Sony cancelled several live service projects earlier this year.

As a former Xbox 360 owner I don’t understand Xbox today – Reader’s Feature GameCentral Published June 15, 2025 1:00am Xbox 360 is coming up to its 20th anniversary (Microsoft) A reader looks back on the Xbox 360 era and is frustrated at how things have evolved since then, with ROG Xbox Ally and the move towards multiformat releases. I though the Xbox Games Showcase on Sunday was pretty good. Like Sony’s State of Play, it was mostly third party games but there was some interesting stuff there and I think overall the vibe was better than from Sony. I liked the look of High On Life 2, There Are No Ghosts At The Grand, and Cronos: The New Dawn the best but there was a lot of potentially cool games – I’d include Keeper, because it looked interestingly weird, but I don’t feel Double Fine are ever very good at gameplay. The biggest news out of the event was the new portable with the terrible name: Asus ROG Xbox Ally. I bet you can just imagine some parent asking that for that at shop at Christmas, to buy their kid? Not that that would ever happen because the thing’s going to be stupidly expensive. It seemed like a distraction, a small experiment at best, and I didn’t really pay much attention to it, especially as I already have a Steam Deck. But then today I read that Microsoft has cancelled its plans for their next gen portable and that actually this ridiculously named non-Xbox device may end up being the future of gaming for Microsoft. I’ve always preferred Xbox as my console as choice, probably because I was always a PC gamer before that. Although now I look back at things I have to admit that I only got the Xbox One out of brand loyalty and I wouldn’t have if I’d been thinking about it more clearly. By that point I was in too deep and so I bought the Xbox Series X/S out of muscle memory more than anything, wasn’t I proven to be a chump? What frustrates me most about Xbox at the moment is how indecisive it seems. I almost didn’t watch the Xbox Games Showcase because I knew I’d have to see Phil Spencer, or one of his goons, grinning into the camera, as if nothing is wrong. And, of course, that’s exactly what he did, ‘hinting’ about the return of Halo, as if everyone was going to be pumping the air to hear about that. Expert, exclusive gaming analysis Sign up to the GameCentral newsletter for a unique take on the week in gaming, alongside the latest reviews and more. Delivered to your inbox every Saturday morning. News flash, Phil: no one cares. You’ve run that series into the ground, like all the other Xbox exclusives, to the point where they just feel old fashioned and tired. Old school fans don’t care and newer ones definitely don’t. It may sell okay at first on PlayStation 5, but only out of curiosity and as a kind of celebration that Sony has finally defeated Microsoft. To all extents and purposes, Xbox is now third party. The only thing that makes them not is that they still make their own console hardware but how long is that going to last? The ROG Ally is made by Asus and if Microsoft don’t make a handheld are they really going to put out a home console instead? That’s going to cost a lot of money in R&D and marketing and everything else, and I don’t know who could argue that it’s got a chance of selling more than the Xbox Series X/S. Phil Spencer has been talking about making a handheld for years and yet suddenly it’s not going to happen? Is there anything that is set in stone? I even heard people talking about them going back to having exclusives with the next generation, if it seemed like things were working out. I loved my Xbox 360, it’s still my favourite console of all time – the perfect balance between modern and retro games – but its golden era is a long time ago now, well over a decade. Xbox at the time was the new kid on the block, full of new ideas and daring to what Sony wouldn’t or couldn’t. When was the last time Xbox did anything like that? Game Pass probably, and that hasn’t worked out at all well. More Trending Nothing has, ever since that disastrous Xbox One reveal, and I just don’t understand how a company with basically infinite resources, and which already owns half the games industry, can be such a hopeless mess. I’m just sticking with PC from now and in the future, I’m going to pretend the Xbox 360 was my one and only console. By reader Cramersauce Xbox One – not a good follow-up to the Xbox 360 (Microsoft) The reader’s features do not necessarily represent the views of GameCentral or Metro. You can submit your own 500 to 600-word reader feature at any time, which if used will be published in the next appropriate weekend slot. Just contact us at gamecentral@metro.co.uk or use our Submit Stuff page and you won’t need to send an email. 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

