Applications are developed and installed, but few companies evaluate them for true usefulness. Think in terms of the abilityof an app to deliver tangible and optimized value to the end business.Some of the characteristics of tangible, optimized value for applications include:Is the application easy for people to use?Does the application perform consistently well, with a minimal need for maintenance?Is all the functionality that an application contains fully used?What measurable gains does the application provide to the business?Is the application scalable?Ive visited with IT departments and asked them about these application usefulness questions. I cant think of one of them that told me that they checked for usefulness beyond making sure that user friendliness and ease of navigation were present in app user interfaces. To a lesser degree, they looked at how many times an application needed to be fixed or maintained.Does Usefulness Really Matter?The Merriam Webster dictionary defines usefulness as: The quality of having utility and especially practical worth or applicability.Almost every new IT application that is deployed has utility, applicability and some practical worth, but is that all there should be to useful?Related:Here is a real-life example:A healthcare company has a very user-friendly web portal that delivers a self-service feature for customers. Customers fill out their names, phone numbers, email addresses, and physical addresses for identity verification and mail/credit card verification. But that app overlooks that there are rural and some urban customers who get their mail at a postal box, and not at their physical address. These customers need two address entries on the form. There is no way for these customers to work with the online app, and they have to call a human agent, because the app isnt able to handle the exception.There are other situations as well, like the financial analytics report that was supposed to test-drive all risk scenarios, with a drill-down into the details. Yet, that is only being partially used to get a top-level picture. Or there is the workflow automation in a warehouse that was supposed to deliver a 30% savings in human labor, but it's failing the business because the automation is incapable of addressing special handling requirements, and humans must jump in.Most CIOs have seen examples like these in their own companies. Unfortunately, the hard realities of heavy IT workloads make considering the idea of true application usefulness more aspirational than practical.Related:Despite this, however, there are several practical steps that organizations can take.Building Usefulness into Application DevelopmentTo improve application usefulness without incurring significantly more expense and work hours for IT and the user side of the business, here are five simple steps that can be taken to improve app usefulness:1. Understand the business for today and for the future. Its common practice in projects to define the business metrics that an application should deliver, and then to measure expectations against performance once the app is in production. This telltale production feedback gives insights as to how well an app is delivering the business value that was promised.Beyond metrics, however, you can create more business usefulness by ensuring that senior developers, business analysts and user project members are well versed in the particulars of the business for which the app is being developed. They not only should understand the business strategies and pain points for today, but also that they are projecting what the business strategies and pain points will be in the future.IT can accomplish two important things if it emphasizes business thinking during the application development process: That the app will be highly relevant and responsive to business needs today; and that the app will be constructed in a way that it can be extended or scaled for future anticipated needs that will prolong the apps useful life.Related:2. Learn from your help desk and your customer service center. The maintenance and enhancement tickets and requests coming into the IT help desk from users, and the feedback and customer surveys that front-facing customer service agents get, can inform IT and users about where the organizations pain points, and process failures are; and how new applications can eliminate these pain points.The idea is to bring help desk and customer service data into initial application design meetings so lessons learned can be incorporated into upfront application design. In this way, the risks of pain point and process failure repetitions can be lowered, and usefulness can be enhanced.3. Meet regularly with middle management. Middle managers are the movers of daily operations. They have their boots on the ground, they know the internals of the business, and they know where applications have failed them in the past. IT leaders should make it a point to meet with these managers often and to cultivate good working relationships. This builds a cooperative spirit and improves everyones working knowledge of the business and IT.4. Include training in project plans.Training should be projectized and redefined as a QA function. If the training is performed and users are then tested on how well they learned and can execute an apps total functionality, business value and app usefulness will increase.5. Stress workflow and app simplification in all development efforts. Workforce critical thinking and basic comprehension skills are declining, and businesses are feeling this. Its all the more reason to simplify applications and also the business processes that they enable.Applications are more rapidly adopted when users understand and feel confident using them. The sooner apps are adopted, the sooner that they can begin paying dividends to the business.

