, its potential for autonomy makes it the most powerful, and dangerous, technology humanity has ever created. The challenge will not be whether to adopt AI, but how to do so responsibly, ensuring that its benefits lift humanity rather than endanger it.

Now we get new news: the release is delayed until 2026.

Krafton claims that the postponement is about feedback after player tests – but is that the whole truth? According to Bloomberg (paywall), a bonus of $ 250 million would be activated from Krafton to Unknown Worlds if a certain goal was reached before the end of 2025. This is according to an agreement Bloomberg has seen. It is said to have been concluded in 2021, in connection with Krafton's acquisition.

The decision to postpone the game was made in connection with the management being forced out, anonymous sources claim. The management was against the delay, which according to reports planned to share the bonus with the approximately 100 employees. By postponing the launch, it is, according to the sources, very doubtful whether the revenue targets will be met – and thus whether the bonus will take effect.

Krafton denies allegations

Krafton, for its part, claims that the decision to delay has nothing to do with "contractual or financial considerations". Words stand for words.

The management that disappeared consists of former CEO Ted Gill, technical director Max McGuire and creative director Charlie Cleveland. It is Cleveland, who is also one of the founders, who recently said that the game is ready for early access.

Words that take on a different meaning today when Krafton, for its part, believes that the game is not ready.

Anyway: the game will be released in 2026 in early access. A new gameplay teaser has been released, announcing the new release window. Comments on YouTube include: "Give the team their $250 million" and "Are you sure whatever you're doing is worth it?"

The community is venting its frustration, and it remains to be seen how this story unfolds.

Already in 2023 we found out that Legendary Entertainment planned to make another movie of the Street Fighter series. Then the details were scarce, but now a lot of actors have been joining, and it is a varied crowd.

The last to join (via The Hollywood Reporter) is no less than rapper Curtis Jackson, perhaps better known as 50 cents. He will play the role of boxer Balrog, who has been up to date in the series since Street Fighter 2.

Otherwise, we always see Jason Momoa, who plays shiny; Noah Centineo as Ken; Orville Peck as Vega; Joe Anoa'i like Akuma; Andrew Koji as Ryu; And Callina Liang like Chun-Li. Director, in turn, is Kitao Sakurai, who directed the Twisted Metal series and the movie Bad Trip.

Production will start in August in Australia.

https://www.stopkillinggames.com/

Link to European Citizens' Initiative: https://eci.ec.europa.eu/045/public/#/screen/home

Link to UK Government Petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/702074/

A message will then automatically be inserted asking if the person wants to try RCS, along with an associated link that explains what RCS is. Here in Sweden, it might have been more appropriate if the feature instead emailed all operators and urged them to start supporting RCS.

Almost all Android users already have RCS enabled via Google Jibe. Apple did not want to use Jibe for RCS and instead relies on operators. If an iPhone user's operator does not support RCS, the old and insecure SMS applies to communication between iOS and Android when the built-in apps are used.

Hollywood is mourning another legend. Jack Betts, the charismatic actor who charmed audiences in spaghetti westerns and later played a board member in “Spider-Man,” died Thursday at the age of 96 at his home in Los Osos, California, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Betts lived a life worthy of Hollywood. Under the stage name Hunt Powers, he appeared in about 15 Italian westerns between 1966 and 1973. This happened at the same time that Clint Eastwood was filming his iconic “Dollars” films on the nearby mountains.

In Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man” (2002), he delivered the icy line “You’re out, Norman” to Willem Dafoe’s Norman Osborn – just before the Green Goblin turned him into a skeleton in the Times Square attack.

The versatile actor also graced soap operas such as “One Life to Live” and “General Hospital.” He also appeared in films such as “Batman Forever,” “Falling Down” and “Gods and Monsters.” His 67-year career spanned from his Broadway debut in 1953 to modern classics.

Betts lived with “Everybody Loves Raymond” star Doris Roberts from the 1980s until her death in 2016. It was a friendship that spanned six decades, since they first met at The Actors Studio in 1954.

The adventure is linear, and will contain both action and exploration. “Blood Message” surprised many when the game was announced a little out of nowhere, without any big games fair or other presentation as a setting.

