CD Projekt RED has announced that it will be capping off 10 years of post-launch support for critically-acclaimed RPG The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt with one final update. Announced through a post on social media platform X, the studio has said that the update will be coming to PC, PS5 and Xbox Series X/S, and will bring with it cross-platform mod support. While mod support has been available in the PC version of The Witcher 3 for a while now, with this update, CD Projekt RED will allow players to create and share mods across the different platforms on which it is available. It is worth noting that this update will not be coming to the Nintendo Switch version of the game. CD Projekt RED hasn’t yet confirmed when this update will be released, saying simply that it will be coming out “later this year”. In an FAQ on its official website, the studio has also confirmed that players can upload and download mods to the platform being used – mod.io – at no cost. Players will, however, need to create a mod.io account that is connected to their CD Projekt RED account to access cross-platform mods. The use of mod.io will also not prevent PC players from sticking to Nexus Mods or other modding platforms. “As we celebrate the 10th anniversary of The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, we’re excited to share some good news for our players and modders,” wrote the studio on its official website. “Later this year, we will release one more patch for The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. This update will introduce cross-platform mod support across PC, PlayStation 5, and Xbox Series X/S via mod.io.” “Creating, sharing, and enjoying mods will be easier and more accessible, as players on PC, PS5, and Xbox Series X|S will be able to share a modding ecosystem.” Since its release back in 2015, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt has proven to be an incredibly successful game for CD Projekt RED. The studio had announced during its recent earnings report that more than 50 million copies of The Witcher 3 had been sold so far. This include copies across launch platforms PC, PS4 and Xbox One, as well as platforms that got the game later – PS5, Xbox Series X/S and Nintendo Switch. The current-gen version of the game, dubbed the Complete Edition, brought with it a host of new features to take advantage of modern hardware, including ray-traced global illumination and ambient occlusion, 4K textures, and even new content. These enhancements were also released for the PC version of The Witcher 3 as a free update. The studio had also released a video to celebrate a decade of killing monsters since The Witcher 3’s original release. The video focused mostly on the epic journey that players took alongside Geralt through the game’s main storyline as well as some of its more notable side quests. In the meantime, CD Projekt RED is working on The Witcher 4 for PC, PS5 and Xbox Series X/S. The game doesn’t yet have a solid release date. #10YearsofTheWitcher3 and one more patch! 🎉We will introduce cross-platform mod support for PC, PlayStation 5, and Xbox Series X|S later this year. For the first time, creating, sharing, and enjoying mods for The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt will be easier and more accessible than… pic.twitter.com/qiSh9nqd8i— The Witcher (@thewitcher) May 30, 2025

This week, more than 140 civil rights and consumer protection organizations signed a letter to Congress opposing legislation that would preempt state and local laws governing artificial intelligence (AI) for the next decade. House Republicans last week added a broad 10-year ban on state and local AI regulations to the Budget Reconciliation Bill that’s currently being debated in the House. The bill would prevent state and local oversight without providing federal alternatives. This year alone, about two-thirds of US states have proposed or enacted more than 500 laws governing AI technology. If passed, the federal bill would stop those laws from being enforced. The nonprofit Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) joined the other organizations in signing the opposition letter, which warns that removing AI protections leaves Americans vulnerable to current and emerging AI risks. Travis Hall, the CDT’s director for state engagement, answered questions posed by Computerworld to help determine the impact of the House Reconciliation Bill’s moratorium on AI regulations. Why is regulating AI important, and what are the potential dangers it poses without oversight? AI is a tool that can be used for significant good, but it can and already has been used for fraud and abuse, as well as in ways that can cause real harm, both intentional and unintentional — as was thoroughly discussed in the House’s own bipartisan AI Task Force Report. These harms can range from impacting employment opportunities and workers’ rights to threatening accuracy in medical diagnoses or criminal sentencing, and many current laws have gaps and loopholes that leave AI uses in gray areas. Refusing to enact reasonable regulations places AI developers