This story was originally published in October 2024. In March 2025, 23andMe filed for bankruptcy and announced its plans to facilitate a sale process to maximize the value of its business. MIT Technology Review'sHow Toseries helps you get things done. Things arent looking good for 23andMe. The consumer DNA testing company recently parted ways with all its board members but CEO Anne Wojcicki over her plans to take the company private. Its also still dealing with the fallout of a major security breach last October, which saw hackers access the personal data of around 5.5 million customers. 23andMes business is built on taking saliva samples from its customers. The DNA from those samples is processed and analyzed in its labs to produce personalized genetic reports detailing a users unique health and ancestry. The uncertainty swirling around the companys future and potential new ownership has prompted privacy campaigners to urge users to delete their data. Its not just you. If anyone in your family gave their DNA to 23&Me, for all of your sakes, close your/their account now, Meredith Whittaker, president of the encrypted messaging platform Signal, posted on X after the boards resignation. "Customers should consider current threats to their privacy as well as threats that may exist in the futuresome of which may be magnified if 23AndMe were sold to a new owner," says Jason Kelley, activism director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "23AndMe has protections around this much of this. But a potential sale could put your data in the hands of a far less scrupulous company." A spokesperson for 23andMe said that the company has strong customer privacy protections in place, and does not share customer data with third parties without customers consent. "Our research program is opt-in, requiring customers to go through a separate, informed consent process before joining," they say. We are committed to protecting customer data and are consistently focused on maintaining the privacy of our customers. That will not change. Why deleting your account comes with a caveat Deleting your data from 23andMe is permanent and cannot be reversed. But some of that data will be retained to comply with the companys legal obligations, according to its privacy statement. That means 23andMe and its third-party genotyping laboratory will hang onto some of your genetic information, plus your date of birth and sexalongside data linked to your account deletion request, including your email address and deletion request identifier. When MIT Technology Review asked 23andMe about the nature of the genetic information it retains, it referred us to its privacy policy but didn't provide any other details. Any information youve previously provided and consented to being used in 23andMe research projects also cannot be removed from ongoing or completed studies, although it will not be used in any future ones. Beyond the laboratories that process the saliva samples, the company does not share customer information with anyone else unless the user has given permission for it to do so, the spokesperson says, including employers, insurance companies, law enforcement agencies, or any public databases. We treat law enforcement inquiries, such as a valid subpoena or court order, with the utmost seriousness. We use all legal measures to resist any and all requests in order to protect our customer's privacy, the spokesperson says. To date, we have successfully challenged these requests and have not released any information to law enforcement. For those who still want their data deleted, heres how you go about it. How to delete your data from 23andMe Log into your account and navigate to Settings. Under Settings, scroll to the section titled 23andMe data. Select View. You may be asked to enter your date of birth for extra security. In the next section, youll be asked which, if any, personal data youd like to download from the company (onto a personal, not public, computer). Once youre finished, scroll to the bottom and select Permanently delete data. You should then receive an email from 23andMe detailing its account deletion policy and requesting that you confirm your request. Once you confirm youd like your data to be deleted, the deletion will begin automatically and youll immediately lose access to your account. What about your genetic sample? When you set up your 23andMe account, youre given the option either to have your saliva sample securely destroyed or to have it stored for future testing. If youve previously opted to store your sample but now want to delete your 23andMe account, the company says, it will destroy the sample for you as part of the account deletion process. What if you want to keep your genetic data, just not on 23andMe? Even if you want your data taken off 23AndMe, there are reasons why you might still want to have it hosted on other DNA sitesfor genealogical research, for example. And some people like the idea of having their DNA results stored on more than one database in case something happens to any one company. This is where downloading your data comes into play. FamilyTreeDNA, MyHeritage, GEDmatch, and Living DNA are among the DNA testing companies that allow you to upload existing DNA results from other companies, although Ancestry and 23andMe dont accept uploads. How to download your raw genetic data Navigate directly to you.23andme.com/tools/data/. Click on your profile name on the top right-hand corner. Then select Resources from the menu. Select Browse raw genotyping data and then Download. Visit Account settings and click on View under 23andMe data. Enter your date of birth for security purposes. Tick the box indicating that you understand the limitations and risks associated with uploading your information to third-party sites and press Submit request. 23andMe warns its users that uploading their data to other services could put genetic data privacy at risk. For example, bad actors could use someone elses DNA data to create fake genetic profiles. They could use these profiles to match with a relative and access personal identifying information and specific DNA variantssuch as information about any disease risk variants you might carry, the spokesperson says, adding: This is one reason why we dont support uploading DNA to 23andMe at this time. Update: This article has been updated to reflect that when asked about the nature of the genetic information it retains, 23andMe referred us to its privacy policy but didn't provide any other details.