Barricades, as we know them today, are thought to date back to the European wars of religion. According to most historians, the first barricade went up in Paris in 1588; the word derives from the French barriques, or barrels, spontaneously put together. They have been assembled from the most diverse materials, from cobblestones, tyres, newspapers, dead horses and bags of ice (during Kyiv’s Euromaidan in 2013–14), to omnibuses and e‑scooters. Their tactical logic is close to that of guerrilla warfare: the authorities have to take the barricades in order to claim victory; all that those manning them have to do to prevail is to hold them.  The 19th century was the golden age for blocking narrow, labyrinthine streets. Paris had seen barricades go up nine times in the period before the Second Empire; during the July 1830 Revolution alone, 4,000 barricades had been erected (roughly one for every 200 Parisians). These barricades would not only stop, but also trap troops; people would then throw stones from windows or pour boiling water onto the streets. Georges‑Eugène Haussmann, Napoleon III’s prefect of Paris, famously created wide boulevards to make blocking by barricade more difficult and moving the military easier, and replaced cobblestones with macadam – a surface of crushed stone. As Flaubert observed in his Dictionary of Accepted Ideas: ‘Macadam: has cancelled revolutions. No more means to make barricades. Nevertheless rather inconvenient.’   Lead image: Barricades, as we know them today, are thought to have originated in early modern France. A colour engraving attributed to Achille‑Louis Martinet depicts the defence of a barricade during the 1830 July Revolution. Credit: Paris Musées / Musée Carnavalet – Histoire de Paris. Above: the socialist political thinker and activist Louis Auguste Blanqui – who was imprisoned by every regime that ruled France between 1815 and 1880 – drew instructions for how to build an effective barricade Under Napoleon III, Baron Haussmann widened Paris’s streets in his 1853–70 renovation of the city, making barricading more difficult Credit: Old Books Images / Alamy ‘On one hand, [the authorities] wanted to favour the circulation of ideas,’ reactionary intellectual Louis Veuillot observed apropos the ambiguous liberalism of the latter period of Napoleon III’s Second Empire. ‘On the other, to ensure the circulation of regiments.’ But ‘anti‑insurgency hardware’, as Justinien Tribillon has called it, also served to chase the working class out of the city centre: Haussmann’s projects amounted to a gigantic form of real-estate speculation, and the 1871 Paris Commune that followed constituted not just a short‑lived anarchist experiment featuring enormous barricades; it also signalled the return of the workers to the centre and, arguably, revenge for their dispossession.    By the mid‑19th century, observers questioned whether barricades still had practical meaning. Gottfried Semper’s barricade, constructed for the 1849 Dresden uprising, had proved unconquerable, but Friedrich Engels, one‑time ‘inspector of barricades’ in the Elberfeld insurrection of the same year, already suggested that the barricades’ primary meaning was now moral rather than military – a point to be echoed by Leon Trotsky in the subsequent century. Barricades symbolised bravery and the will to hold out among insurrectionists, and, not least, determination rather to destroy one’s possessions – and one’s neighbourhood – than put up with further oppression.   Not only self‑declared revolutionaries viewed things this way: the reformist Social Democrat leader Eduard Bernstein observed that ‘the barricade fight as a political weapon of the people has been completely eliminated due to changes in weapon technology and cities’ structures’. Bernstein was also picking up on the fact that, in the era of industrialisation, contention happened at least as much on the factory floor as on the streets. The strike, not the food riot or the defence of workers’ quartiers, became the paradigmatic form of conflict. Joshua Clover has pointed out in his 2016 book Riot. Strike. Riot: The New Era of Uprisings, that the price of labour, rather than the price of goods, caused people to confront the powerful. Blocking production grew more important than blocking the street. ‘The only weapons we have are our bodies, and we need to tuck them in places so wheels don’t turn’ Today, it is again blocking – not just people streaming along the streets in large marches – that is prominently associated with protests. Disrupting circulation is not only an important gesture in the face of climate emergency; blocking transport is a powerful form of protest in an economic system focused on logistics and just‑in‑time distribution. Members of Insulate Britain and Germany’s Last Generation super‑glue themselves to streets to stop car traffic to draw attention to the climate emergency; they have also attached themselves to airport runways. They form a human barricade of sorts, immobilising traffic by making themselves immovable.   Today’s protesters have made themselves consciously vulnerable. They in fact follow the advice of US civil rights’ Bayard Rustin who explained: ‘The only weapons we have are our bodies, and we need to tuck them in places so wheels don’t turn.’ Making oneself vulnerable might increase the chances of a majority of citizens seeing the importance of the cause which those engaged in civil disobedience are pursuing. Demonstrations – even large, unpredictable ones – are no longer sufficient. They draw too little attention and do not compel a reaction. Naomi Klein proposed the term ‘blockadia’ as ‘a roving transnational conflict zone’ in which people block extraction – be it open‑pit mines, fracking sites or tar sands pipelines – with their bodies. More often than not, these blockades are organised by local people opposing the fossil fuel industry, not environmental activists per se. Blockadia came to denote resistance to the Keystone XL pipeline as well as Canada’s First Nations‑led movement Idle No More. In cities, blocking can be accomplished with highly mobile structures. Like the barricade of the 19th century, they can be quickly assembled, yet are difficult to move; unlike old‑style barricades, they can also be quickly disassembled, removed and hidden (by those who have the engineering and architectural know‑how). Think of super tripods, intricate ‘protest beacons’ based on tensegrity principles, as well as inflatable cobblestones, pioneered by the artist‑activists of Tools for Action (and as analysed in Nick Newman’s recent volume Protest Architecture).   