The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutants Unleashed developer claims it has 'consistently delivered commercially successful projects on time and met performance goals.'

In 1965, then-French finance minister Valéry Giscard d’Estaing came up with the “mot juste” for describing the way that the supremacy of the dollar provided the foundation for the financial supremacy of the US. The fact the dollar was so dominant in international transactions gave the US, d’Estaing said, an “exorbitant privilege.” Because every country needed dollars to settle trade and backstop their own currencies, foreign countries had to buy up US debt, which in turn meant that the US paid less to borrow money and was able to run up trade and budget deficits without suffering the usual pain. The exorbitant privilege of the dollar was that the US would be able to live beyond its means. It’s always been an open question as to how long that privilege would last, but President Donald Trump’s harsh tariff policies, paired with a budget bill that right now would add trillions to the budget deficit, might just be enough to finally dislodge the dollar. Annual federal deficits are already running at 6 percent of GDP, while interest rates on 10-year US Treasuries have more than doubled to around 4.5 percent over the past few years, increasing the cost of interest payments on the debt. As of the last quarter of 2024, 58 percent of global reserves were in dollars, down from 71 percent in the first quarter of 1999. The dollar may remain king, if only because there seems to be no real alternative, but thanks to the US’ own actions, the exorbitance of its privilege is already eroding — and with it, America’s ability to compensate for its fiscal fecklessness.But the dollar isn’t the only privilege the US enjoys. Since the postwar era, America’s best universities have led the world. Harvard, Princeton, MIT, CalTech — these elite universities are the foundation of the American scientific supremacy that has in turn fueled decades of economic growth. But also, by virtue of their unparalleled ability to attract the best minds from around the world, these schools have given the US the educational privilege of being the magnet of global academic excellence. In the same way that the dollar’s dominance has allowed the US to live beyond its means, the dominance of elite universities has compensated for the fact that the US has, at best, a mediocre K-12 educational system. And now that privilege is under attack by the Trump administration. Cutting off federal funding for universities like Columbia and Princeton and eviscerating agencies like the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation were bad enough, but the administration’s recent move to bar international students from Harvard would be a death blow, especially if it spread to other top schools. And it seems entirely possible that it might. On Wednesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the US would “aggressively revoke” visas for Chinese students and enhance future scrutiny on all applicants from China. (That includes applicants from Hong Kong — a once-free city that has come firmly under the boot of the Chinese government — who are precisely the kind of students a past America would have sought to defend.)The ability to attract the best of the best, especially in the sciences, is what makes Harvard Harvard, which in turn has helped make the United States the United States. Just as losing the privilege of the dollar would force the US to finally pay for years of fiscal mismanagement, losing the privilege of these top universities would force the country to pay for decades of educational failure. American science runs on foreign talentAs Vox contributor Kevin Carey wrote this week, foreign students are a major source of financial support for US colleges and universities, many of which would struggle to survive should those students disappear. But the financial picture actually understates just how much US science depends on foreign talent and, in turn, depends on top universities like Harvard to bring in top students and professors.An astounding 70 percent of grad students in the US in electrical engineering and 63 percent in computer science — probably the two disciplines most important to winning the future — are foreign-born. Nineteen percent of the overall STEM workforce in the US is foreign-born; focus just on the PhD-level workforce, and that number rises to 43 percent. Since 1901, just about half of all physics, chemistry, and medicine Nobel Prizes have gone to Americans, and about a third of those winners were foreign-born, a figure that has risen in recent decades. It’s really not too much to suggest that if all foreign scientists and science students were deported tomorrow, US science would grind to a halt.Could American-born students step into that gap? Absolutely not. That’s because as elite as America’s top universities are, the country’s K-12 education system has been anything but. Every three years, the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) is given to a representative sample of 15-year-old students in over 80 countries. It’s the best existing test for determining how a country’s students compare in mathematics, reading, and science to their international peers. In the most recent PISA tests, taken in 2022, US students scored below the average for OECD or developed countries in math; on reading and science, they were just slightly above average. And while a lot of attention has been rightly paid to learning loss since the pandemic — one report from fall 2024 estimated that the average US student is less than halfway to a full academic recovery — American students have lagged behind their international peers since long before then. Other wealthy nations, from East Asian countries to some small European ones, regularly outpace American peers in math by the equivalent of one full academic year.To be clear, this picture isn’t totally catastrophic. It’s fine — American students perform around the middle compared to their international peers. But just fine won’t make you the world’s undisputed scientific leader. And fine is a long way from what the US once was. America was a pioneer in universal education, and it did the same in college education through the postwar GI Bill, which opened up college education to the masses. By 