The chancellor is due to make the funding commitment tomorrow as part of her Spring Statement as part of government efforts to meet its 1.5 million homes target in the face of record low approvals for new homes last year.The cash injection will go toward building 18,000 affordable and social homes before 2029, the government said in an announcement, with most construction of those homes to get under way before 2027. However, it is unclear how the money will be allocated across the country.Angela Rayner, the housing secretary, had long promised the biggest expansion in social housing in a generation since the Labour party was elected to office last July an ambition that has been called into question by a 2.2 billion black hole in local authority housing and revenue accounts.AdvertisementThe built environment profession has also warned that, without funding for affordable and social homes specifically particularly council-backed housing, the government would not be able to meet its 1.5 million new homes target for this Parliament.Rayner said in a statement: Everyone deserves to have a safe and secure roof over their heads and a place to call their own. But the reality is that far too many people have been frozen out of home ownership or denied the chance to rent a home they can afford, thanks to the housing crisis weve inherited.She continued: This investment will help us to build thousands more affordable homes to buy and rent and get working people and families into secure homes and onto the housing ladder. This is just the latest in delivering our Plan for Change mission to build 1.5 million homes and the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation.Responding to the announcement, SME house building developers and housing associations said they welcomed the cash injection into the affordable housing sector. However, they argued the monies would need to address the key issues around viability particularly for SME house builders in London, where land values are highest.Paul Rickard, chief executive of Pocket Living, said: While this is welcome news, we await further details on the allocation between London and the rest of England, especially given the crisis in housing starts in the capital and with the shortage of affordable homes.AdvertisementTackling the viability issues and getting housing schemes from the point of planning consent to a start on site remains one of the greatest challenges that the housebuilding industry faces.Rickard added that more needed to be done by government, including longer-term funding to support the SME house building sector before it is too late.Olivia Harris, chief executive of Dolphin Living, said of the announcement: This additional funding is very much welcome and needed, especially given the huge viability challenges many affordable housing developers are facing, which is stymying the delivery of much-needed new housing.She continued: [But] if the government really wants to rapidly increase supply, then we also need to have a serious debate on affordable tenure and in some cases switch to intermediate affordable housing, in addition to this extra funding, to really start getting those affordable housing consents converted into building activity.Kate Henderson, chief executive at the National Housing Federation, said the cash boost would prevent a cliff edge in delivery of new homes, ahead of the next funding programme being announced at an unknown date.Henderson continued: Social housing is the only secure and affordable housing for families on low incomes and the dire shortage has led to rocketing rates of poverty, overcrowding and homelessness.Investment in social housing is not only key to tackling the housing crisis, but is also excellent value for money, reducing government spending on benefits, health and homelessness as well as boosting growth. Housing associations are ready to work with the government to deliver a generation of new social homes.Last month, the government announced a 350 million top-up to its affordable housing fund, adding to the 500 million pot already pledged in Octobers budget.Most of the new funding 300 million will be used to boost the governments affordable homes programme and is expected to fund2,800 additional homes, including more than half for social rent.CommentMiranda MacLaren, director at OrmsThe 2 billion allocation to the affordable housing fund is a positive step but falls short of past investment, such as 3.7 billion in 2009-10. Years of reduced funding have contributed to the current housing crisis, with 160,000 children in temporary accommodation as of January 2025. The financial burden is significanthousing a family in a guesthouse costs up to 2,383 a month, nearly five times the cost of social housing.In 2023/24, councils in England spent 2.3 billion on temporary housing, a 29% increase from the previous year, with 780 million going to unsuitable emergency B&Bs and hostels. Without intervention, emergency housing costs could reach 1.2 billion annually by 2027.To curb costs and improve housing stability, councils need investment in emergency and long-term affordable housing. Retrofitting vacant office spaces could provide a sustainable, cost-effective solution to address the crisis.

