Geralt, the hero of The Witcher series of games, nearly had a considerably different face. He actually did, briefly, but the game's community disliked it so much CD Projekt Red panicked and changed it back. The problem? Anatomical correctness. The community didn't think Geralt was alien-looking or ugly enough. The year was 2010 and CD Projekt Red was ready to debut its brand new Witcher game, The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings, to the world. A couple of leaked videos preceded the formal announcement but when a clutch of screenshots was eventually released, it debuted a different looking Geralt to the one people were used to from The Witcher 1. Whereas Geralt had previously had the proportions of a triangle, roughly, which angled to a point on his nose and didn't seem to involve a chin of any kind, he now had much easier-on-the-eye proportions and looked like an actual person. He was even, dare I say it, handsome. It simply wouldn't do. Some of this was to be expected. The transition from Witcher 1 to Witcher 2 included a transition for the game's engine, moving from BioWare's Aurora engine, which once powered Neverwinter Nights, to CD Projekt Red's internally made engine Redengine. A facial design that worked well in one engine wouldn't necessarily work in both. Geralt fights a baddie in The Witcher 1. | Image credit: CD Projekt Red "The problem was that The Witcher 1 was heavily stylised," CD Projekt Red art director Pawel Mielniczuk explained to me. "From an art point of view, it was a much simpler visual fidelity than was in The Witcher 2 and Witcher 3. It was based on this Aurora engine from Neverwinter Nights - low poly, you know - so the character looks great there but the face of Geralt in The Witcher 1 wasn't very anatomically correct. It was making a good impression. "When we got to The Witcher 2, we had a better engine - larger budgets for polygons, more artists to sculpt nice faces, and we actually got better at making characters, already being a studio that released one game. And Geralt'sface just did not match the style of the rest of the characters," he said. "It was not realistic human proportions." The solution was clear: redesign Geralt's face. "Let's make Geralt from scratch - nobody will notice that," Mielniczuk said, and laughed at the memory. "So we made it at the very beginning of The Witcher 2 production and we released it with this first bunch of screenshots to see what the response was, and the response was horrible! Our community just smashed us on the forums - there were almost riots there." Geralt's redesigned face, unveiled in the debut screenshots released for The Witcher 2. | Image credit: CD Projekt Red Sadly I can't find those riots on those company forums now; 15 years of chatter has buried it. But Mielniczuk told me the comments there were to the effect of: "True Geralt: he's supposed to be ugly and inhuman!" CD Projekt Red backtracked as a result of the backlash, and it would take a further two years of tinkering, and testing and re-evaluating, to get Geralt's look right for the game. "And was a hybrid of The Witcher 1 Geralt and a real human," Mielniczuk said. By the time The Witcher 3 development came around, in around 2011-2012, the opportunity once again presented itself to tinker with Geralt's face, but this time the studio resisted. "With The Witcher 3, we actually used exactly the same model from Witcher 2, added more polygons, updated textures, but we did not touch it," Mielniczuk said. Geralt as pictured at the beginning of The Witcher 2. | Image credit: Eurogamer / CD Projekt Red That's not to say Mielniczuk didn't want to alter Geralt's face for the third game. He was the lead character artist on The Witcher 3. He hand-sculpted both Ciri and Yennefer's face, and he could see glaring issues with Geralt's. "If you look at the profile of Geralt: he has this incredible profile but the tip of his nose is a completely straight line from his forehead, kind of Greek proportions, and it was not fitting his face, so we wanted to fix that. But we did not," he said. "We made a decision, 'Okay, that's Geralt, he's recognisable, people are loving our character. We pass. We cannot make this mistake once again.'" Which brings us around to The Witcher 4, which is now in full production and we know will include Geralt to some degree. The new game will also move the series to a new engine, Unreal Engine 5, so once again there's an opportunity for a Geralt-face redesign. Will CD Projekt Red take it? Even the box art changed quite considerably over the course of the game's development. | Image credit: CD Projekt Red "It's such a grounded character right now I would really not dare to touch it," Mielniczuk said. "And in general, it's a very successful character because his face is recognisable, probably also because of these features of inhuman proportions in the upper part of the body. So no, I wouldn't update anything, just textures, normal maps, adding more details on the face, make it realistic through the surfaces, but not through the anatomy and proportions." But there is one thing that might tempt Mielniczuk to update Geralt's face, or rather one person, and that's Henry Cavill, the former star of The Witcher Netflix TV show. Mielniczuk is a big fan of his. "Henry was just perfect," he said. Then he added, laughing: "If I would do something to the face, I would be easily convinced to scan Henry and put him in The Witcher 4!" I spoke to Pawel Mielniczuk as part of a series of interviews looking back on The Witcher 3, a decade on, through the eyes of the people who made it. You can find that full piece on Eurogamer now. #projekt #red #tried #redesign #geralt039s

