ActuGaming.net Juste après la sortie de son DLC, Lies of P dépasse les 3 millions d’exemplaires Sans doute l’une des meilleures alternatives aux jeux de From Software, Lies of P a […] L'article Juste après la sortie de son DLC, Lie

I don’t know why, but it continues to astonish me just how foolish politicians can be – and how easily persuaded they are by really bad advice from smart but tin-eared advisers. In less than a year, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have squandered the gift of the huge majority won at last year’s General Election on one key issue after another: their response to the genocide in Gaza; wantonly cruel cuts in disability benefits; failing to find creative ways of taxing wealth; dealing with the water companies – and, now, on the new Planning and Infrastructure Bill. On 23 May 23, the Wildlife Trusts and the RSPB (with a combined membership of more than 2 million) launched a devastating attack on Labour’s whole approach to streamlining the planning system through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.Advertisement Part 3 of the bill will make it possible for developers to ignore existing environmental protections by paying money into a so-called ‘Nature Recovery Fund’, which will be used to pay for environmental projects elsewhere. Starmer and Reeves have gone out of their way, time after time, to claim that it’s these environmental safeguards that are responsible for delays and blockages in the planning process, even though they know this is completely untrue. According to the Wildlife Trusts, roughly 3 per cent of proposals for new housing are delayed for environmental reasons. As The Guardian reported: ‘the data from analysis of 17,433 planning appeals in England in 2024 found that newts were relevant in just 140 (0.8%) planning appeals, and bats were relevant in 432 (2.48%).’ ‘They pursue this path even though are no polls to show that this is what matters to Labour voters tempted by Reform’ So what makes Starmer and Reeves both stupid and totally dishonest? By all accounts the rationale of their tin-eared advisers is to demonstrate to ‘Reform-friendly’ Labour voters that the environment is as unsafe in their hands as it would be in Nigel Farage’s. That economic growth is all that matters. That caring for the natural world is a middle-class self-indulgence (‘the well-to-do prioritising the nice-to-have’ over the interests of working people). And that pouring as much concrete as possible is self-evidently the best way of achieving that growth. And they go on pursuing this ideological path even though there are no supporting polls to show that this is what really matters to Labour voters tempted by Reform’s populist bullshit.Advertisement So they lie. They dig in. They break promises left, right and centre, ready to die, apparently, in this self-constructed ditch of developer-led deceit. That’s why every single amendment put forward through the committee examining the bill was summarily dismissed by the loyal but lumpen Labour MPs on the committee. These included an amendment tabled by veteran Labour MP Barry Gardiner requiring all house builders to provide a specially designed brick (costing £35) to help cavity-nesting such as swifts, house martins, sparrows and starlings – a measure that Labour in opposition enthusiastically supported! And there’s huge public support for this one small, cost-effective biodiversity regulation. To get a measure of this government’s subservient obedience to the demands of the volume housebuilders, just listen to the words of housing minister Matthew Pennycook: ‘We are not convinced that legislating to mandate the use of specific wildlife features is the right approach, whether that is done through building regulations or a freestanding legal requirement'. It’s all so demeaning. So unnecessary. And now that the mainstream environment movement, urged on primarily by the Wildlife Trusts, has realised just how high the stakes are with this Planning and Infrastructure Bill, it’s reasonable to assume that there will be a much more serious debate in the House of Lords, bringing down on ministers’ helmeted heads the righteous outrage of the entire movement. As we’ve learnt, in less than one deeply depressing year, this is a government that needs to be kicked harder and harder until they get desperate enough to make the pain go away. P.S. If you want to read a brilliant summary of ‘reasons to be outraged’ (and what to do about it), check out George Monbiot’s take on this. Jonathon Porritt is a campaigner and author and co-founder of Forum for the Future This article first appeared on his blog 2025-06-06 Jonathon Porritt comment and share

Released to the wrong kind of fanfare back in November 2017, EA DICE’s sequel to their rebooted mass-arena warfare series set in the Disney-owned space opera universe courted controversy to near-comical degree before a blaster had even been fired. Overloaded by microtransactions and predatory loot box practices, Star Wars Battlefront II had a bad start. The biggest offence to early players on EA Access was that the franchise’s signature heroes – Luke Skywalker, Darth’s Vader and Maul, Obi Wan, Boba Fett, and so on – were hidden behind paywalls or, as was becoming increasingly commonplace at the time, only obtainable after unfathomably long hours spent accumulating whatever skill points or in-game currency was required to unlock them. Worse still was this over-abundance of loot boxes wasn’t present in the open beta conducted a few weeks earlier in October, so their emergence – as bad as it was – resonated much worse because it felt deceitful.   The comedy element in this pre-release debacle emerged during EA’s robust defence of their choices on a Reddit post; a post which became the most downvoted the website had ever seen and netted the not-yet-released title its first accolade: an unwanted Guinness World Record, for having – you guessed it – the most downvoted post in history.   