Commentary: The Residence feels like Knives Out meets Clue with some Columbo mixed in for good measure.

This QD-OLED monitor with an excellent burn-in warranty is $950 -- over 40% off -- during Amazons Big Spring Sale.

OpinionMarch 25, 20255 min readWhen Scientists Dont Correct Errors, Misinformation and Deadly Consequences Can FollowUncorrected errors in science and the unconscionable reluctance to correct them erodes trust in science, throws away taxpayer money, harms the publics health and can kill innocent people Devrimb/Getty ImagesFew tasks come as thankless as asking a scientific journal editor to correct a bad study. I think that it [is] time to stop this never-ending story, the editor in chief of a diabetes journal told us last year, refusing our request for the data behind a study that we deemed to have fatal statistical errors. As noted by Retraction Watch, in an earlier e-mail to us, the corresponding author of the paper said, "sharing data with a third party would breach the study [participants] consent and European rules on data protection. But such errors would invalidate preliminary positive results for a Web-based clinical decision support tool intended to help diabetes patients. Those are the people we were concerned about.Unfortunately, such irresponsibility is all too common.Science informs our medical care, flies us through the skies, and keeps us safe while driving. And yet, because its done by people, mistakes can be made. After all, to err is human.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Scientific papers are riddled with errors; for example, as many as 30 percent of cluster randomized controlled trials for childhood obesity may have been analyzed incorrectly. In psychology, 20 percent of studies or more may have inconsistencies with their basic descriptive statistics that shed doubt on the reliability of their findings.When mistakes happen, the costs can be high. Researchers say that science is self-correcting, but often it isnt or it is unforgivably slow. For example, in the early 19th century, based on obviously bad sampling, physicians misdiagnosed many healthy infants with enlarged thymuses and mistakenly believed they were responsible for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) by occluding the trachea, leading to a century-long medical misconception. Radiation therapy was then used to shrink thymuses for thousands of children, which ultimately caused increased rates of thyroid and breast cancer, resulting in over 10,000 deaths. The error was finally recognized and corrected in the 1940s. However, a nationwide campaign was only launched in 1977 by the National Cancer Institute to warn the medical community and alert the public.Serious errors occur in social science publications, too. Economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff published influential research in 2010 suggesting that when a countrys debt surpasses 90 percent of its gross domestic product, economic growth declines. Broadly cited by political leaders, this finding famously supported austerity policies worldwide. Independent researchers later uncovered significant errors in Reinhart and Rogoffs calculations. The blunder omitted key data from five countries, reversing the findings to show an average growth increase, rather than decline, at high debt levels. Reinhart and Rogoff acknowledged the error but argued against other criticisms of their analysis and maintained that their main findings generally held. This case raises another all-too-common irresponsibility we encountered in our diabetes study correction quest, where authors do not proactively disclose data and editors fail to require its availability. And while Reinhart and Rogoff had initially shared some of their data analysis details publicly, it was insufficient to fully reproduce and check their findings. Had they shared their data completely, the error could have been identified and corrected sooner, potentially prior to publication.We end on an egregious saga of scientific falsification and fabrication that went uncorrected for decades in the fields of Alzheimers and Parkinsons disease research. Eliezer Masliah, former director of the National Institute of Agings neuroscience division and a neurodegenerative disease specialist, was found guilty of scientific misconduct following a government investigation. As a result, two papers were retracted because of what appeared to be doctored images. A news story in the journal Science after an independent investigation reported that as many as 132 papers from 1997 to 2023 are suspect; several of those papers were very influential in the neurodegenerative