1950, 34 percent of US adults aged 25 or older had completed high school or more, compared to 14 percent in the UK and 11 percent in France. When NASA engineers were putting people on the moon in the 1960s, the US had perhaps the world’s most educated workforce to draw from.Since then, much of the rest of the world has long since caught up with the US on educational attainment, and a number of countries have surpassed it. But thanks in large part to the privilege that is elite universities like Harvard or the University of California, and their ability to recruit the best, no country has caught up to the US in sheer scientific brainpower. Take away our foreign talent, however, and US science would look more like its K-12 performance — merely fine.Life after HarvardIt seems increasingly apparent that the Trump administration wants to make an example of Harvard, proving its own dominance by breaking a 388-year-old institution with strong ties to American power and influence. On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that the administration planned to cancel all remaining federal contracts with Harvard, while Trump himself mused on redirecting Harvard’s $3 billion in grants to trade schools. Grants and contracts are vital, but they can be restored, just as faith in the US dollar might be restored by a saner trade policy and a tighter budget. But if the Trump administration chooses to make the US fundamentally hostile to foreign students and scientific talent, there may be no coming back. Politico reported this week that the administration is weighing requiring all foreign students applying to study in the US to undergo social media vetting. With universities around the world now competing to make themselves alternatives to the US, what star student from Japan or South Korea or Finland would choose to put their future in the hands of the Trump administration, when they could go anywhere else they wanted?The US once achieved scientific leadership because it educated its own citizens better and longer than any other country. Those days are long past, but the US managed to keep its pole position, and all that came with it, because it supported and funded what were far and away the best universities in the world. That was our privilege, as much as the dollar was. And now we seem prepared to destroy both.Should that come to pass, we’ll see just how little is left.A version of this story originally appeared in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here!Update, May 29, 9:50 AM ET: This story was originally published on May 28 and has been updated to include news of the Trump administration’s move to look to revoke visas of many students from China.You’ve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you — threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you — join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

Ex-Bungie employees have commented on struggles facing the company following accusations of plagiarism for Marathon and big changes behind the scenes of Destiny 2Tech15:17, 22 May 2025Updated 15:17, 22 May 2025Destiny 2's Edge of Fate is just a couple of months awayDestiny 2 developer Bungie can't catch a break at present. Shortly after revealing a series of expansions for the game, its other project, a Marathon reboot, was hit by plagiarism accusations that have sent the historic studio scrambling to remove stolen art assets just months before launch.While owner Sony has reportedly set a high target for Marathon, the furore surrounding the game has seen former developers speak out about Bungie leadership and decisions made in recent years.‌Now, it's been suggested that Bungie leadership had pitched a subscription model for Destiny 2 which was "vehemently shot down" by the development team.‌Shared by Destin Legarie, former employees at the studio have suggested that there is a "toxic work culture" that involves "humiliation, HR working in their own best interest, and leadership mismanagement".With Destiny 2 having been around since 2017, with regular seasonal updates and annual expansions, leadership reportedly considered a subscription model that was shut down down "vehemently" by developers on the game.Article continues belowLegarie's video paints a picture of Bungie leadership doing its best to squeeze every penny out of Destiny 2, even going so far as to complain that one in-game armour set would be "too attractive with its glow effect" and might stop players from spending real money on cosmetics.Expect to learn a lot about The Nine in Edge of FateAnother employee said staff were "scolded" about monetising the game, while another said "everything happening to Bungie is because of greed".‌Forbes reported over the weekend that "Morale is in 'free-fall” at the studio, with staff concerned the Marathon plagiarism concerns could spell the end for Bungie's autonomy.One former developer at the studio reportedly told Legarie that Bungie becoming a part of PlayStation would be "the path forward" for the studio previously owned by Microsoft.Destiny 2's next expansion, Edge of Fate, is planned for July 2025, while its successor, Renegades, will bring a Star Wars inspired aesthetic in December.‌Bungie has committed to two mid-sized seasonal expansions each year, with sizeable free patches in between, instead of launching a large DLC and multiple seasons.We've reached out to Bungie for comment for this story.For more on Destiny, check out our hands-on with the latest Sprayground backpack collab,Article continues belowFor the latest breaking news and stories from across the globe from the Daily Star, sign up for our newsletters.‌‌‌