and deployers into a lawless and unaccountable zone, which will ultimately undermine the trust of the public in their continued development and use. How do you regulate something as potentially ubiquitous as AI? There are multiple levels at which AI can be regulated. The first is through the application of sectoral laws and regulations, providing specific rules or guidance for particular use cases such as health, education, or public sector use. Regulations in these spaces are often already well established but need to be refined to adapt to the introduction of AI. The second is that there can be general rules regarding things like transparency and accountability, which incentivize responsible behavior across the AI chain (developers, deployers, users) and can ensure that core values like privacy and security are baked in. Why do you think the House Republicans have proposed banning states from regulating AI for such a long period of time? Proponents of the 10-year moratorium have argued that it would prevent a patchwork of regulations that could hinder the development of these technologies, and that Congress is the proper body to put rules in place. But Congress thus far has refused to establish such a framework, and instead it’s proposing to prevent any protections at any level of government, completely abdicating its responsibility to address the serious harms we know AI can cause. It is a gift to the largest technology companies at the expense of users — small or large — who increasingly rely on their services, as well as the American public who will be subject to unaccountable and inscrutable systems.  Can you describe some of the state statutes you believe are most important to safeguarding Americans from potential AI harms? There are a range of statutes that would be overturned, including laws that govern how state and local officials themselves procure and use these technologies. Red and blue states alike — including Arkansas, Kentucky, and Montana — have passed bills governing the public sector’s AI procurement and use. Several states, including Colorado, Illinois, and Utah, have consumer protection and civil rights laws governing AI or automated decision systems. This bill undermines states’ ability to enforce longstanding laws that protect their residents or to clarify how they should apply to these new technologies. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, warns that a patchwork of state AI laws causes confusion. But should a single federal rule apply equally to rural towns and tech hubs? How can we balance national standards with local needs? The blanket preemption assumes that all of these communities are best served with no governance of AI or automated decision systems — or, more cynically, that the short-term financial interests of companies that develop and deploy AI tools should take precedence over the civil rights and economic interests of ordinary people. While there can be a reasoned discussion about what issues need uniform rules across the country and which allow flexibility for state and local officials to set rules (an easy one would be regarding their own procurement of systems), what is being proposed is a blanket ban on state and local rules with no federal regulations in place.  Further, we have not seen, nor are we likely to see, a significant “patchwork” of protections throughout the country. The same arguments were made in the state privacy context as well, by, with one exception, states that have passed identical or nearly-identical laws, mostly written by industry. Preempting state laws to avoid a patchwork system that’s unlikely to ever exist is simply bad policy and will cause more needless harm to consumers. Proponents of the state AI regulation moratorium have compared it to the Internet Tax Freedom Act — the “internet tax moratorium,” which helped the internet flourish in its early days. Why don’t you believe the same could be true for AI? There are a couple of key differences between the Internet Tax Freedom Act and the proposed moratorium.  First, what was being developed in the 1990s was a unified, connected, global internet. Splintering the internet into silos was (and, to be frank, still is) a real danger to the fundamental feature of the platform that allowed it to thrive. The same is not true for AI systems and models, which are a diverse set of technologies and services which are regularly customized to respond to particular use cases and needs. Having diverse sets of regulatory responsibilities is not the same threat to AI the way that it was to the nascent internet. Second, removal of potential taxation as a means of spurring commerce is wholly different from removing consumer protections. The former encourages participation by lowering prices, while the latter adds significant cost in the form of dealing with fraud, abuse, and real-world harm.  In short, there is a massive difference between stating that an ill-defined suite of technologies is off limits from any type of intervention at the state and local level and trying to help bolster a nascent and global platform through tax incentives.