disease field and in therapeutic drug development. A quarter century of Alzheimers research may have gone down the wrong trail to potential remedies because of this disaster.Many of us have had or will watch a loved one go through the slow, debilitating, and heartbreaking loss of self and others that Alzheimers brings. Tragically, current treatments offer limited relief. Despite countless researchers efforts and millions of dollars, progress has been hindered by chasing false leads while people are lost to the scourge of Alzheimers.The odiousness of knowingly delaying the correction of error-contaminated science came into play in the 2023 case of Marc Tessier-Lavigne, a distinguished scientist in the neurodegenerative field and a former president of Stanford University. Tessier-Lavigne resigned after an expert panel review found several of his groups published papers to contain manipulated images. Although Tessier-Lavigne himself was exonerated of research misconduct, the review concluded that as supervisor of the research group Tessier-Lavigne failed to decisively and forthrightly correct mistakes in the scientific record. This case highlights the dangers when scientists (especially senior scientific leaders) do not fully stand up for the rigor and integrity of science. Just as we experienced, it also highlights the failure of editors and journals to maintain the scientific integrity of the scientific literature. It turned out that Tessier-Lavigne attempted to make corrections for papers in Cell and Science, but Cell initially said it was not necessary, and the correction in Science initially was not published, consequent to an editorial error.Such delays and failures to correct known errors not only harm the public and stall progress but can also erode public trust in scientific research. This is why scientists and the journals in which they publish must unwaveringly commit to correcting errors. Scientists must uncompromisingly commit to rigorous research and accurate and trustworthy reporting; all of our welfare hangs in the balance.Its not all bad. We know of the errors cited here in part because science as an enterprise takes them seriously, even if individuals did not. Science has always been about self-improvement. It is a wellspring of innovations that learn about the world and leverage those insights to help us all.We are still hopeful. When bad science is left unchecked, it harms us all. And we need to do better. How much more progress could we make and how many more lives could we save if we do?This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American, the authors institution, or any other organization.

March 25, 20254 min readHow Researchers Found a Greener Way to Make Fuel for Nuclear FusionBy AccidentResearchers have found an environmentally safer way to extract the lithium 6 needed to create fuel for nuclear fusion reactors. The new approach doesnt require toxic mercury, as conventional methods doBy Jacek Krywko edited by Andrea Thompson xia yuan/Getty ImagesAll the nuclear power plants in operation right now use nuclear fissionthe process of splitting apart an atomto produce energy. But scientists have spent decades and entire careers in a frustrating quest to achieve nuclear fusion, which combines atoms, because it releases far more energy and produces no dangerous waste. Many hope fusion could one day be a significant source of carbon-free power.In addition to the many technical issues that have kept nuclear fusion perpetually in development, the process also needs fuel that presents its own problems. The fuel requires a rare lithium isotope (a version of an atom of the element with a different number of neutrons) called lithium 6.But the traditional process for sourcing lithium 6 involves using the toxic metal mercury and causes major environmental damage. It has been banned in the U.S. since 1963. The country currently relies on lithium 6 supplies that were stockpiled at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory as part of nuclear weapons development programs during the cold war. Its kept a secret how much lithium 6 is left there, but its surely not enough to supply future fusion reactors, says Sarbajit Banerjee, a professor of chemistry at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich. Banerjee and his team think they have found a new and environmentally safer way to extract lithium 6 from brineand they came across it completely by accident.