Former Bungie developers blame corporate ‘greed’ as cancelled subscription plans revealed Adam Starkey Published May 22, 2025 1:32pm Updated May 22, 2025 1:33pm A marathon of issues (Sony Interactive Entertainment) Former staff at Destiny developer Bungie have spoken out about the studio’s downfall, citing ‘disconnected leadership’ and a toxic work culture. Bungie were once one of the most respected developers in the world, following their work on Halo and Destiny, but the situation at the studio is drastically different as we approach its next project, Marathon. Since the launch of Destiny 2 in 2017, the studio was acquired by Sony and subject to several rounds of layoffs. While job cuts have been widespread across the industry over the past few years, the situation at Bungie goes beyond post-pandemic cuts; with missed financial targets leading to drastic structural shifts. Reports of leadership mismanagement at Bungie have cropped up before, but several ex-employees have now spoken out about their own experiences within the studio. In a video by YouTuber Destin Legarie, former employees at Bungie cite various reasons for the studio’s decline, including a ‘lack of player empathy, disconnected leadership, and a corporate-first culture’. The recurring point of contention is the studio’s ‘toxic’ leadership, who allegedly ‘shut down creatives on a core level’ and prioritised monetisation over player satisfaction. According to one ex-employee, staff received a huge ‘scolding’ in a meeting with leadership over monetisation. ‘Everything happening to Bungie is because of greed,’ said one former employee. This alleged push for further monetisation was presented in various ways. One source claimed the studio’s leadership pitched the idea of adding a subscription model to Destiny 2 at one point, but the idea was ‘vehemently’ shut down by the team. Another source claimed Bungie leadership were concerned the Trials Of Osiris PvP armour was ‘too attractive with its glow effect’, which might negatively impact Eververse sales (Destiny 2’s cosmetic store). Destiny 2 launched as a paid-for game but it became free-to-play in October 2019, with DLC expansions being sold separately. The next expansion, The Edge Of Fate, is set to launch on July 15, 2025. The video features other allegations, including ‘HR working in their own best interest’ and claims leadership undermined the ideas of staff in public. ‘If they didn’t think of it, it wasn’t worth doing,’ one former employee said. GameCentral has reached out to Bungie for comment. Marathon is in trouble too (Sony Interactive Entertainment) One former employee suggested these issues have now ‘just shifted to Marathon instead’, which is currently in the middle of a plagiarism scandal, after an ex-artist at the studio took assets from someone else’s work without permission. More Trending As detailed in livestream last week, Bungie is currently in the process of ‘auditing all of the previous work by the internal artist’ and is looking to remove ‘anything which is questionably or inappropriately sourced’. Beyond this controversy, Marathon hasn’t exactly hit the ground running. A closed alpha test last month was met with mixed reactions, which has reportedly led to several changes to the game’s future plans. Marathon is set to launch on September 23 across PlayStation 5, Xbox Series X/S, and PC, but all signs suggest it could be delayed. More expansions are coming to Destiny 2 (Bungie) Email gamecentral@metro.co.uk, leave a comment below, follow us on Twitter, and sign-up to our newsletter. To submit Inbox letters and Reader’s Features more easily, without the need to send an email, just use our Submit Stuff page here. For more stories like this, check our Gaming page. GameCentral Sign up for exclusive analysis, latest releases, and bonus community content. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Your information will be used in line with our Privacy Policy

MarcosBrXD Member Aug 28, 2024 1,692 I wonder if this pursuit of this in the Halo franchise has enough demand, did fans really want Halo to become a Destiny like? Did the story (or lore) make Halo Halo or was it the Multiplayer that propelled the Series to its peak in Reach...   JigglesBunny Prophet of Truth Avenger Oct 27, 2017 36,107 Chicago 343's mismanagement and sloppy direction is what caused its downfall, and that extends far beyond their tepid live service.   Forerunner Resetufologist The Fallen Oct 30, 2017 18,793 H4 was a complete package, it just wasn't a good Halo game. Both H5 and Infinite had bare bones MP and it takes them too long to get rolling, so everyone moves on. They need a complete package at launch. It's crazy that they don't have modes from previous Halos at launch and takes them months if not years to add them.  NDA-Man Member Mar 23, 2020 3,983 Tastes changed. COD was stealing Halo's lunch even during the later Bungie days. COD 4 impacted gaming so hard everyone tried to catch up, and Activision having the staff to turn it into an annual franchise after sacrificing most of it's other projects kept it always in the covnersation. Then Hero Shooters rose, then Battle Royales. Yes, poor management and dumb decisions at 343 definitely played a role--but just as big a part is that 4v4 equal starts arena shooters are quite passe. I don't think a "Halo 3 Part 2" that ignores the fact that gaming has evolved in the near two-decades since the franchise peaked in terms of cultural cachet would do any better (Reach was not it's peak. 3 was. Hell, 5, one of the "bad" ones did better at keeping players than Reach).  Pancracio17 ▲ Legend ▲ Avenger Oct 29, 2017 21,730 JigglesBunny said: 343's mismanagement and sloppy direction is what caused its downfall, and that extends far beyond their tepid live service. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Pretty much. You could go on and on about specific problems like Infinites first year of support, the dropping of plotlines after every game, Halo 5s story, etc. But it all comes down to that.   colorboy Member Apr 5, 2025 174 The definitive death for me was Halo Infinite: - not having coop campaign - nonsense open world - no game on disc These 3 combined absolutely destroyed this series and I am so sad since I loved all 4 first entries  HockeyBird Member Oct 27, 2017 13,794 Halo 2 and 3 were already dipping their toes into the live service model with paid for map packs and post launch updates. I think it was pretty natural for Halo to keep going in that direction. I don't think Halo fans exactly dislike the live service model in theory because it means a game they like can continue to get new content for years and years. Putting aside people's opinions about the campaigns, in terms of multiplayer, the 343 games were lacking a lot of the content fans had come to expect at launch. This hurt each game's momentum out of the gate. I think many fans would say that Halo Infinite currently has a ton of content but think a lot of that should have been available at launch and not take this long to get expected features back into the game.  zoodoo Member Oct 26, 2017 14,540 Montreal