Cell Phone Satisfaction Tumbles to 10-Year Low in Latest ACSI Survey By John P. Mello Jr. May 21, 2025 5:00 AM PT ADVERTISEMENT Proven Tactics to Scale SMB Software Companies in Competitive Markets Gain market share, boost customer acquisition, and improve operational strength. Get the SMB Software Playbook for Expansion & Growth now -- essential reading for growing tech firms. Free Download. What a difference a year makes. Twelve months ago, cell phone satisfaction was riding high in the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), which surveys U.S. consumers. This year, it has hit an all-time low. The ACSI, a national economic indicator for over 25 years, reported Tuesday that after reaching an all-time high in 2024, cell phone satisfaction fell to its lowest point in a decade, scoring 78 on a scale of 100. “Brands keep racing to add new capabilities, yet customers still judge smartphones by the fundamentals,” Forrest Morgeson, an associate professor of marketing at Michigan State University and Director of Research Emeritus at the ACSI, said in a statement. “Only when companies strengthen the essentials — battery life, call reliability, and ease of use — does innovation truly deliver lasting satisfaction,” he continued. “I totally agree,” added Tim Bajarin, president of Creative Strategies, a technology advisory firm in San Jose, Calif. “Battery life is the number one issue we see in our smartphone surveys,” he told TechNewsWorld. “And call reliability is always a concern because dropped calls or disconnects during social media sessions are frustrating.” People are still getting excited about new features, but they still want greater battery life and their phones to be easier to use than before, countered Bryan Cohen, CEO of Opn Communication, a telecommunications agency based in Sheridan, Wyo. “Take my father. He’s 72 years old, and he wanted an iPhone 16,” he told TechNewsWorld. “I finally went out and got it for him. He got really excited about AI, but then he gets frustrated with it because it’s not easy to use, and he gets mad at the phone.” Phone Makers Take a Hit Dissatisfaction with cell phones affected manufacturers’ ratings, too, according to the ACSI study, which was based on 27,494 completed surveys. Both Apple’s and Samsung’s ratings slipped a point to 81, although Samsung had a slight edge over Apple in the 5G phone category. Both, however, had significant leads in satisfaction compared to their nearest rivals, Google and Motorola, which slid three points to 75. The ACSI researchers also found a widening gap in satisfaction between owners of 5G and non-5G phones. Satisfaction with 5G phones fell two points but still posted a respectable score of 80. Meanwhile, satisfaction with phones using legacy technology plummeted seven points to 68. “It’s very important to understand that the mobile networks in the U.S. use different spectrum bands,” explained John Strand of Denmark-based Strand Consulting, a consulting firm with a focus on global telecom. “If you have an old phone, it may not run so well on all spectrum bands,” he told TechNewsWorld. “It certainly won’t work as well as a new phone with a newer chipset.” The dissatisfaction can also be due to a technology misunderstanding, added Opn Comm’s Cohen. “People will have a phone for four or five years and not understand their phone might not have been built for 5G,” he explained. “People expect their LTE phones to automatically go to the next generation,” he continued. “That’s not necessarily the case. Their phone might not be 5G compatible, just like some phones still are not eSIM compatible.” ISPs See Modest Satisfaction Improvements On the plus side, the study found that satisfaction with ISPs, including fiber and non-fiber services, ticked up a point to 72. Satisfaction with fiber declined by one point, to 75, the study noted, while non-fiber jumped three points, to 70. The improved satisfaction rating can be attributed to new investments by the carriers, said Creative Strategies’ Bajarin. “They are gaining new technologies that boost their signal, including some redundancy technologies to make their lines more stable,” he explained. The study noted that AT&T Fiber is leading the fiber segment in satisfaction, scoring a 78 on the index despite a three-point drop. Hot on the heels of AT&T are Google Fiber and Verizon FiOS, at 76, and Xfinity Fiber, at 75. A big gainer in the fiber segment was Optimum, which jumped eight points to 71. The ACSI researchers explained that Optimum’s satisfaction burst was driven primarily by its efforts to add value by strengthening the quality of its customer service. The remaining group of smaller ISPs didn’t fare as well. They dropped nine points to 70. The study noted that “all elements of the fiber customer experience have worsened over the past year, with notable decreases in measures relating to the quality of internet service.” In the non-fiber segment, T-Mobile gained three points to tie leader AT&T at 78. According to the study, T-Mobile has been successful in improving the consistency of its non-fiber service while adding value through improved customer service and plan options. Not far behind the leaders is Verizon, which saw its satisfaction score jump four points to 77. Kinetic by Windstream was a big gainer in the non-fiber segment. It surged 11 points to 62. “By making significant improvements in practical service metrics, Windstream drives customer perceptions of the value of its Kinetic service higher,” the study explained. Wireless Service Satisfaction Slips Declining satisfaction afflicted the wireless phone service industry, according to the ACSI. Overall, the industry dropped a point to 75. Its segments also saw satisfaction declines: value mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) slid three points to 78; mobile network operators (MNOs) fell one point to 75; and full-service MVNOs slipped three points to 74. Individual MNO players in the market experienced similar declines, with T-Mobile dropping one point to 76, AT&T falling five points to 74, and UScellular losing three points to 72. Verizon was the only gainer in the top four, with a one-point increase to 75. The ACSI researchers explained that in addition to measuring satisfaction with operators, the study measures satisfaction with call quality and network capability. Over the last year, AT&T suffered the largest decrease in both, dropping six points to 77 for call quality and eight points to 76 for network capability. A new feature of this year’s telecommunication and cell phone report is the addition of smartwatches. The study found that Samsung, with a score of 83, edged Apple Watch, which scored 80 in satisfaction. Fitbit finished third with a score of 72. John P. Mello Jr. has been an ECT News Network reporter since 2003. His areas of focus include cybersecurity, IT issues, privacy, e-commerce, social media, artificial intelligence, big data and consumer electronics. He has written and edited for numerous publications, including the Boston Business Journal, the Boston Phoenix, Megapixel.Net and Government Security News. Email John. Leave a Comment Click here to cancel reply. Please sign in to post or reply to a comment. New users create a free account. Related Stories More by John P. Mello Jr. view all More in Smartphones

Washington wants AI development to go unhindered in the U.S.