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Nuclear fusion, a reaction that powers stars such as our sun, generates energy by fusing atoms together. In fusion reactors, those atoms are deuterium (a heavy form of hydrogen that is abundant in seawater) and tritium (an even heavier form of hydrogen that is extremely rare but can be bred from lithium 6). Deuterium-tritium fusion unleashes a massive amount of energyits what gives hydrogen bombs their immense explosive power. It also happens at temperatures low enough to be contained in reactors. But it needs a relatively large amount of tritium.The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), a 500-megawatt, large-scale experimental fusion reactor that is currently under construction in France, is expected to use much of global reserves of tritium, which are estimated to comprise between 25 and 30 kilograms. To make enough to fuel ITER and other projects, not to mention future fusion reactors, scientists will need much more lithium 6.When a lithium 6 atom is bombarded with a neutron, it undergoes a nuclear reaction that produces helium and tritium. Because roughly two kilograms of lithium 6 is needed to breed one kilogram of tritium, significant amounts of lithium 6 would be needed for ITER alone. If nuclear fusion takes off the ground, the demand for lithium 6 will shoot up to thousands of tons, Banerjee says.The natural lithium that is now mined from rocks in Australia or extracted from brine deposits in Chile is a mixture of two stable isotopes: lithium 7, which is commonly used in batteries, and lithium 6. The only established industrial process that separates these two isotopes is called column exchange (COLEX): large amounts of liquid mercury flow down a vertical column, while lithium mixed with water flows up. When those two liquids pass each other, the lithium 6 sticks to the mercury a bit more than lithium 7, so it ends up at the bottom of the column, while lithium 7 ends up at the top. But in this process, a few hundred tons of mercury got released to the environment, Banerjee says, prompting the U.S. ban.Thus far, the mercury-free methods for lithium isotope separation have been far costlier and less efficient than COLEX. But then Banerjee and his team went to Texas to work on a seemingly unrelated project: developing membranes for cleaning the water thats brought to the surface in oil and gas fracking operations.We had a couple of membranes that could filter out the oil, salt and silt from the water. At the same time, we were working on some battery materials, so we also filtered out lithium, Banerjee explains. His team used membranes made from zeta vanadium oxide, a patented material the team synthetized in a lab. The membranes contain a framework of one-dimensional nanoscale tunnelsand the team found these tunnels were particularly good at capturing lithium ions. They could even separate lithium 6 from lithium 7.To test this process more thoroughly, the researchers built an electrochemical cell: a sort of battery working in reverse. When water was cycled through the powered-up cell, positively charged lithium 6 ions got trapped in the one-dimensional tunnels of the negatively charged zeta vanadium oxide electrode. But heavier lithium 7 ions were more likely to break the bond with the tunnels and mostly avoided getting stuck in them. The results were published on March 20 in Chem.The technique could reach the level of enrichment suitable for nuclear fusion fuel after 25 four-hour cycles, Banerjee and his team say. Another plus was that zeta vanadium oxide gradually changed color from yellow to dark green when more lithium ions got trapped in it, which provided a very clear indicator of when the job was done. To get the lithium out of the cell, Banerjees team simply reversed the polarity to push trapped ions out of the tunnels and back to the circulating water.This method seems to have excellent separation, which is very promising, says Norbert K. Wegrzynowski, a physicist at the University of Bristol in England, who has worked on isotopic separation of lithium 6 and is not affiliated with Banerjees team. However, the next question is scalability. The key problem for such methods is driving the cost down enough to make them cost effective, Wegrzynowski says. He believes, though, that techniques along these lines may be the easiest and fastest to scale up to an industrial level.The efficiency of this process is already comparable to COLEX, and its just an unoptimized proof of concept. Within six months or so, we can probably be doing much better Banarjee says. He believes his lithium isotope separation technique could be implemented at an industrial scale within a couple of years. The materials to make this work are available, and its not the hardest process in the world, Banerjee says. Its not that far from actual realization.