MS has problems evolving their franchises. Sony on the other either retire them or completely change them (God of War). Gears has the same problem. The games are great but more of the same. They timidly try to incorporate new stuff like larger areas but the changes are not drastic enough. Halo could have had a game like Destiny or Mass Effect. Gears could have had a more horror entry. The attempts they did with boths franchises were low budget or in niche genres  wwm0nkey Member Oct 25, 2017 16,795 Forerunner said: H4 was a complete package, it just wasn't a good Halo game. Both H5 and Infinite had bare bones MP and it takes them too long to get rolling, so everyone moves on. They need a complete package at launch. It's crazy that they don't have modes from previous Halos at launch and takes them months if not years to add them. Click to expand... Click to shrink... The fact Infinite launched without Forge was possibly the dumbest thing. Like they had it, they had a Halo with great gunplay with Infinite finally but didn't have the content to support it, had they had Forge the community could have at least done some heavy lifting for awhile.   Transistor The Walnut King Administrator Oct 25, 2017 41,639 Washington, D.C. 343 caused it's downfall.   PucePikmin Member Apr 26, 2018 5,346 I don't think there's any great mystery about Halo's decline. Bungie left and the games stopped coming as often or being as good.   SoftTaur Member Oct 25, 2017 671 Halo Infinite putting armor colors on a battlepass and expecting people to just accept that was wild. Map packs have fallen out of favor for obvious reasons, and they've never found monetization that worked since.   BloodHound Member Oct 27, 2017 11,247 This forums playbook is blame everything on live service and AI. Zero critical thinking skills required.  Derbel McDillet ▲ Legend ▲ Member Nov 23, 2022 24,332 Forerunner said: H4 was a complete package, it just wasn't a good Halo game. Both H5 and Infinite had bare bones MP and it takes them too long to get rolling, so everyone moves on. They need a complete package at launch. It's crazy that they don't have modes from previous Halos at launch and takes them months if not years to add them. Click to expand... Click to shrink... I mean, it's a lot of freaking modes at this point. Halo 3 has more modes than we'll ask of any shooter except Halo.   Detective Member Oct 27, 2017 3,886 343 is the reason for the downfall from the get go.   Ascenion Prophet of Truth - One Winged Slayer Member Oct 25, 2017 13,105 Mecklenburg-Strelitz 343 was a poorly led and managed studio. It remains to be seen if Halo Studios is just more of the same but 343 just sucked at management. And Halo Infinite is a fundamental failure at understanding what a live service requires.   Stat Member Oct 25, 2017 6,360 I think the other thing is that arena shooters have really dried up. The idea of a standalone arena shooter just isn't a genre that a lot of people like too and people just expect these games with live service battle passes and seasons. Which is a shame.   chickenandrofls Member Oct 27, 2017 667 People will blame 343 but COD4 changed multiplayer tastes and Halo never recovered. Reach fell off quick compared to H3 and by the time H4 came around and tried to ape COD it just came off half ass. I love halo MP to this day but it was wild seeing my entire crew and casual gaming friends all move over to COD.  MasterYoshi Member Oct 27, 2017 12,224 I couldn't believe how quickly the plug was pulled on substantial updates to Infinite's multiplayer. There was a narrative going with cutscenes that just stopped before it had even hardly began. Halo should have moved to become something like Battlefront where you could play as virtually any infantry from the game's history. All of the Covenant races, the Flood, all sorts of UNSC ranks. That's what I believe would have been a major success at reinventing Halo's wheel.  Gavalanche Prophet of Regret Member Oct 21, 2021 25,900 I think CoD contributed more to it than anything else. Halo used to be the big multiplayer shooter on console. It revolutionised that area. And then Modern Warfare came along and ate its lunch, and bit by bit the goal shifted. Exclusivity probably didn't help either; it is not a coincidence that Halos woes and console selling woes are hand in hand; now that could be simply because Halo has that big an influence that a bad Halo means that many people buy less xboes. But it also means the potential playerbase isn't as big, especially since most Halo weren't on PC at that time. Meanwhile CoD wasn't exclusive and just grew and grew and grew.   Akira86 Member Oct 25, 2017 21,203 I was content being an all Halo and No-Call of Duty ever player, and lots of people were. They fucked up. Plain and simple. Plenty of people loved Reach(the hate was vocal and online as fuck) and just wanted a similar MP experience out of H4, but it wasn't similar. at all. People accused them of kowtowing to the COD type of game play. All they had to do was fix it in Halo 5 and release it on PC with plenty of maps and great MP. that didn't happen, Shake.  VariantX Member Oct 25, 2017 18,026 Columbia, SC SoftTaur said: Halo Infinite putting armor colors on a battlepass and expecting people to just accept that was wild. Map packs have fallen out of favor for obvious reasons, and they've never found monetization that worked since. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Spartan customization was also part of progression, whether its just getting to a certain rank, playing on certain difficulties, skulls, or doing specific tasks, you did the stuff to get the customization you wanted and it kept a part of the audience playing. If you take stuff away or put it behind a monetization scheme, then you have to replace it with something else in the hopes that would keep people coming back and they frankly didn't have any thing to replace what was lost.  Kill3r7 Member Oct 25, 2017 29,044 NDA-Man said: Tastes changed. COD was stealing Halo's lunch even during the later Bungie days. COD 4 impacted gaming so hard everyone tried to catch up, and Activision having the staff to turn it into an annual franchise after sacrificing most of it's other projects kept it always in the covnersation. Then Hero Shooters rose, then Battle Royales. Yes, poor management and dumb decisions at 343 definitely played a role--but just as big a part is that 4v4 equal starts arena shooters are quite passe. I don't think a "Halo 3 Part 2" that ignores the fact that gaming has evolved in the near two-decades since the franchise peaked in terms of cultural cachet would do any better (Reach was not it's peak. 3 was. Hell, 5, one of the "bad" ones did better at keeping players than Reach). Click to expand... Click to shrink... .  