The heads in EA’s boardroom didn’t take too kindly to this, but instead of doubling down they opted to listen to player concerns and perform a partial U-turn. First by dramatically reducing the cost of the franchise’s heroes then, the day before the game’s official release, by disabling microtransactions. We describe this as a partial U-turn as these microtransactions were re-enabled several months after release, but the only items for purchase were cosmetics, emotes, victory poses, that sort of thing. Certainly not the pay to win practices EA originally planned.   Arguably, these changes weren’t solely the result of player discontent. The loot boxes, in particular, harboured the very serious implication that they presented a form of gambling. So strong was the furore surrounding their inclusion that governments throughout Europe and North America began to investigate; not just their presence in Star Wars Battlefront II but in video games as a whole. After all, children play games and given Star Wars’ fanbase there was undoubtably a substantial player base awaiting Battlefront II’s release that were under eighteen. The comedic element in EA’s initial response is an undertone if anything. The loot box controversy clouding Star Wars Battlefront II grew into a seismic event for the industry. Paying for loot boxes which may or may not contain the items you want was officially declared as gambling, and it simply couldn’t continue to exist.    The industry isn’t cleansed of the practice altogether, of course, but the direction it was heading in 2017 was certainly for the worse. In a way, it’s great that this issue reared its head so prevalently when it did and, arguably, it’s because this was a Star Wars game that the uproar was so strong. After all, this is a beloved franchise with a then forty-year legacy. Its fans are passionate, and they’ll voice their discontent more rabidly than players of EA’s annual sports titles. Despite EA making wholesale changes to Star Wars Battlefront II’s pay to win progression, it’s release was still cloaked in negativity. However, there was a decent game underneath all the furore, and it was only improved upon by EA DICE in the subsequent years following post-release content which steadily emerged until support was abandoned in 2020. Changes to progression which came in March 2018 transformed the game into the one that’s playable today. To answer the question heading this feature, Star Wars Battlefront II is fixed, and it was the change to linear progression which did it. Now, troopers earn in-game skill points via playing not by paying. Completing objectives, blasting opponents, traditional levelling up. Enhancing the capability of the game’s characters are Star Cards, and these became unlockable through experience once they were removed from loot boxes. They govern progression for each of the game’s classes, heroes, AI reinforcements, and vehicles, with skill points being capable of upgrading a Star Card to its next tier or being put towards crafting new ones. This mechanic returned from Battlefront II’s predecessor, of course, but they were adjusted slightly to incorporate abilities and boosts, and they are crucial to gaining an edge during largescale battles. Boost cards enhance your unit’s pre-existing abilities, whereas ability cards unique to each trooper class can be swapped in and out. The latter is a rewarding endeavour for anyone who wishes to pursue a specific class of trooper – stealthier specialists, more destructive heavies, tougher assault troopers, et cetera. If Star Wars Battlefront II is indeed ‘fixed’ then an extra question we land upon now is this: is Star Wars Battlefront II still worth playing some eight years after release and approaching five years since any form of update? Well, if you’re playing on PC annoyingly the answer might be no, as currently hackers have spoiled the experience with game-ruining cheats and reports of harassment towards honest players. It’s a shame, as on console Star Wars Battlefront II is still a wonderfully cinematic, chaotic multiplayer experience. Make no mistake, concurrent players are nowhere near the level they’ve been in the past but in 2025 playing Star Wars Battlefront II online is alive and well. Matchmaking can take a few minutes, more so if you opt to select your chosen multiplayer mode instead of choosing quick match, but performance – on PlayStation, at least – is smooth and responsive. Graphically too, for a game that’s eight years old Star Wars Battlefront II still looks sublime, presenting a foray of scenery. It’d be nice to see the game remastered for current-gen hardware but given EA DICE’s decision to stop supporting the title and move onto other things – and to sadly drop production of a third Battlefront title – the past-gen version will have to do. Still looks and plays great, the latter of which is most important. Multiplayer is still the way to go though, as it always was. The game’s single player campaign, following Iden Versio as she commands the elite Imperial special forces unit Inferno Squad, pledges an inverse perspective on the Empire but never truly achieves it during the run-of-the-mill missions. There’re hints that Versio is empathetic – a perspective we’ve never really seen in any Star Wars game – but the interest here is never truly explored. No, EA DICE clearly concentrated much of their effort into online play, it’s numerous modes of which all have something good to offer, and the game’s offline arcade modes. Worth pointing out too is that the game’s cast of heroes are still overpowered. Once you earn enough battle points to take to the field as a lightsabre wielding Jedi or Sith, it’s ultra-satisfying scything through troopers. For anyone else caught in a lightsabre’s proximity, however, it can be devastating. Still, those panicky moments you round a corner and spot Darth Vader stomping towards you are quite amusing. The best moments during Star Wars Battlefront II, too, are when heroes face off against each other. Seeing Luke and Maul going at it through a shower of blaster fire and thermal detonator explosions is ultimate fan fiction material – there’s perhaps no other Star Wars game that can replicate those unique moments.       Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, GamingBolt as an organization.