As recently as 1991, newly independent Latvia defended itself against Soviet tanks with the popular construction of barricades, in a series of confrontations that became known as the Barikādes Credit: Associated Press / Alamy Inversely, roadblocks can be used by police authorities to stop demonstrations and gatherings from taking place – protesters are seen removing such infrastructure in Dhaka during a general strike in 1999 Credit: REUTERS / Rafiqur Rahman / Bridgeman These inflatable objects are highly flexible, but can also be protective against police batons. They pose an awkward challenge to the authorities, who often end up looking ridiculous when dealing with them, and, as one of the inventors pointed out, they are guaranteed to create a media spectacle. This was also true of the 19th‑century barricade: people posed for pictures in front of them. As Wolfgang Scheppe, a curator of Architecture of the Barricade (currently on display at the Arsenale Institute for Politics of Representation in Venice), explains, these images helped the police to find Communards and mete out punishments after the end of the anarchist experiment. Much simpler structures can also be highly effective. In 2019, protesters in Hong Kong filled streets with little archways made from just three ordinary bricks: two standing upright, one resting on top. When touched, the falling top one would buttress the other two, and effectively block traffic. In line with their imperative of ‘be water’, protesters would retreat when the police appeared, but the ‘mini‑Stonehenges’ would remain and slow down the authorities. Today, elaborate architectures of protest, such as Extinction Rebellion’s ‘tensegrity towers’, are used to blockade roads and distribution networks – in this instance, Rupert Murdoch’s News UK printworks in Broxbourne, for the media group’s failure to report the climate emergency accurately Credit: Extinction Rebellion In June 2025, protests erupted in Los Angeles against the Trump administration’s deportation policies. Demonstrators barricaded downtown streets using various objects, including the pink public furniture designed by design firm Rios for Gloria Molina Grand Park. LAPD are seen advancing through tear gas Credit: Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images Roads which radicals might want to target are not just ones in major metropoles and fancy post‑industrial downtowns. Rather, they might block the arteries leading to ‘fulfilment centres’ and harbours with container shipping. The model is not only Occupy Wall Street, which had initially called for the erection of ‘peaceful barricades’, but also the Occupy that led to the Oakland port shutdown in 2011. In short, such roadblocks disrupt what Phil Neel has called a ‘hinterland’ that is often invisible, yet crucial for contemporary capitalism. More recently, Extinction Rebellion targeted Amazon distribution centres in three European countries in November 2021; in the UK, they aimed to disrupt half of all deliveries on a Black Friday.   Will such blockades just anger consumers who, after all, are not present but are impatiently waiting for packages at home? One of the hopes associated with the traditional barricade was always that they might create spaces where protesters, police and previously indifferent citizens get talking; French theorists even expected them to become ‘a machine to produce the people’. That could be why military technology has evolved so that the authorities do not have to get close to the barricade: tear gas was first deployed against those on barricades before it was used in the First World War; so‑called riot control vehicles can ever more easily crush barricades. The challenge, then, for anyone who wishes to block is also how to get in other people’s faces – in order to have a chance to convince them of their cause.        2025-06-11 Kristina Rapacki Share

A dangerous strain of bird flu is spreading in US livestockMediaMedium/Alamy Since Donald Trump assumed office in January, the leading US public health agency has pulled back preparations for a potential bird flu pandemic. But as it steps back, another government agency is stepping up. While the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) previously held regular briefings on its efforts to prevent a wider outbreak of a deadly bird flu virus called H5N1 in people, it largely stopped once Trump took office. It has also cancelled funding for a vaccine that would have targeted the virus. In contrast, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has escalated its fight against H5N1’s spread in poultry flocks and dairy herds, including by funding the development of livestock vaccines. This particular virus – a strain of avian influenza called H5N1 – poses a significant threat to humans, having killed about