House Republicans have proposed banning states from regulating AI for the next ten years. The sweeping moratorium, quietly tucked into the Budget Reconciliation Bill last Sunday, would block most state and local governments from enforcing AI regulations until 2035 if passed. The proposed legislation stated that “no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems,” for 10 years. Industry experts warn that this potential regulatory vacuum would come precisely when AI systems are becoming more powerful and pervasive across the US society. Oversight gap raises concerns The moratorium would create an unprecedented situation: rapidly evolving AI technology would operate without state-level guardrails during what may be its most transformative decade. “The proposed decade-long moratorium on state-level AI regulations presents a double-edged sword,” said Abhivyakti Sengar, practice director at Everest Group. “On one hand, it aims to prevent a fragmented regulatory environment that could stifle innovation, on the other hand, it risks creating a regulatory vacuum, leaving critical decisions about AI governance in the hands of private entities without sufficient oversight.” The proposed legislation includes specific exceptions. According to the bill text, states would still be allowed to enforce laws that have “the primary purpose and effect of which is to remove legal impediments to, or facilitate the deployment or operation of, an artificial intelligence model, artificial intelligence system, or automated decision system.” States could also enforce laws that streamline “licensing, permitting, routing, zoning, procurement, or reporting procedures” for AI systems. However, the bill explicitly prohibits states from imposing “any substantive design, performance, data-handling, documentation, civil liability, taxation, fee, or other requirement” specifically on AI unless such requirements are applied equally to non-AI systems with similar functions. This limitation would prevent states from creating AI-specific oversight frameworks that address the technology’s unique capabilities and risks. State AI regulations threatened If enacted, the impact could be significant. Several states have been developing AI oversight frameworks that would likely become unenforceable under the federal provision. Various state-level efforts to regulate AI systems — from algorithmic transparency requirements to data privacy protections for AI training — could be effectively neutralized without public debate or input. The moratorium particularly threatens state data privacy protections. Without these state laws, consumers have few guarantees regarding how AI systems use their data, obtain consent, or make decisions affecting their lives. Global standards diverge The US approach now stands in stark contrast to the European Union’s comprehensive AI Act, which imposes strict requirements on high-risk AI systems. “As the US diverges from the EU’s stringent AI regulatory framework, multinational enterprises may face the challenge of navigating conflicting standards,” Sengar noted. This divergence potentially leads to “increased compliance costs and operational complexities.” Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst and CEO at Greyhound Research, sees a splintering global AI landscape ahead. “America’s moratorium will likely deepen the regulatory divergence with Europe,” said Gogia. “This will accelerate the fragmentation of global AI product design, where use-case eligibility and ethical thresholds vary dramatically by geography.” Enterprises face a new reality For businesses, the regulatory clarity comes with difficult strategic decisions. Companies must determine how aggressively to implement AI systems during this regulation-free decade. Many large companies aren’t waiting for government guidance. “Even before public oversight being put on hold, large enterprises have already launched internal AI governance councils,” Gogia explained. “These internal regimes — led by CISOs, legal, and risk teams — are becoming the primary referees for responsible AI use.” But Gogia cautioned against over-reliance on self-regulation: “While these structures are necessary, they are not a long-term substitute for statutory accountability.” Legal uncertainty remains Despite the moratorium on regulations, experts warn that companies still face significant liability risks. “The absence of clear legal guidelines could result in heightened legal uncertainty, as courts grapple with AI-related disputes without established precedents,” said Sengar. Gogia puts it more bluntly: “Even in a regulatory freeze, enterprises remain legally accountable. I believe the lack of specific laws does not eliminate legal exposure — it merely shifts the battleground from compliance desks to courtrooms.” While restricting state action, the legislation simultaneously expands the federal government’s AI footprint. The bill allocates $500 million to the Department of Commerce for AI modernization through 2035. The money targets legacy system replacement, operational efficiency improvements, and cybersecurity enhancements using AI technologies. This dual approach positions the federal government as both the primary AI regulator and a major AI customer, consolidating tremendous influence over the technology’s direction. Finding balance Industry observers emphasize the need for thoughtful governance despite the moratorium. “In this rapidly evolving landscape, a balanced approach that fosters innovation while ensuring accountability and public trust is paramount,” Sengar noted. Gogia offers a succinct assessment of the situation: “The 10-year moratorium on US state and local AI regulation removes complexity but not risk. I believe innovation does need room, but room without direction risks misalignment between corporate ethics and public interest.”