On a week like this, it’s hard not to feel like you’re living in dueling realities. On one side, you’ve got the futuristic vision Google is telling you about at its annual developer event, Google I/O. The company waxed on for nearly two hours about how its Gemini generative AI assistant will help provide even more complex answers from the web, make purchases and complete bookings on your behalf, and generally just do all the Gemini stuff it does now faster and better. (And it isn’t alone: Just a day earlier, Microsoft told us at its Build event how Copilot will soon act as an “enterprise brain” and “suggest ideas” as you type — even, conceivably, offering to create entire legal agreements on your behalf.) If you believe what these companies are saying (along with the same sorts of surreal-seeming realities being laid out by OpenAI and — well, practically every other tech player out there these days), we’re living in an era where artificial intelligence is always on the brink of a life-changing breakthrough. What’s especially wild is that none of this is even that big of a leap from what these same sorts of systems have already been promising and the way they’ve been framed for months — for casual individual use, sure, and also for serious company business. And that, my friend, is an ever-increasing liability for anyone who still cares about getting things right. [Get level-headed knowledge in your inbox with my free Android Intelligence newsletter — three things to know and try every Friday, straight from me to you.] Behind the generative AI curtains Let’s back up for a second and talk about what all of these generative AI tools actually are — and aren’t. The real issue here isn’t that this type of technology isn’t in any way valid or useful — far from it. It’s just that it isn’t designed to do or currently even capable of doing what nearly every tech company out there is breathlessly telling us it can handle in our personal and professional lives. At their core, Gemini, ChatGPT, and other such systems are powered by a type of technology known as a large language model — or LLM, for short. In the simplest possible terms, an LLM looks at massive amounts of real-world language data and then uses that to learn patterns and predict the most likely next word over and over, in response to any prompt it’s given. In other words, these engines don’t truly understand context or “think” about the answers they’re giving you in any human-like sense. They merely predict words, based on patterns observed in sprawling sets of human-created data, and then string those words together to form sentences and, eventually, entire paragraphs and documents whenever they’re summoned and given a task. Somehow, that’s translated into tech companies plastering them into every possible place and presenting them as the end-all answers for every possible purpose — everything from replacements for search to replacements for writing in Gmail, Google Docs, and other such places. (The situation is even more extreme in other non-Google arenas, too — like with Microsoft’s legal-document-creating disaster-waiting-to-happen.) And we don’t need to rely on theoretical examples to see just how dangerous of a situation this can create. Artificial intelligence, genuine jeopardy The reality of these systems’ limitations has been showing itself time and time again for quite a while now, in scenarios that are all too real and should serve as a serious wake-up call for any company — or even individual — buying into the hype. Plain and simple, these things don’t know what they’re saying. They string together characters that sometimes make sense but are also extremely likely to include errors and often even flat-out fabricated nonsense. When they do get something right, it’s mostly just by chance. And you, as the user, have no way of immediately detecting the difference. For instance, across the broader genAI landscape — with the exact same foundational limitations affecting Gemini and all these other similar systems: Just last week, Anthropic — the company behind the business-popular genAI chatbot Claude — had to apologize in court after learning its system completely made up a legal citation the company’s lawyer used as part of an ongoing copyright case. (I’ll take irony for $500, Alex!) Days earlier, a California judge discovered “numerous false, inaccurate, and misleading legal citations and quotations” in a submitted brief apparently created with the aid of AI. Last month, a company relying on an AI “support agent” was forced to apologize when it learned said agent was making up nonexistent policies while interacting with customers. In an experiment, Carnegie Mellon University created a simulation in which AI agents were tasked with handling low-level chores at a realistically structured software company — performing the same sorts of feats at which these systems are promised to be proficient. They failed miserably. In the oft-cited area of genAI coding expertise, researchers are finding case after case where the systems invent package names that don’t exist and lead to all sorts of time- and