inkblot Member Mar 27, 2024 1,090 JigglesBunny said: 343's mismanagement and sloppy direction is what caused its downfall, and that extends far beyond their tepid live service. Click to expand... Click to shrink... first comment  bionic77 Member Oct 25, 2017 33,370 NDA-Man said: Tastes changed. COD was stealing Halo's lunch even during the later Bungie days. COD 4 impacted gaming so hard everyone tried to catch up, and Activision having the staff to turn it into an annual franchise after sacrificing most of it's other projects kept it always in the covnersation. Then Hero Shooters rose, then Battle Royales. Yes, poor management and dumb decisions at 343 definitely played a role--but just as big a part is that 4v4 equal starts arena shooters are quite passe. I don't think a "Halo 3 Part 2" that ignores the fact that gaming has evolved in the near two-decades since the franchise peaked in terms of cultural cachet would do any better (Reach was not it's peak. 3 was. Hell, 5, one of the "bad" ones did better at keeping players than Reach). Click to expand... Click to shrink... Thats how I remember it. COD changed the game. Even on 360 that was THE multiplayer shooter for that generation.   kowhite Member May 14, 2019 7,473 I couldn't tell you what caused the downfall of Halo. Granted I barely played 5 but I liked Infinite.   Multievolution Member Jun 5, 2018 4,179 I still maintain reach was a good game, I put a fair bit of time into it, and enjoyed its lifespan. I think what finished the series off was one part a lack of direction story wise, and one part not knowing how to keep halo both relevant and unique. To the former, I enjoyed 4's story well enough, but learning where they went next put me off ever seeing it. And to the latter, halo needs to just do what it does best, avoid trying to make it into a battle royal as an example. FPS's in general haven't been interesting to me in at least a decade.  MYeager Member Oct 30, 2017 960 I don't get the op. Four wasn't a live service title and 5 wasn't either thought it had some elements. Infinite I wouldn't consider a downfall as it's the most time I've played a Halo title ever, and 3 was my second highest. Live service or not the issue is it exists at a time where arena shooters aren't the mainstream.  NDA-Man Member Mar 23, 2020 3,983 zoodoo said: Halo could have had a game like Destiny or Mass Effect. Gears could have had a more horror entry. The attempts they did with boths franchises were low budget or in niche genres Click to expand... Click to shrink... To be blunt, I don't really buy into the idea of Halo as a universe that really supports much more than an FPS (which I guessed they could've cribbed from Destiny, but I dunno. It'd tick off the old heads who just want arena, and I don't think it'd pull folks away from destiny or their live service of choice). We as fans can get uber excited about a Halo RPG or a Flood horror game, but the vast majority of the playerbase didn't read the Nylund Books or whatever. They hear Halo and don't think of a vast and rich tapestry of a sci-fi universe, they think a shooter where you kill helium space munchkins. MasterYoshi said: I couldn't believe how quickly the plug was pulled on substantial updates to Infinite's multiplayer. There was a narrative going with cutscenes that just stopped before it had even hardly began. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Playerbase dropped off a cliff well over a year before they dropped those cutscenes (game launched late 2021, cutscenes were dropped June 2023). and nobody gave a fuck about the MP story until they axed it.  Sordid Plebeian Member Oct 26, 2017 19,835 It all comes down to 343i never knowing what to do with Halo. The only reason Infinite played it so safe is because they burned all their time chasing ideas no one wanted. Don't have much faith in Halo Studios.   T0kenAussie Member Jan 15, 2020 6,019 Halos lore was never strong in game. If you just watch the cutscenes they are clearly vehicles to get to the next level and that's about it. Halos EU especially the books did a lot of the heavy lifting that people are nostalgically remembering as Bungie lore imo I think halo has done an OK job of doing halo things. H1->3 were always reinventing the wheel and adding new things to each game. But overall I'd argue that everyone remembers the sweaty LAN weekends with your mates in the garage doing a system link on blood gulch and sidewinder over the single player story. At least that's the core halo memory I have  Caiusto Member Oct 25, 2017 6,879 No, the strategy was good, the sheer incompetence of 343i is what caused its downfall.   LilScooby77 Member Dec 11, 2019 12,280 Campaign/co op mode/multiplayer/theater/forge/custom games. Halo Reach will die as the last to launch complete.  Josh5890 I'm Your Favorite Poster's Favorite Poster The Fallen Oct 25, 2017 26,480 I've always been on the outside looking in, but it always felt like things went downhill after Bungie handed off the franchise to 343.   Bishop89 What Are Ya' Selling? Member Oct 25, 2017 42,741 Melbourne, Australia JigglesBunny said: 343's mismanagement and sloppy direction is what caused its downfall, and that extends far beyond their tepid live service. Click to expand... Click to shrink... This.   Richietto One Winged Slayer Member Oct 25, 2017 26,029 North Carolina 343 were just not ready to step into Bungies shoes. They were not at all as skilled as Bungie was. And in the case of Infinite? They released it too soon. It took a year to get 2 maps. That's insane. The game was not going to recover. They are not good at decision making.   Letters Prophet of Truth Avenger Oct 27, 2017 5,199 Portugal To me it was the chasing of all kinds of trends instead of leaning into all the things in the gameplay what made it special and unique. Counter-Strike or Street Fighter would also be irrelevant today if they had done the same.   