Disruption has become a popular brand strategy as start-ups, challengers and even established brands seek to stand out in crowded categories. Disruptive brand building subverts a consumer’s perceptions through narrative and tone. But, while disruption is often associated with boldness and audacity, its true power lies in challenging category norms in unexpected ways. This is achieved not only through striking visuals or provocative messaging, but by fundamentally redefining what a category can mean, and the experience a brand can deliver. One newly launched brand that’s aiming to defy its category conventions is mud, an emerging petcare company that is setting itself apart by embracing mess, mud and natural animal instincts. The brand’s Everyday Wash for Dirty Dogs is marketed for “dogs who were meant to get dirty”. The brand’s brown, grey and black colour palette is inspired by different shades of dirt, and its founders describe it as “a small act of rebellion against the sanitised world of modern pet care.” Angelina Pischikova and Karina Zhukovskaya’s identity for their mud pet care brand. While it’s too early to predict mud’s ability to disrupt its category, its mission is certainly thought-provoking. If successful, disruptor brands can not only capture market share from established competitors, they can shift industry dynamics and open up a new market for consumers seeking alternatives. Think Liquid Death, the US brand which made canned water cool with its irreverence and punk/heavy metal aesthetics. Or Oatly, which turned oat milk into a cultural statement with witty long copy and an anti-advertising aesthetic. “Being pioneering isn’t always about ripping it up and starting again.” When a disruptor brand is so successful that it brings about positive change, it’s often because that category is ripe for disruption. Prior to the arrival of disruptor brands like The Ordinary and Glossier, the beauty industry had thrived on creating a feeling of exclusivity, mystery and luxury, with glossy celebrity-fronted advertising and products making vague promises at inflated prices. The sector was entirely upended by the arrival of The Ordinary, which democratised skincare by championing science over celebrity and enabled a much wider group of consumers to access high-quality skincare. Stunts like selling “ordinarily-priced” eggs for at the height of the American inflation crisis, or dumping a stack of dollar bills in a store window, cleverly highlighted its no-frills proposition and flew in the face of typical beauty marketing by taking swipes at influencer endorsement. Glossier was another hugely influential agent of change because it built its brand around user-generated content and real customer feedback, rather than top-down beauty ideals. But with disruption comes risk. A disruptor brand can seem inauthentic if its brash, bold branding doesn’t fully align with its ethos. WeWork’s tactics backfired massively when its “changing the world” narrative collapsed under scrutiny. Its demise also demonstrates that moving fast and breaking things isn’t necessarily the best approach to disruption. The company promised a variety of flexible office spaces catering to different needs, but ultimately failed to deliver because of its focus on global expansion at breakneck speed – a strategy that proved unsustainable. Also, disruption stops being disruptive when everyone’s doing it. When luxury fashion first shifted online and onto social media, many fashion houses pared back their logos, incorporating the clean, minimalist typefaces favoured by tech brands like Google and Microsoft. This minimalist branding style became so popular among brands, from Saint Laurent to Celine, they all started to look the same. Even Liquid Death’s success has had its limitations. Despite becoming a sensation in the US, it didn’t create any significant ripples in the UK water market and exited after less than two years – showing that disruptive brand activity can get lost in translation. What works in some markets and cultures, may fall flat in others. For legacy brands, the stakes are particularly high because a major identity shift can erode established brand equity. Old Spice successfully moved away from its “dad’s aftershave” image through ironic humour. By contrast, Aberdeen Group’s attempt to reach new audiences backfired dramatically after its rebrand to Abrdn in 2021 was met with a torrent of mockery. Earlier this year it announced it was reinstating the missing e’s. Being pioneering isn’t always about ripping it up and starting again. Brands don’t need to reinvent themselves or tear down the competition to make an impact. You can be just as innovative by quietly committing to long-term, incremental change. Sustainable fashion brands are a case in point here. Companies like Finisterre and Reformation are leading a slow fashion movement by committing to eco-friendly and ethical practices, offering consumers a high-quality alternative to fast fashion. To truly disrupt, a brand must have ambitions beyond being brash and attention-seeking. Disruptors need to stay true to their brand essence as well as strategically differentiated from rivals. Before adopting a disruptive stance, consider what consumers really want and analyse whether your rivals are delivering on that need. You must also ensure your branding resonates with your target audience and connects to a broader cultural shift. In this way, you can help ensure your disruption strategy gets people talking for all the right reasons. Polly Hopkins is managing director of FutureBrand London. #what #brands #get #wrong #about