money-wasting errors — not to mention troubling security vulnerabilities. The Columbia Journalism Review tested eight different genAI search engines and found they got all sorts of information wildly wrong — offering incorrect and fabricated info and even nonexistent citations — and, worse yet, they served up those inaccuracies with an astonishing amount of confidence. Lest you think this is an artifact of long-dated early versions of these engines, the instances above are all from the past few months. (They’re also just a surface-level sampling of the many, many examples of generative AI failure that pop up practically every day at this point.) Worse, as reported in The New York Times earlier this month, the act of “AI hallucination” — a fancy euphemism for “their tendency to serve up lies and inaccuracies” — only seems to be getting worse as the systems get more powerful. Yet somehow, hardly anyone seems to be taking notice — or letting that reality get in the way of the much more enticing vision the tech industry is desperate to sell us. Just this week, a new report revealed that a whopping half of tech execs expect these very same sorts of error-prone AI agents to function autonomously in their companies within the next two years — which, translated out of corporate geek-speak, essentially means they’ll be replacing human workers and operating with little to no supervision. Crikey. How long will it take for everyone to wake up? Time for a generative AI reset Google and all the other companies behind these tools — along with the corporate number-crunchers, clout-chasing LinkedIn bros, and mainstream media outlets blindly buying into the hype — like to pretend that all the stuff we just went over somehow isn’t a serious and immediately disqualifying issue for these systems. But no matter what sorts of impressive demos and over-the-top marketing materials they sling at us, the reality here in the real world is that these large-language model chatbots simply aren’t reliable when it comes to providing accurate answers and information. So, sure:  They’re incredibly handy as “legal advisors” — until you realize how the technology actually works and how likely it is to (a) get information wildly wrong and (b) flat-out make up facts along the way. They’re fantastic as “search engines” — until it dawns on you that 20% of what they tell you is likely to be inaccurate. And they’re wonderfully useful as “coding assistants” and “customer service agents” — if you conveniently look past the constant instances of them screwing stuff up and costing you business. What’s especially troubling is the justification that these generative AI helpers are at least getting better and growing less likely to get stuff wrong. Even if you set aside the aforementioned data challenging that notion, a system getting something wrong 5%, 10%, or even 20% of the time is arguably worse than one that gets stuff wrong half the time (or more). Think about it: If something’s wrong constantly, people are at least likely to notice and realize that it’s useless as an info-providing tool. But when it’s wrong only once or twice out of every 10 or 20 uses, it’s especially dangerous — as users will be lulled into a false sense of security and less likely to be watching for those errors. Now, again, all of this isn’t to say these genAI systems aren’t at all useful or worth using. They can be quite helpful — if you think of them in the right way. The problem is mostly that that reality doesn’t align with the much broader vision that tech companies are trying to peddle. But if you think of these systems as narrowly limited starting points for certain types of specific tasks, they can actually save you time and make your life easier. With that in mind: No, Gemini and other such generative AI services aren’t instant answer engines, nor are they digital lawyers or even coders. But they can be useful note-takers and info-organizers. They can be quite helpful as image analyzers and manipulators. They can work wonders when it comes to creating polished presentations without all the usual effort, too — or creating calendar events without the typical clunkiness. They can even be valuable brainstorming partners, in a sense, or deep-dive research assistants. But, critically, it’s up to you to think about how you’re using ’em and to treat their offerings as simple starting points — ways to save you the early steps of seeking out sources and stumbling onto ideas as opposed to a single-step replacement for critical human thinking. At the end of the day, one lucky instance doesn’t discount the very real and completely unpredictable risk of random fabrications and inaccuracies. And, clearly, it’s entirely on us to use these tools wisely and take ’em for what they are: word prediction engines that can be helpful in certain limited, specific scenarios — not the all-purpose magic answer machines some companies desperately want them to be. Ready for more no-nonsense Googley insights? Join my free Android Intelligence newsletter to cut through the hype and get plain-English perspective on the news that matters.