Razgriz-Specter Member Oct 25, 2017 34,486 Detective said: 343 is the reason for the downfall from the get go. Click to expand... Click to shrink... I'd put some on Bungie even, Halo 3 was like the big climactic game... and then Reach(despite being good) comes out within 3 years Big main Halos needed a break after 3 imo Literally Halo 3... then Reach happened in 3 years then Halo 4 just 2 years after Reach then Halo 5 in 3..  Gunman Member Aug 19, 2020 2,220 Agree with the COD factor. Halo already felt old with 3.   Green Marine Member Oct 25, 2017 450 El Paso Transistor said: 343 caused it's downfall. Click to expand... Click to shrink... This. For multiplayer, they had already lost the team death match crowd to Call of Duty back in 2007. That leaves you with objective modes, where nobody communicates or plays the objectives. I think they missed an enormous opportunity not being "first to market" with a Helldivers II style persistent PvE mode (could have literally called it "Helljumpers"). Instead they've spent fifteen years getting their ass kicked by Call of Duty and Counter-Strike. As for the campaigns and story telling, this is an even bigger mess. Halo Reach through Halo 3 (including ODST) was five campaigns that told a very cohesive, if vaguely unoriginal story. It often came off as a mixture of Starhammer, Ringworld, and The Flood being a dumb ripoff of the The Many in System Shock 2, but it mostly worked. There 343i games were a mess. They had a great opportunity to break away from the events of the Bungie era, but they decided only four years could pass, because Cortana's story was super important, and couldn't be an aspect of what went on between games. Hilarious, considering this is precisely what they did with Halo Infinite. Then you have a really bad story with Halo 5 (The Covenant knew where to scan and dig for the Portal for the Ark, but had no idea a Forerunner super weapon was buried beneath the Elite home world the whole time? That could have won them the way). The Banished were supposedly welcoming of humans, until they're retreating the the same threat of using the Halo Array to kill everyone. Eight years passed since the Prophet of Regret was murdered, but none of the the other alien factions know it's insta kill for anyone not on a shield world or outside of the Milky Way on The Ark? Zero explanation as to why Atriox's own high ranking soldiers think he died. The Endless are worse than The Flood… for absolutely no reason whatsoever. And this is before getting in to AI a level design issues. They couldn't mimic what GTA IV did in 2008 with an AI driving you around? You could have chosen between a scenic route where you noticed high value targets, or skip to the destination to get back the story after. Outside of "The Road", the last four levels were horrible (more gondola rides… a level that so thoroughly seemed like firefight maps and two boss fights stitched together that you eventually got those levels in Firefight events). They should have focused on human factions resurfacing pre-Covenant conflicts. UNSC were essentially the bad guys before Harvest. The Banished could have been an actual "mercenary" force that worked for humans that paid them, rather than just being a drop in replacement for the Covenant. Just one missed opportunity after another. I still like firefight, but that's the only mode I play in Infinite multiplayer. I hope they turn things around, but I'm not optimistic.  Justin Iacobellis Member Oct 27, 2017 2,446 United States I think Call of Duty 4 and onwards were definitely a factor in Halo's demise. On console (360 and PS3), CoD was one of the only multiplayer-focused shooters that offered a virtually consistent 60 FPS experience without overtly compromising elsewhere. On top of that, the range of ways to earn XP and relatively brisk rate at which you would join a new match created a flow that was difficult to remove yourself from, similarly to the "just one more run" mentality of Tony Hawk's Pro Skater. While technical reasons prevented Halo from going beyond a 30 FPS limit for the remainder of that console generation, 343 and Bungie attempted to replicate some of the Call of Duty experience with the introductions of armor abilities, loadouts, and the like. These changes are where I personally felt the series was beginning to lose its identity. If you are going to gradually incorporate the key elements of your competitors, why would I not just continue playing those instead?  TechnoSyndro Member May 15, 2019 3,310 Their inability to actually support a live service game is why their live service game died. Halo Infinite had a ton of players at launch but they fumbled the ball immediately.   hydruxo ▲ Legend ▲ Member Oct 25, 2017 22,716 I don't think that was the problem. I think it's more so that 343 didn't have the juice to keep people interested in Halo. Bungie was just better in every way.   callamp Member Oct 27, 2017 1,641 Trends change over time and the Halo franchise was slow to adapt to that. Industry trends were already changing when Halo 3 was at its apex, with Modern Warfare changing the game. More recently we've had the shift towards battle royale (Fortnite, PUGB, Apex) and Destiny-likes. Halo is still largely operating in the same space it did 20 years ago (although Infinite's single player tried to branch out unsuccessfully). The reality is that Microsoft and 343 were too cautious with the franchise. They delivered games that were typically fine - despite some of the hyperbole that gets thrown about - and you could legitimately argue that mechanically Infinite is the best multiplayer in the franchise. But if trends have changed and gamers aren't as enamoured with arena shooters, then that's ultimately not good enough. From Halo 1 to 3, the series was the trend setter and then after that it became a follower. In an ideal world, Bungie would have kept the franchise and it would have evolved to be similar to what they created with Destiny. Perhaps they would have noted PUGB success and pivoted into the battle royale genre. But none of that happened and so year-after-year the franchise just became a little less prominent.  daegan #REFANTAZIO SWEEP Member Oct 27, 2017 3,304 For SP: Too long between games and they got way way WAY overwritten, simultaneously pulling from deep lore but not giving you reasons to care in the games themselves. 4, 5, Infinite all basically being reboots and supposed to keep going forever and then just not having a great hook to keep people playing. 