“Blood Message” does not yet have a release date, but it will come to both PC and consoles when the time comes. Check out the trailer below:

“007 First Light” is a new Bond game by IO Interactive, known for its “Hitman” series. The game is in development for PS5, Xbox Series X/S, PC and Nintendo Switch 2 – and will be released sometime in 2026.

Here we meet a young and inexperienced James Bond who is recruited by MI6 and gets to carry out his first missions.

MovieZine has spoken to Jonathan Lacaille, who is the franchise director for the game at IO Interactive.

1. The developers really know the brand

What are the most important elements that a Bond story needs?

– When we started working on the game, we obviously looked at what makes a good Bond story. There are some elements that are found in all the films, which we took inspiration from to cook up the game’s recipe.

– Exoticism, vehicles and gadgets are some things that always appear in a spy story. Another element is interesting and preferably double-sided characters. Villains and henchmen are also very important. I don't think there's a Bond film without them.

– Then of course James Bond is at the center. We've seen different vintages, but I would say that the common thread through all Bond products is that they have always felt modern. Sean Connery was cutting edge for his time when the first film premiered both in terms of culturally, what products he used for the story and the themes they created. It was modern for his time, just like Daniel Craig was for our and now also Bond in the game.

So the game takes place in the present?

– Yes, or in the very near future, but I can't say an exact year. That's because it feels relevant within the time period we're releasing the game.

2. IO Interactive has already made fantastic spy games with the "Hitman" series

When the game "Hitman 3" by IO Interactive was released in 2021, I wrote in my review that it "makes me feel like James Bond".

I'm not alone in that opinion, says Jonathan Lacaille, who says the team has leveraged its strengths from that series during the development of "007 First Light."

"We're leaning on what the studio does really well and have mastered the agent genre in the work on "Hitman" for a long time. It would be foolish not to lean on what we do best," he says.

James Bond and “Hitman” are very different series, however. They have their similarities, but they are different characters who work in different ways. IO Interactive therefore needed to build some new muscles.

– The action sequences and shooting are something we needed to get much better at. In the “Hitman” games, it usually means that you have failed when the guns come out. Then you have been discovered, it's over. In a Bond game, it is one of the tools you can choose to move on.

3. “007 First Light” offers great variety

Other new features are driving, which IO Interactive has never included in its previous games, but also gadgets.

– We want the player to feel as smart as Bond. By that I mean that he sometimes ends up in a situation where the odds are against him. We want the player to identify different options – whether it is to take the main entrance and shoot wildly or sneak in through the back door. Something else that is quite unique to Bond is using his charm to get past obstacles.

There is a rumor that actor Patrick Gibson will play Bond in “007 First Light”. He has played in “The Tudors”, “Shadow and Bone”, “Tolkien” and recently played the role of a young Dexter Morgan in “Dexter: Original Sin”.

What can you say about that?

– People are always speculating who will play Bond. Right now we want to focus on showing the game and presenting what it is about. We really want people to care about the game. Regarding the cast, I can only say that it is speculation, but we will confirm who will be involved later this summer.

4. A different James Bond we have never seen before

How much freedom have you had in developing this game? Is it a challenge to work with a franchise that does not belong to you?

– We obviously have to respect the brand. There are guides and guidelines about what Bond is and is not, but they are not particularly restrictive. It is more of a tool that you can use and build on. Because we chose to do an origin story, everything has to be invented, so that way we have a lot of creative freedom. It's also a different medium. It's a game and not a movie, so that also gives a different kind of freedom.

In “007 First Light,” James Bond is 26 years old and an inexperienced spy. He’s not based on any previous interpretation of the character, but a completely new one we’ve never seen in the movies before.

– We based a lot of it on how he looks in the books by Ian Fleming. Someone at MGM mentioned that he has a scar on his face at some point, so we thought it would be fun to go with that because he’s never been portrayed that way before. They’ve seen such a huge library to dig into and get inspiration from to build this new story.

What are your personal favorite Bond movies?

– It’s changed over time. When I was little, Pierce Brosnan was great, but the movies with Daniel Craig were amazing because they really built on the character. He develops through the movies. I felt like I could watch them as a TV series. If I had to choose, I’d have a hard time choosing between Sean Connery and Daniel Craig.

5. The developers hope it will be as loved as “Goldeneye 007”

What is your relationship with the game “Goldeneye 007” from 1997 for Nintendo 64, which is considered by many to be the best Bond game?