Shadow of Mordor's Nemesis system was actually created to reduce second-hand salesOrcward encounter.Image credit: Monolith News by Victoria Kennedy News Reporter Published on March 25, 2025 A former vice president of Warner Bros Games has revealed the true genesis of Monolith's beloved Nemesis system.The Nemesis system, for those unfamiliar, is a clever in-game mechanic which tracks a player's actions to create enemies that feel capable of remembering past encounters. In the case of Monolith's Middle-earth games, this allowed foes to rise through the ranks and enact revenge.But, while being a rather brilliant mechanic for fellow Orc hunters, it was actually created with a slightly more corporate mindset in play, with the idea being to cut down on used game sales.13 Exciting 2025 Horror Games. Watch on YouTubeIn a video documenting her time with Monolith, former Warner Bros Games exec Laura Fryer noted a drop off in sales for Rocksteady's Arkham Asylum release had been attributed to users playing the game, then returning their copy to a retailer, when it would then be sold on as a used copy."This was great for gamers, because they could buy the game and then sell it back to a company like GameStop and buy something else," Fryer said (thanks, IGN). "It was great for GameStop, because then they sold that used game for a discount and they pocketed the money."But, while this buying and reselling was a boon for the likes of GameStop and those of us looking to make a little money back, it was a "disaster" for the developers "because they weren't getting paid" for every game. "They were only getting paid for the first copy sold," Fryer said. "They lost millions of dollars."And, that brings us to the Nemesis system, with Fryer stating that the studio was facing "the same problem" with Shadow of Mordor. So, the question was asked: "How do we create a single-player game that is so compelling, that people keep the disc in their library forever?" And the solution, well, that was ultimately the Nemesis system."We knew Monolith's game engine wasn't yet capable of having a fully open world like a GTA, and this team wasn't interested in going the multiplayer route. But we still had to solve for the constraint," Fryer said. "And this thinking is what led to the Nemesis system, arguably one of the most creative and coolest game features in recent memory."My Time with Monolith. Watch on YouTubeAs for the system, while being an incredibly popular and innovative mechanic, it is now locked away by a Warner Bros patent until 2036, following the shuttering of Monolith earlier this year.The Nemesis system was set to be utilised again in Monolith's Wonder Woman game, though that project has now been cancelled alongside the studio's closure.

A Japanese shrine famous to video game fans has announced a ban on visits by tourists, following an "unforgivable act of disrespect". Read more

You can trust VideoGamer. Our team of gaming experts spend hours testing and reviewing the latest games, to ensure you're reading the most comprehensive guide possible. Rest assured, all imagery and advice is unique and original. Check out how we test and review games hereThe latest Fortnite update brought a lot of new content, including a new OG Season. This season added a new pass with numerous cosmetics inspired by early Chapter 1. While this is a big addition, perhaps the biggest thing that arrived with the Fortnite update is a new leak. This leak shows that Epic Games may change future seasons, starting with Season 3.Earlier leaks indicated that Chapter 6 could have six seasons, and this now makes much more sense. It appears that Epic will release shorter seasons, which might be a new strategy.The next Fortnite season might be the shortest, leak showsAccording to Hypex, one of the most trusted Fortnite leakers, the upcoming season will last just 35 days. Specifically, it will begin on May 2 and end on June 8. Excluding OG and throwback seasons, this will make Chapter 6 Season 3 the shortest Fortnite season ever. This hasnt been confirmed by Epic Games yet, but considering Hypexs track record, we expect it to be true.It appears that the theme of the next season has already been leaked as well. Several sources claim that the season will have a Star Wars theme, which makes sense considering that it begins just two days before Star Wars Day. If this turns out to be the case, Epic might simply be experimenting with shorter collaboration seasons.The next Fortnite season might have a Star Wars theme. Image by VideoGamerIts important to note that none of this has been confirmed by Epic. However, they come from reputable sources, which is why we believe they will turn out to be true. Since we are approximately five weeks away from the new season, the Fortnite developer will likely start teasing it in late April. Judging by the past few seasons, Epic might even reveal a new Battle Pass a week before it comes out. FortnitePlatform(s):Android, iOS, macOS, Nintendo Switch, PC, PlayStation 4, PlayStation 5, Xbox One, Xbox Series S/XGenre(s):Action, Massively Multiplayer, Shooter9VideoGamerSubscribe to our newsletters!By subscribing, you agree to our Privacy Policy and may receive occasional deal communications; you can unsubscribe anytime.Share