5 also just being an absolute dogshit campaign that has no business being with the rest of the series, even when the plot points could be interesting. For Multi: The larger audience they chase for multiplayer has splintered and spread out across games that more focus on what each kind of player likes and I don't know how you get that back. What itch does a future Halo scratch that nothing else does and is it an itch millions of people still have who also have the free time to plunge into it?  dotpatrick Member Oct 28, 2017 400 Definitely agree with the people referencing Call of Duty. That was the big turning point and I'm not sure anything there is anything 343 could've done short of figuring out the next big turn for the competitive multiplayer shooter. By the time even Reach came out, CoD had already supplanted it as THE console shooter. I still remember when Xbox used to post how many folks were playing a particular title on Xbox Live for a given week and Call of Duty 4 would beat or be just behind Halo 3.  HockeyBird Member Oct 27, 2017 13,794 Razgriz-Specter said: I'd put some on Bungie even, Halo 3 was like the big climactic game... and then Reach(despite being good) comes out within 3 years Big main Halos needed a break after 3 imo Literally Halo 3... then Reach happened in 3 years then Halo 4 just 2 years after Reach then Halo 5 in 3.. Click to expand... Click to shrink... 3 years as the gap between Halo 1 and 2 and from 2 to 3. So Reach coming 3 years after Halo 3 isn't all that surprising. Also, as part of their agreement to split from Microsoft, they were obligated to produce two more Halo games after 3. One was Halo 3: ODST and the other was Reach. So they were fulfilling their contractual obligation to become independent and go off to create Destiny.  De Amigo Member Dec 19, 2017 550 Halo Reach was a fine enough game but it did feel like the beginning of the franchise releases going from major events to "expect another installment every couple of years no matter what". I wonder if them doing Halo 3 then taking a break until Halo 4 as like an Xbox One launch game could've kept the franchise's event status intact.   saruboss Member Jan 26, 2025 93 If i am not wrong, didn't you make the same thread with "is halo infinite now considered a failure?" a couple of months ago.   Gestault Member Oct 26, 2017 14,690 This is admittedly myopic, but from my perspective, their big public assertion about having learned the lesson from Halo 5 that they need split-screen, effectively (literally?) promising it for future games, then totally omitting it from Infinite made clear the game wasn't being planned by serious people. I say this as someone who had a blast with Infinite overall. 

This story appeared in The Logoff, a daily newsletter that helps you stay informed about the Trump administration without letting political news take over your life. Subscribe here.Welcome to The Logoff: The Supreme Court today ruled the Trump administration could strip deportation protections from nearly 350,000 Venezuelans living in the US — a victory for President Donald Trump that comes at the expense of hundreds of thousands of vulnerable people.What’s the context? Since 2021, many Venezuelan immigrants have had Temporary Protected Status, a program that allows migrants to stay and work in the US when their home countries experience disasters or civil strife. Venezuela is in an ongoing humanitarian crisis thanks to an authoritarian regime’s economic mismanagement and foreign sanctions. But upon taking office, the Trump administration attempted to revoke that status for approximately 350,000 Venezuelans. A federal judge froze the administration’s effort in March while lawsuits proceeded.What’s the latest? The Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s freeze, ruling that deportations could begin — even while the cases are still in front of the courts.What’s next? The administration is now free to begin deporting Venezuelans who had been covered by the status, though the court’s order still allows individual immigrants to challenge their deportations or the loss of work permits. Trump also aims to revoke Temporary Protected Status for hundreds of thousands of other immigrants later this year.What does this mean for the immigrants? Venezuela is still in the midst of a humanitarian crisis, and deportations would mean a return to a country where work is scarce but suffering is not: More than 20 million people lack adequate access to food and medical care, according to Human Rights Watch.What does this mean for the balance of power? Federal judges have repeatedly checked Trump’s power by freezing his actions while they work their way through the judicial system. Trump and his officials have raged against such freezes, saying they give individual judges too much power over the president. Today, the court sided with the White House, weakening another check on this administration’s power.RelatedThe ugly truth about Trump’s big, beautiful billAnd with that, it’s time to log off…Apropos of nothing in particular, here’s a wonderful old Washington Post story about how Haitian immigrants brought a North Carolina town back from the brink of economic collapse. If you’re in the mood for something totally free of politics, Vox’s Unexplainable podcast has an episode whose title I can’t resist: “The man who walked butterflies on a leash.” (You can listen here on Apple, here on Spotify.) Thanks so much for reading, and I’ll see you back here tomorrow.You’ve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you — threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you — join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