Amazon, the multi-trillion dollar e-commerce monolith, seemingly cheaped out on on a key feature installed on its six-propeller delivery drones. Predictably, this backfired almost immediately.On arainy December day at the company's testing range in Oregon, not one but two Prime Air drones suddenly stopped spinning their propellers mid-flight and plummeted some 200 feet to the ground. The crashes, which destroyed both aircraft, happened within minutes of each other. And now, , we know why. According to documents from the National Transportation Safety Board, bad readings from the drones' onboard lidar sensors led the drones to believe they had already landed. Their software, thinking it was on solid ground, cluelessly cut off power to the propellers.But that's not all. After Amazon decided to remove them, the drones no longer had backup sensors that were equipped on older versions. And these probably would've prevented the drones from shutting down, per Bloomberg's sources.Amazon denies this line of thinking."Bloomberg's reporting is misleading," an Amazon spokesperson told the newspaper. "Statements that assume that replacing one system with another would have prevented an accident in the past is irresponsible." Per the NTSB documents, a botched software update made the lidar sensors more susceptible to being thrown off by rain. Lidar is short for light detection and ranging, a form of technology that uses lasers to scan surroundings in a similar manner to radar.A glitch may have been the main reason, but it definitely sounds like it could've been easily avoidable had Amazon kept the redundant system from its previous drone, the MK27. The backup sensors came in the form of two metal prongs on the bottom of the drone called squat switches. When the drone lands, the switches are depressed, providing confirmation that it's on solid ground. A source told Bloomberg that the MK27 drone's software was originally designed to confirm a landing only when two of its three sensors agreed.This was removed with the MK30, and it's unclear why. Reducing costs could be one reason, and it's not uncommon to remove redundant systems to streamline a device.It could also be because of a shift in how Amazon intends to deliver packages with its drones, according to a Bloomberg source. The MK27 was designed to make deliveries by landing in a customer's yard, with enclosed propellers to make them safer. The MK30 moved away from this and drops packages from around a dozen feet in the air.This is far from the only setback Amazon has faced during its drone development, which it first announced back in 2013. In 2021, a drone crash sparked an acres-wide blaze in Oregon, and outside of incidents like that, many residents living where the drones are being trialed simply find them annoying. After the latest December SNAFU, Amazon halted future experiments for months — though it maintained that the crashes weren't the "primary reason" — and only recently lifted the pause.Overall, development has been sluggish and the project remains years behind schedule. Currently, Amazon is only carrying out drone deliveries in College Station, Texas, and Tolleson, Arizona.More on Amazon: The NYPD Is Sending Drones to the Sites of 9-1-1 CallsShare This Article #amazons #delivery #drones #are #crashing

What initially appeared to be a power play by Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to take over the US Copyright Office by having Donald Trump remove the officials in charge has now backfired in spectacular fashion, as Trump’s acting replacements are known to be unfriendly — and even downright hostile — to the tech industry. When Trump fired Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden last week and Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter over the weekend, it was seen as another move driven by the tech wing of the Republican Party — especially in light of the Copyright Office releasing a pre-publication report saying some kinds of generative AI training would not be considered fair use. And when two men showed up at the Copyright Office inside the Library of Congress carrying letters purporting to appoint them to acting leadership positions, the DOGE takeover appeared to be complete.But those two men, Paul Perkins and Brian Nieves, were not DOGE at all, but instead approved by the MAGA wing of the Trump coalition that aims to put tech companies in check. Perkins, now the supposed acting Register of Copyrights, is an eight-year veteran of the DOJ who served in the first Trump administration prosecuting fraud cases. Nieves, the putative acting deputy librarian, is currently at the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, having previously been a lawyer on the House Judiciary Committee, where he worked with Rep. Jim Jordan on Big Tech investigations. And Todd Blanche, the putative Acting Librarian of Congress who would be their boss, is a staunch Trump ally who represented him during his 2024 Manhattan criminal trial, and is now the Deputy Attorney General overseeing the DOJ’s side in the Google Search remedies case. As one government affairs lobbyist told The Verge, Blanche is “there to stick it to tech.”The appointments of Blanche, Perkins, and Nieves are the result of furious lobbying over the weekend by the conservative content industry — as jealously protective of its copyrighted works as any other media companies — as well as populist Republican lawmakers and lawyers, all enraged that Silicon Valley had somehow persuaded Trump to fire someone who’d recently criticized AI companies.Sources speaking to The Verge are convinced the firings were a tech industry power play led by Elon Musk and David SacksThe populists were particularly rankled over Perlmutter’s removal from the helm of the Copyright Office, which happened the day after the agency released a pre-publication version of its report on the use of copyrighted material in training generative AI systems. Sources speaking to The Verge are convinced the firings were a tech industry power play led by Elon Musk and “White House A.I. & Crypto Czar” David Sacks, meant to eliminate any resistance to AI companies using copyrighted material to train models without having to pay for it.