Three prominent U.S. senators warned Paramount Global and controlling shareholder Shari Redstone that they might be breaking a federal anti-bribery law if they agree to settle President Trump’s lawsuit against CBS over a “60 Minutes” segment. In a letter addressed to Redstone that was posted publicly, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) cited reports that Paramount has been in settlement talks with Trump’s lawyers in the case. The Trump suit, which seeks at least $20 billion in damages, alleges CBS’s “60 Minutes” deceptively edited an interview with Kamala Harris and thereby violated a Texas consumer protection law. Paramount and CBS have argued that they did nothing wrong; in a motion to dismiss Trump’s suit Paramount called the legal action “an affront to the First Amendment” that is “without basis in law or fact.” CBS News has maintained that the “60 Minutes” broadcast and promotion of the Harris interview was “not doctored or deceitful.” Related Stories Now, the senators wrote in the letter dated May 19, “Paramount appears to be walking back its commitments to defend CBS’s First Amendment rights.” They said they were writing “to express serious concern regarding the possibility that media company Paramount Global (Paramount) may be engaging in improper conduct involving the Trump Administration in exchange for approval of its megamerger with Skydance Media” — and the senators suggested any monetary settlement in the case could be illegal. Popular on Variety “Under the federal bribery statute, it is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act,” the senators wrote. “If Paramount officials make these concessions in a quid pro quo arrangement to influence President Trump or other Administration officials, they may be breaking the law.” A copy of the letter is at this link. Warren and Sanders were among nine senators who urged Redstone in a May 6 open letter to not settle the lawsuit, calling it “an attack on the United States Constitution and the First Amendment.” A spokesperson for Paramount declined to comment but referred to the company’s previous statement saying: “This lawsuit is completely separate from, and unrelated to, the Skydance transaction and the FCC approval process. We will abide by the legal process to defend our case.” A rep for Redstone declined to comment. The White House did not respond to a request for comment. SEE ALSO: Shari Redstone’s Impossible Choice: She Can’t Save Both ‘60 Minutes’ and Paramount Global The $8 billion Paramount-Skydance deal is currently pending FCC approval. Earlier this month, Trump-appointed FCC chairman Brendan Carr said the approval of Paramount-Skydance is not connected to the president’s “60 Minutes” lawsuit. Last November, he said in a Fox News interview that a conservative group’s “news distortion” complaint against CBS over the “60 Minutes” Harris interview was “likely to arise in the context of the FCC review of [the Paramount-Skydance] transaction.” One issue Paramount and the FCC reportedly are in discussions about: securing a commitment from Paramount and Skydance to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs, as part of the Trump administration’s attack on DEI. In February, Paramount said it was changing some of its DEI programs to comply with the Trump administration’s directives. But Carr may be seeking a more ironclad guarantee. The FCC last week approved Verizon’s $20 billion deal to acquire Frontier Communications after Verizon pledged to eradicate DEI initiatives. On Monday, CBS News president Wendy McMahon announced her resignation, writing in a memo to staff “It’s become clear that the company and I do not agree on the path forward.” That came less than a month after “60 Minutes” executive producer Bill Owens quit, also citing conflicts with Paramount execs. Warren, Sanders and Wyden drew a connection between the exits of McMahon and Owens and the Trump lawsuit: “Paramount’s scheme to curry favor with the Trump Administration has compromised journalistic independence and raises serious concerns of corruption and improper conduct,” they wrote. In the letter to Redstone, the senators requested answers to specific questions regarding the situation by June 2, including “Does Paramount believe the lawsuit filed by then-candidate Trump against CBS has merit?”, “Has Paramount evaluated the risk of shareholder derivative litigation from settling the lawsuit?”; and “Has 60 Minutes made changes to its content at the request of anyone at Paramount to facilitate approval of the merger?” The three senators also asked pointedly: “Does Paramount have any policies and procedures related to compliance with 18 U.S.C. 201 and any other laws governing public corruption? If so, please provide a copy of those policies and procedures.” In February, Redstone asked Paramount’s board to resolve the Trump lawsuit, including by exploring the possibility of mediation, Variety has reported. Redstone has recused herself from the board’s discussions about a settlement with Trump.  Trump, on his Truth Social social media account last month, said his lawsuit against CBS was “a true WINNER” and falsely claimed that Paramount, CBS and “60 Minutes” admitted to committing “this crime” of deceptively editing Harris’ answer. Trump alleged “60 Minutes” edited the interview to eliminate her “bad and incompetent” response to a question about whether Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is “listening to the Biden-Harris administration.” Trump asserted the version of the “60 Minutes” interview that aired “cheated and defrauded the American People at levels never seen before in the Political Arena.” The senators’ letter to Redstone was first reported by the Wall Street Journal.