Retailers in the United States are now coming under attack from Scattered Spider, the English-speaking hacking collective that is suspected of being behind a series of DragonForce ransomware attacks on high street stores Marks & Spencer (M&S) and Co-op, according to Google’s Threat Intelligence Group (GTIG). GTIG and its cohorts at Google Cloud’s Mandiant threat intel unit said the cyber attacks are still under investigation, and for reasons of privacy the researchers have not yet named any victims in the US. The team also held back from providing any formal attribution at this time. “The US retail sector is currently being targeted in ransomware and extortion operations that we suspect are linked to UNC3944, also known as Scattered Spider,” GTIG chief analyst John Hultquist told Computer Weekly via email this afternoon. “The actor, which has reportedly targeted retail in the UK following a long hiatus, has a history of focusing their efforts on a single sector at a time, and we anticipate they will continue to target the sector in the near term. US retailers should take note,” said Hultquist. Hultquist described Scattered Spider as aggressive, creative, and highly adept at circumventing even the most mature security programmes and defences. “They have had a lot of success with social engineering and leveraging third parties to gain entry to their targets. Mandiant has provided a hardening guide based on our experience with more details on their tactics and steps organisations can take to defend themselves,” said Hultquist. When defending against Scattered Spider, hardening identity verification and authentication practices are of utmost importance, said Mandiant. The gang has proven highly effective at using social engineering techniques to impersonate users contacting its victims’ IT helpdesks, so as a first step, helpdesk staff will need additional training to positively identify inbound contacts, using methods such as on-camera or in-person verification, government ID verification, or challenge and response questions. Security teams may also want to look into temporarily disabling, or enhancing validation, for self-service password resets, and routing both these and multifactor authentication resets through manual helpdesk workflows for the time being. Employees should also be made to authenticate prior to changing authentication methods, such as adding a new phone number. Security teams can also implement additional safeguards such as requiring changes to be made from trusted office locations, or using out-of-band verification, such as a call back to an employee’s registered mobile number, before proceeding with a sensitive request. It may also be worth considering taking steps such as banning SMS, phone call or email as authentication controls, using phishing-resistant MFA apps, and using FIDO2 security keys for privileged identities. Ultimately, said Mandiant, the goal should be transition to passwordless authentication if possible. More widely, non-IT staff should be taught to avoid relying on publicly available data for verification, such as dates of birth, or the last four digits of US Social Security Numbers. With no US retailers yet publicly-named as victims of Scattered Spider's campaign, Nic Adams, co-founder and CEO at 0rcus, a security automation platform, said the identities of victims were largely irrelevant given the commoditisation of the threat chain. “Whether DragonForce, Scattered Spider, or a shared affiliate ring executed the intrusion is irrelevant. Who the hell cares. An overlap in TTPs proves the industrialisation of compromise. Threat actors don’t need advanced exploits. Simply put, organisational blindness to behavioral anomalies, lax identity workflows, IT helpdesks that treat social engineering as a customer service moment. I call this the breach-point. Continuing to focus on malware or ransomware only further validates trust flow mismanagement,” said Adams. “Phishing, cred abuse, Cobalt Strike, LOTL movement, SystemBC tunnels, Mimikatz extractions, data staging to MEGA is now a commodity kill chain. What came after was orchestration: full access, lateral expansion, data exfiltration, selective encryption, ransom leverage. The payload was just a press release because the campaign had already succeeded long before that binary detonated.” Adams called on organisations to start thinking like threat actors. “The next breach will follow the same path. One-click, credential, absent defence layer. Another billion in market cap evaporated,” he said.  “Oranisations that survive what’s coming will be those that embed threat logic at the protocol level, assign root access to operators who know what adversaries build, and stop misleading everyone by asserting compliance equals control. You can’t outsource this. You can’t automate this. You either build with black hats or remain target practice for those who take the hint.” Back in the UK, reports today (14 May) suggested that M&S' insurers may find themselves on the hook for as much as £100m following the ransomware attack, with Allianz and Beazley particularly exposed. According to the Financial Times, the claim would likely cover lost online sales and data breach liability losses following the theft of customer data from the retailer's systems. M&S has already lost tens of millions of pounds as a result of the cyber attack, which has left its food supply chains in disarray. Timeline: UK retail cyber attacks 22 April 2025: A cyber attack at M&S has caused significant disruption to customers, leaving them unable to make contactless payments or use click-and-collect services. 24 April: M&S is still unable to provide contactless payment or click-and-collect services amid a cyber attack that it says has forced it to move a number of processes offline to safeguard its customers, staff and business. 25 April: M&S shuts down online sales as it works to contain and mitigate a severe cyber attack on its systems. 29 April: The infamous Scattered Spider hacking collective may have been behind the ongoing cyber attack on M&S that has crippled systems at the retailer and left its ecommerce operation in disarray. 30 April: A developing cyber incident at Co-op has forced the retailer to pull the plug on some of its IT systems as it works to contain the attack. 1 May: Co-op tells staff to stop using their VPNs and be wary that their communications channels may be being monitored, as a cyber attack on the organisation continues to develop. 1 May: Harrods confirms it is the latest UK retailer to experience a cyber attack, shutting off a number of systems in an attempt to lessen the impact. 2 May: The National Cyber Security Centre confirms it is providing assistance to M&S, Co-op and Harrods as concerns grow among UK retailers. 7 May: No end is yet in sight for UK retailers subjected to apparent ransomware attacks.. 13 May: M&S is instructing all of its customers to change their account passwords after a significant amount of data was stolen in a DragonForce ransomware attack.