half of the roughly 1000 people worldwide who tested positive for it since 2003. While the pathogen spreads rapidly in birds, it is poorly adapted to infecting humans and isn’t known to transmit between people. But that could change if it acquires mutations that allow it to spread more easily among mammals – a risk that increases with each mammalian infection. The possibility of H5N1 evolving to become more dangerous to people has grown significantly since March 2024, when the virus jumped from migratory birds to dairy cows in Texas. More than 1,070 herds across 17 states have been affected since then. H5N1 also infects poultry, placing the virus in closer proximity to people. Since 2022, nearly 175 million domestic birds have been culled in the US due to H5N1, and almost all of the 71 people who have tested positive for it had direct contact with livestock. Get the most essential health and fitness news in your inbox every Saturday. Sign up to newsletter “We need to take this seriously because when [H5N1] constantly is spreading, it’s constantly spilling over into humans,” says Seema Lakdawala at Emory University in Georgia. The virus has already killed a person in the US and a child in Mexico this year. Still, cases have declined under Trump. The last recorded human case was in February, and the number of affected poultry flocks fell 95 per cent between then and June. Outbreaks in dairy herds have also stabilised. It isn’t clear what is behind the decline. Lakdawala believes it is partly due to a lull in bird migration, which reduces opportunities for the virus to spread from wild birds to livestock. It may also reflect efforts by the USDA to contain outbreaks on farms. In February, the USDA unveiled a $1 billion plan for tackling H5N1, including strengthening farmers’ defences against the virus, such as through free biosecurity assessments. Of the 150 facilities that have undergone assessment, only one has experienced an H5N1 outbreak. Under Trump, the USDA also continued its National Milk Testing Strategy, which mandates farms provide raw milk samples for influenza testing. If a farm is positive for H5N1, it must allow the USDA to monitor livestock and implement measures to contain the virus. The USDA launched the programme in December and has since ramped up participation to 45 states. “The National Milk Testing Strategy is a fantastic system,” says Erin Sorrell at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland. Along with the USDA’s efforts to improve biosecurity measures on farms, milk testing is crucial for containing the outbreak, says Sorrell. But while the USDA has bolstered its efforts against H5N1, the HHS doesn’t appear to have followed suit. In fact, the recent drop in human cases may reflect decreased surveillance due to workforce cuts, says Sorrell. In April, the HHS laid off about 10,000 employees, including 90 per cent of staff at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, an office that helps investigate H5N1 outbreaks in farm workers. “There is an old saying that if you don’t test for something, you can’t find it,” says Sorrell. Yet a spokesperson for the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says its guidance and surveillance efforts have not changed. “State and local health departments continue to monitor for illness in persons exposed to sick animals,” they told New Scientist. “CDC remains committed to rapidly communicating information as needed about H5N1.” The USDA and HHS also diverge on vaccination. While the USDA has allocated $100 million toward developing vaccines and other solutions for preventing H5N1’s spread in livestock, the HHS cancelled $776 million in contracts for influenza vaccine development. The contracts – terminated on 28 May – were with the pharmaceutical company Moderna to develop vaccines targeting flu subtypes, including H5N1, that could cause future pandemics. The news came the same day Moderna reported nearly 98 per cent of the roughly 300 participants who received two doses of the H5 vaccine in a clinical trial had antibody levels believed to be protective against the virus. The US has about five million H5N1 vaccine doses stockpiled, but these are made using eggs and cultured cells, which take longer to produce than mRNA-based vaccines like Moderna’s. The Moderna vaccine would have modernised the stockpile and enabled the government to rapidly produce vaccines in the event of a pandemic, says Sorrell. “It seems like a very effective platform and would have positioned the US and others to be on good footing if and when we needed a vaccine for our general public,” she says. The HHS cancelled the contracts due to concerns about mRNA vaccines, which Robert F Kennedy Jr – the country’s highest-ranking public health official – has previously cast doubt on. “The reality is that mRNA technology remains under-tested, and we are not going to spend taxpayer dollars repeating the mistakes of the last administration,” said HHS communications director Andrew Nixon in a statement to New Scientist. However, mRNA technology isn’t new. It has been in development for more than half a century and numerous clinical trials have shown mRNA vaccines are safe. While they do carry the risk of side effects – the majority of which are mild – this is true of almost every medical treatment. In a press release, Moderna said it would explore alternative funding paths for the programme. “My stance is that we should not be looking to take anything off the table, and that includes any type of vaccine regimen,” says Lakdawala. “Vaccines are the most effective way to counter an infectious disease,” says Sorrell. “And so having that in your arsenal and ready to go just give you more options.” Topics:

Anthropic has unveiled a custom collection of Claude AI models designed for US national security customers. The announcement represents a potential milestone in the application of AI within classified government environments. The ‘Claude Gov’ models have already been deployed by agencies operating at the highest levels of US national security, with access strictly limited to those working within such classified environments. Anthropic says these Claude Gov models emerged from extensive collaboration with government customers to address real-world operational requirements. Despite being tailored for national security applications, Anthropic maintains that these models underwent the same rigorous safety testing as other Claude models in their portfolio. Specialised AI capabilities for national security The specialised models deliver improved performance across several critical areas for government operations. They feature enhanced handling of classified materials, with fewer instances where the AI refuses to engage with sensitive information—a common frustration in secure environments. Additional improvements include better comprehension of documents within intelligence and defence contexts, enhanced proficiency in languages crucial to national security operations, and superior interpretation of complex cybersecurity data for intelligence analysis. However, this announcement arrives amid ongoing debates about AI regulation in the US. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei recently expressed concerns about proposed legislation that would grant a decade-long freeze on state regulation of AI. Balancing innovation with regulation In a guest essay published in The New York Times this week, Amodei advocated for transparency rules rather than regulatory moratoriums. He detailed internal evaluations revealing concerning behaviours in advanced AI models, including an instance where Anthropic’s newest model threatened to expose a user’s private emails unless a shutdown plan was cancelled. Amodei compared AI safety testing to wind tunnel trials for aircraft designed to expose defects before public release, emphasising that safety teams must detect and block risks proactively. Anthropic has positioned itself as an advocate for responsible AI development. Under its Responsible Scaling Policy, the company already shares details about testing methods, risk-mitigation steps, and release criteria—practices Amodei believes should become standard across the industry. He suggests that formalising similar practices industry-wide would enable both the public and legislators to monitor capability improvements and determine whether additional regulatory action becomes necessary. Implications of AI in national security The deployment of advanced models within national security contexts raises important questions about the role of AI in intelligence gathering, strategic planning, and defence operations. Amodei has expressed support for export controls on advanced chips and the military adoption of trusted systems to counter rivals like China, indicating Anthropic’s awareness of the geopolitical implications of AI technology. The Claude Gov models could potentially serve numerous applications for national security, from strategic planning and operational support to intelligence analysis and threat assessment—all within the framework of Anthropic’s stated commitment to responsible AI development. Regulatory landscape As Anthropic rolls out these specialised models for government use, the broader regulatory environment for AI remains in flux. The Senate is currently considering language that would institute a moratorium on state-level AI regulation, with hearings planned before voting on the broader technology measure. Amodei has suggested that states could adopt narrow disclosure rules that defer to a future federal framework, with a supremacy clause eventually preempting state measures to preserve uniformity without halting near-term local action. This approach would allow for some immediate regulatory protection while working toward a comprehensive national standard. As these technologies become more deeply integrated into national security operations, questions of safety, oversight, and appropriate use will remain at the forefront of both policy discussions and public debate. For Anthropic, the challenge will be maintaining its commitment to responsible AI development while meeting the specialised needs of government customers for crtitical applications such as national security. (Image credit: Anthropic) See also: Reddit sues Anthropic over AI data scraping Want to learn more about AI and big data from industry leaders? Check out AI & Big Data Expo taking place in Amsterdam, California, and London. The comprehensive event is co-located with other leading events including Intelligent Automation Conference, BlockX, Digital Transformation Week, and Cyber Security & Cloud Expo. Explore other upcoming enterprise technology events and webinars powered by TechForge here. The post Anthropic launches Claude AI models for US national security appeared first on AI News.