Comments from NISTA’s Matthew Vickerstaff come as ministers weigh up benefits of relaunching initiative next monthThe government’s new infrastructure advisory body has said ministers would need to “learn from the mistakes” of the past if a new generation of PFI contracts are launched as part of the upcoming infrastructure strategy. Matthew Vickerstaff, deputy chief executive of the The National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA), said there was still a “constant drumbeat” of construction issues on schools built through private finance initiatives (PFI). Matthew Vickerstaff speaking at the Public Accounts Committee yesterday afternoon Chancellor Rachel Reeves is understood to be considering reinstating a form of private financing to pay for public projects, including social infrastructure schemes such as schools, ahead of the launch of its 10-Year Infrastructure Strategy next month. It would be the first major rollout of PFI in England since 2018, when then chancellor Philip Hammond declared the successor scheme to the original PFI programme as “inflexible and overly complex”. >> See also: PFI: Do the numbers add up? Speaking at a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee in Parliament yesterday, Vickerstaff highlighted issues that had blighted historic PFI schemes where construction risk had been transferred to the private sector. “Just what we’re seeing on school projects, leaking roofs is a consistent, constant drum beat, fire door stopping, acoustics, lighting levels, the ability of classrooms to be operable in a white board environment, problems around leisure centres or sports facilities, contamination of land, latent defects of refurbishments on old buildings creating real problems,” he said. “The dash to get the schools ready for September, I cannot tell you how many PFI schools have that problem, and we need to get the private sector to fix it.” But while Vickerstaff said he was “ambivalent” about a new generation of PFI contracts, he argued contractual arrangements on new schemes could contain less risk for the public purse if the government did decide to opt for this route in its infrastructure strategy. “I would say that compared with 25 years ago, the asset management, the building information systems and computer aided facilities management has vastly improved so we’re dealing with a generation of contracts that would certainly by improved whether it’s public sector or private sector,” he said. “I’m ambivalent but what we need to make sure is that we learn from the mistakes and definitely get them to fix what we’re experiencing in some situations.” Vickerstaff added: “In terms of lessons learned, making sure construction is monitored by a clerk of works and independently certified would be a really important factor moving forward, because construction defects have been a problem because the construction contracts whether it be public sector or private sector have not been well monitored or controlled.” Meanwhile, a new report by PwC has called on the government to explore a new generation of public-private finance in order to address the deficit in infrastructure including schools and healthcare. The research, published today, found “strong market appetite” for a new model of public-private partnerships which could be based on the Mutual Investment Model developed in Wales. PwC corporate finance associate director Dan Whittle said: “There is a strong view that public-private finance has a valuable role to play as a strategic tool to close the UK’s infrastructure gap, particularly at a time when we are constrained by fiscal rules. “There is no need to reinvent the fundamentals of the PPP model. What must continue to evolve is how we implement this model with refined risk allocation to reflect the current appetite of the market, smarter contract management, and a genuine partnership approach.” The government is expected to unveil its infrastructure strategy alongside its spending review in June.