– It’s probably the only one I’ve actually played. It was a fantastic game, there’s no denying that. It’s always the game that people refer to when talking about Bond games. I hope our game will get similar status. They’re two very different gaming experiences, but I think we have a very well-made game in the works that people will like for other reasons than “Goldeneye 007”.

“007 First Light” will be released sometime in 2026. We’ll find out more about the game during the summer.

– I have video games in the works. Obviously more “Devil May Cry”. I get offered various franchises from companies that want to work with me. I bought the rights to “Duke Nukem”. Not the game rights, but I bought it from Gearbox.

He goes on to say that he doesn’t plan on taking orders from anyone when he adapts “Duke Nukem”:

– It’s a middle finger to everyone. When “Duke Nukem” became big, a group of people tried to make it a brand, when all it is is a middle finger. “Duke Nukem” can’t be made by one company, because the moment a company makes “Duke Nukem” it’s no longer “Duke Nukem”. I'm not going to let anyone tell me what to do with it.

Earlier in February 2025, a court in Seoul ruled that Ironmace had violated trade secrets by leaking internal information.

Players can already no longer purchase “Dark and Darker’s” own currency, Redstone Shards, or upgrade to Legendary Status.

Epic Games writes that anyone who purchased Legendary Status in the game will get their money back. However, no money will be refunded for Redstone Shards.

Despite all its legal problems, “Dark and Darker” became a huge success in 2024. At the time of writing, it is still available to download via the gaming platform Steam.

According to China Film Foundation chairman Zhang Qilin, these films are “cinematic calling cards” that show China’s spirit and vitality to the world.

AI will be used to improve the productions’ picture and sound quality, while the studios promise to preserve the authenticity of the originals.

Among the titles are works by legends such as Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, and Jet Li – including “Fist of Fury,” “The Big Boss,” “Once Upon a Time in China,” and “Drunken Master.”

When the AI versions will be released is still unclear.

Rise from survival to greatness and challenge the power of an Imperium in Dune: Awakening, a multiplayer survival game on a massive scale. Survive the sandworm, craft your ornithopter, build a fortress, and ascend to power on an open world Arrakis shared with hundreds of other players.

TLDR

It's a chore and a grind fest.

REVIEW

The game-play is solid and the building mechanics are top tier. That's about it. Get ready for a lot of running and drinking. Yes, the water system is really bad in my opinion. The rate at which water drains is ridiculous and you end up always interrupting whatever you are doing to go get water in your base or hunting NPC's to get their blood. It's a choir rather than a fundamental mechanic. Also, hunger is apparently not a thing on Arrakis...

There is also this weird mechanic with shielded doors where you have to find a random key just laying around in order to be able to go through the shield. It felt very misplaced and like a lazy way to limit players from entering certain areas (forced exploration). Either make it feel worth it or just skip the mechanic overall.

The whole game feels like a big chore. You need hundreds of tools to farm hundreds of materials to build hundred components for one thing (a little exaggerated but you get it).

It feels too complicated and it takes away from the game-play and survival aspect when you constantly have to go out farming materials just to keep the base alive.

Speaking of base, I'm running one of each simple machines and I need FOUR GENERATORS! Again, I have to constantly run out and farm fuel cells.

Why in the frakkin seven hells is there no such thing as a sun collector in the desert?

There's obviously a wind turbine and RAIN collector in the desert where there's no rain or winds!

There are many more minor things like this that just don't feel thought through, feels lazy and out of place, over-complicated and a chore rather than a task.

I'm not gonna go into the poor mission (journey) system and how you have to hunt down class trainers, forced into PvP zones even though devs stated that PvP is optional etc. Because it's bad. Again, a frakkin chore.

They claim it's a MMO yet there is no such thing as team work other than being a FOUR MAN PARTY(!). There is no mission sharing, no shareable map markers, nothing really aimed towards group play unless, again, you engage in PvP...

Poor server structure and server system, repetitive missions and a lot of grinding. I would honestly wait for a sale and I am once again reminded why buying games early instead of waiting for reviews and game-play videos is a mistake.

I'm pretty much done, spending hours and hours grinding materials just to have my base up and running and then not having time to actually play the game is not what I consider fun.

Final Score: 2/5