Missing the big picture US science is being wrecked, and its leadership is fighting the last war Facing an extreme budget, the National Academies hosted an event that ignored it. John Timmer – Jun 4, 2025 6:00 pm | 16 Credit: JHVE Photo Credit: JHVE Photo Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more WASHINGTON, DC—The general outline of the Trump administration's proposed 2026 budget was released a few weeks back, and it included massive cuts for most agencies, including every one that funds scientific research. Late last week, those agencies began releasing details of what the cuts would mean for the actual projects and people they support. And the results are as bad as the initial budget had suggested: one-of-a-kind scientific experiment facilities and hardware retired, massive cuts in supported scientists, and entire areas of research halted. And this comes in an environment where previously funded grants are being terminated, funding is being held up for ideological screening, and universities have been subject to arbitrary funding freezes. Collectively, things are heading for damage to US science that will take decades to recover from. It's a radical break from the trajectory science had been on. That's the environment that the US's National Academies of Science found itself in yesterday while hosting the State of the Science event in Washington, DC. It was an obvious opportunity for the nation's leading scientific organization to warn the nation of the consequences of the path that the current administration has been traveling. Instead, the event largely ignored the present to worry about a future that may never exist. The proposed cuts The top-line budget numbers proposed earlier indicated things would be bad: nearly 40 percent taken off the National Institutes of Health's budget, the National Science Foundation down by over half. But now, many of the details of what those cuts mean are becoming apparent. NASA's budget includes sharp cuts for planetary science, which would be cut in half and then stay flat for the rest of the decade, with the Mars Sample Return mission canceled. All other science budgets, including Earth Science and Astrophysics, take similar hits; one astronomer posted a graphic showing how many present and future missions that would mean. Active missions that have returned unprecedented data, like Juno and New Horizons, would go, as would two Mars orbiters. As described by Science magazine's news team, "The plans would also kill off nearly every major science mission the agency has not yet begun to build." A chart prepared by astronomer Laura Lopez showing just how many astrophysics missions will be cancelled. Credit: Laura Lopez The National Science Foundation, which funds much of the US's fundamental research, is also set for brutal cuts. Biology, engineering, and education will all be slashed by over 70 percent; computer science, math and physical science, and social and behavioral science will all see cuts of over 60 percent. International programs will take an 80 percent cut. The funding rate of grant proposals is expected to drop from 26 percent to just 7 percent, meaning the vast majority of grants submitted to the NSF will be a waste of time. The number of people involved in NSF-funded activities will drop from over 300,000 to just 90,000. Almost every program to broaden participation in science will be eliminated. As for specifics, they're equally grim. The fleet of research ships will essentially become someone else's problem: "The FY 2026 Budget Request will enable partial support of some ships." We've been able to better pin down the nature and location of gravitational wave events as detectors in Japan and Italy joined the original two LIGO detectors; the NSF will reverse that progress by shutting one of the LIGOs. The NSF's contributions to detectors at the Large Hadron Collider will be cut by over half, and one of the two very large telescopes it was helping fund will be cancelled (say goodbye to the Thirty Meter Telescope). "Access to the telescopes at Kitt Peak and Cerro Tololo will be phased out," and the NSF will transfer the facilities to other organizations. The Department of Health and Human Services has been less detailed about the specific cuts its divisions will see, largely focusing on the overall numbers, which are down considerably. The NIH, which is facing a cut of over 40 percent, will be reorganized, with its 19 institutes pared down to just eight. This will result in some odd pairings, such as the dental and eye institutes ending up in the same place; genomics and biomedical imaging will likewise end up under the same roof. Other groups like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration will also face major cuts. Issues go well beyond the core science agencies, as well. In the Department of Energy, funding for wind, solar, and renewable grid integration has been zeroed out, essentially ending all programs in this area. Hydrogen and fuel cells face a similar fate. Collectively, these had gotten over $600 billion dollars in 2024's budget. Other areas of science at the DOE, such as high-energy physics, fusion, and biology, receive