“You can say, well, we have to compete with China. No, we don’t have to steal content to compete with China. We don’t have slave labor to compete with China. It’s a bullshit argument,” Mike Davis, the president of the Article III project and a key antitrust advisor to Trump, told The Verge. “It’s not fair use under the copyright laws to take everyone’s content and have the big tech platforms monetize it. That’s the opposite of fair use. That’s a copyright infringement.”It’s the rare time that MAGA world is in agreement with the Democratic Party, which has roundly condemned the firings of Hayden and Perlmutter, and also zeroed in on the Musk-Sacks faction as the instigator.In a press release, Rep. Joe Morelle (D-NY) characterized the hundred-plus-page report, the third installment of a series that the office has put out on copyright and artificial intelligence, as “refus[ing] to rubber-stamp Elon Musk’s efforts to mine troves of copyrighted works to train AI models.” Meanwhile, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), who told The Verge in an emailed statement that the president had no power to fire either Hayden or Perlmutter, said, “This all looks like another way to pay back Elon Musk and the other AI billionaires who backed Trump’s campaign.”The agency’s interpretation of what is or isn’t fair use does not have binding force on the courtsPublications like the AI report essentially lay out how the Copyright Office interprets copyright law. But the agency’s interpretation of what is or isn’t fair use does not have binding force on the courts, so a report like this one functions mostly as expert commentary and reference material. However, the entire AI industry is built on an expansive interpretation of copyright law that’s currently being tested in the courts — a situation that’s created dire need for exactly this sort of expert commentary. The AI report applies the law of fair use to different kinds of AI training and usage, concluding that although outcomes might differ case by case, “making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries.” But far from advising drastic action in response to what the Office believes is rampant copyright infringement, the report instead states that “government intervention would be premature at this time,” given that licensing agreements are being made across various sectors.“Now tech bros are going to steal creators’ copyrights for AP profits”The unoffending nature of the report made Perlmutter’s removal all the more alarming to the MAGA ideologues in Trump’s inner circle, who saw this as a clear power grab, and were immediately vocal about it. “Now tech bros are going to steal creators’ copyrights for AP profits,” Davis posted immediately on Truth Social, along with a link to a CBS story about Perlmutter’s firing. “This is 100% unacceptable.” Curiously, just after Davis published the post, Trump reposted it, link and all. None of Trump’s purported appointees have a particularly relevant background for their new jobs — but they are certainly not DOGE people and, generally speaking, are not the kind of people that generative AI proponents would want in the office. And for now, this counts as a political win for the anti-tech populists, even if nothing further happens. “Sometimes when you make a pitch to leadership to get rid of someone, the person who comes in after isn’t any better,” said a source familiar with the dynamic between the White House and both sides of the copyright issue. “You don’t necessarily get to name the successor and fire someone, and so in many cases, I’ve seen people get pushed out the door and the replacement is even worse.”RelatedThe speed of the firings and subsequent power struggle, however, have underscored the brewing constitutional crisis sparked by Trump’s frequent firing of independent agency officials confirmed by Congress. The Library of Congress firings, in particular, reach well past the theory of executive power claimed by the White House and into even murkier territory. It’s legally dubious whether the Librarian of Congress can be removed by the president, as the Library, a legislative branch agency that significantly predates the administrative state, does not fit neatly into the modern-day legal framework of federal agencies. (Of course, everything about the law is in upheaval even where agencies do fit the framework.) Regardless, the law clearly states that the Librarian of Congress — not the president — appoints the Register of Copyrights.At the moment, the Library of Congress has not received any direction from Congress on how to move forward. The constitutional crisis — one of many across the federal government — remains ongoing. Elon Musk and xAI did not respond to a request for comment.Additional reporting by Sarah Jeong.See More: Source: https://www.theverge.com/politics/666179/maga-elon-musk-sacks-copyright-office-perlmutter #elon #musks #apparent #power #play #the #copyright #office #completely #backfired