relatively minor cuts that are largely in line with the ones faced by administration priorities like fossil and nuclear energy. Will this happen? It goes without saying that this would amount to an abandonment of US scientific leadership at a time when most estimates of China's research spending show it approaching US-like levels of support. Not only would it eliminate many key facilities, instruments, and institutions that have helped make the US a scientific powerhouse, but it would also block the development of newer and additional ones. The harms are so widespread that even topics that the administration claims are priorities would see severe cuts. And the damage is likely to last for generations, as support is cut at every stage of the educational pipeline that prepares people for STEM careers. This includes careers in high-tech industries, which may require relocation overseas due to a combination of staffing concerns and heightened immigration controls. That said, we've been here before in the first Trump administration, when budgets were proposed with potentially catastrophic implications for US science. But Congress limited the damage and maintained reasonably consistent budgets for most agencies. Can we expect that to happen again? So far, the signs are not especially promising. The House has largely adopted the Trump administration's budget priorities, despite the fact that the budget they pass turns its back on decades of supposed concerns about deficit spending. While the Senate has yet to take up the budget, it has also been very pliant during the second Trump administration, approving grossly unqualified cabinet picks such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. All of which would seem to call for the leadership of US science organizations to press the case for the importance of science funding to the US, and highlight the damage that these cuts would cause. But, if yesterday's National Academies event is anything to judge by, the leadership is not especially interested. Altered states As the nation's premier science organization, and one that performs lots of analyses for the government, the National Academies would seem to be in a position to have its concerns taken seriously by members of Congress. And, given that the present and future of science in the US is being set by policy choices, a meeting entitled the State of the Science would seem like the obvious place to address those concerns. If so, it was not obvious to Marcia McNutt, the president of the NAS, who gave the presentation. She made some oblique references to current problems, saying, that “We are embarking on a radical new experiment in what conditions promote science leadership, with the US being the treatment group, and China as the control," and acknowledged that "uncertainties over the science budgets for next year, coupled with cancellations of billions of dollars of already hard-won research grants, is causing an exodus of researchers." But her primary focus was on the trends that have been operative in science funding and policy leading up to but excluding the second Trump administration. McNutt suggested this was needed to look beyond the next four years. However, that ignores the obvious fact that US science will be fundamentally different if the Trump administration can follow through on its plans and policies; the trends that have been present for the last two decades will be irrelevant. She was also remarkably selective about her avoidance of discussing Trump administration priorities. After noting that faculty surveys have suggested they spend roughly 40 percent of their time handling regulatory requirements, she twice mentioned that the administration's anti-regulatory stance could be a net positive here (once calling it "an opportunity to help"). Yet she neglected to note that many of the abandoned regulations represent a retreat from science-driven policy. McNutt also acknowledged the problem of science losing the bipartisan support it has enjoyed, as trust in scientists among US conservatives has been on a downward trend. But she suggested it was scientists' responsibility to fix the problem, even though it's largely the product of one party deciding it can gain partisan advantage by raising doubts about scientific findings in fields like climate change and vaccine safety. The panel discussion that came after largely followed McNutt's lead in avoiding any mention of the current threats to science. The lone exception was Heather Wilson, president of the University of Texas at El Paso and a former Republican member of the House of Representatives and Secretary of the Air Force during the first Trump administration. Wilson took direct aim at Trump's cuts to funding for underrepresented groups, arguing, "Talent is evenly distributed, but opportunity is not." After arguing that "the moral authority of science depends on the pursuit of truth," she highlighted the cancellation of grants that had been used to study diseases that are more prevalent in some ethnic groups, saying "that's not woke science—that's genetics." Wilson was clearly the exception, however, as the rest of the panel largely avoided direct mention of either the damage already done to US science funding or the impending catastrophe on the horizon. We've asked the National Academies' leadership a number of questions about how it perceives its role at a time when US science is clearly under threat. As of this article's publication, however, we have not received a response. At yesterday's event, however, only one person showed a clear sense of what they thought that role should be—Wilson again, whose strongest words were directed at the National Academies themselves, which she said should "do what you've done since Lincoln was president," and stand up for the truth. John Timmer Senior Science Editor John Timmer Senior Science Editor John is Ars Technica's science editor. He has a Bachelor of Arts in Biochemistry from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California, Berkeley. When physically separated from his keyboard, he tends to seek out a bicycle, or a scenic location for communing with his hiking boots. 16 Comments

More than 40 science missions would be cancelled if Donald Trump’s budget goes through

People Can Fly, the developer of Outriders and Gears of War: Judgement, announced Monday that its ending development on two of its upcoming games due to issues with its publisher and an inability to secure funding to continue development. As part of this decision, People Can Fly will be forced "significantly regroup" and "scale down [its] teams," the studio's CEO Sebastian Wojciechowksi shared in a statement on LinkedIn. The statement doesn't elaborate on how many staff will be impacted by the cuts, but does call out Project Gemini and Project Bifrost as the two games being cancelled. People Can Fly made the decision to shut down Gemini because the game's publisher failed to provide a publishing agreement and didn't communicate "its willingness to continue or terminate the Gemini project." Without that publishing deal or the funds to continue working on Bifrost — a self-published VR game — the studio was forced to cancel it, too. This isn't the first time People Can Fly has shut down a project or made cuts to its teams. In December 2024, the studio announced that it was ending development on a game called Project Victoria and also reducing the number of people working on Bifrost. In that same announcement, People Can Fly also revealed that Square Enix was publishing Gemini. People Can Fly last worked with Square Enix to publish Outriders, somewhat of a minor cult hit now, but not a commercial success at launch. Even with the cuts and cancelled games, the studio still has multiple upcoming projects in the works, including Project Delta, which People Can Fly is creating for Sony and Gears of War: E-Day, which the studio is co-developing with Xbox studio The Coalition.This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/gaming/people-can-fly-cancels-two-games-and-lays-off-developers-220310524.html?src=rss

Sports Interactive cancelled Football Manager 25 to work on the next entry in the series, but Sega has something else to fill the potential gap. Launching this year worldwide, Sega Football Club Champions 2025 is a free-to-play title for PS4, PS5, PC via Steam, iOS and Android. Check out the first trailer below. Described as a “multiplatform football management simulator” powered by Football Manager, Sega Football Club Champions 2025 has two core modes. Career Mode involves building and managing your team. Dream Team is about battling other players online. You can tussle in the Arena and Event Matches or set up Room Matches. Players can expect 10,000 professional footballers to bring to their teams. Japan’s J1-J3 leagues, FIFPRO, K League, and Manchester City F.C. contribute 1,500 players. While others have yet to be revealed, Sega says it’s partnered with “various leagues” worldwide. Interested participants can sign up for the closed beta here. Stay tuned for more details in the coming months, including additional gameplay and monetization.

Electronic Arts’ recent cancellation of Black Panther and the closure of Cliffhanger Games are the latest for the publisher as it looks to focus on key franchises like The Sims, Apex Legends, etc. However, its partnership with Marvel continues, which makes Black Panther’s cancellation that much more mysterious. Bloomberg’s Jason Schreier spoke to sources familiar with the project, and it was alleged to still be in the pre-production phase since starting development about four years prior. It led to frustration among leadership, even though Black Panther passed a “gate,” EA’s term for “a development milestone where executives review a game’s progress and decide whether to continue production.” Cliffhanger was founded in 2021, and building up the studio alongside the title proved challenging, and an “elongated” ideation period, combined with high salaries due to the studio’s base in Kirkland, Washington, didn’t help. The team reportedly began scaling up only recently (some layoffs were only there for a few weeks) to create a vertical slice. EA isn’t completely done with Marvel titles, though, as development on Motive’s Iron Man continues. Stay tuned for more updates in the meantime.