27 May, 2025 Design, like almost every industry, runs on meetings. But are there too many? And how well do yours work? This article is part of our meetings series, looking at different types of design meetings, and how they could be improved. You can find all the articles here.  When Shopify’s employees came back to work after the Christmas break in 2023, their calendars looked very different. Bosses at the e-commerce company had decided to purge all meetings of more than two people. An estimated 12,000 meetings were removed at a stroke – all meetings were banned on Wednesdays too. “Uninterrupted time is the most precious resource of a craftsperson, and we are giving our people a ‘no judgment zone’ to subtract, reject meetings, and focus on what is most valuable,” Shopify’s chief operating officer Kaz Nejatian said at the time. Later that summer, they were at it again adding a “cost calculator” into employees’ calendar app, putting a dollar value on every meeting, based on who attends, and how long the meeting was. Asana did a similar thing to Shopify in 2022, removing all recurring meetings and asking employees to think carefully about whether they should be added back in. Through meetings becoming shorter, or removed entirely, they apparently saved the average employee 11.5 hours a month, or nearly four weeks across a working year. In The Guardian, one expert asked about the Shopify purge put it succinctly – “Most organisations have too many meetings, and most meetings aren’t good.” And there it is. Design, like most industries, runs on meetings – one-to-ones, company updates, team huddles, client pitches, brainstorms, creative check-ins, and more. In a hybrid or remote work culture, meetings have proliferated – one estimate says meetings jumped 70% during the pandemic. Of all the issues facing the industry, meetings may not seem like the most pressing (and it’s certainly not the most glamorous). But in thinking about day-to-day work, and the things that impact it, I’d suggest that meetings are right up there, both in terms of quantity and quality. “There’s no Mr Meeting coming to fix it for you.” The first thing, if you think your meetings culture could be better, is to take responsibility for it. Gillian Davis, an executive coach and leadership expert who works with many creative businesses, says she hears a lot of complaints about meetings. “People always tell me about these really bad meetings that everyone knows are bad,” she says. “Well, if a meeting isn’t working, put your hand up and say, ‘Hey, maybe we should redesign this meeting.’ There’s no Mr Meeting coming to fix it for you.” The key, Davis says, to an efficient and productive meetings culture, is to be intentional. What’s this meeting for? Who needs to be there? Who really needs to be there? Then you need an agenda to clearly and concisely set out the meeting’s aim, and at the end, you should agree on specific action points that reflect the intention set out in that agenda. “People might think this stuff sounds obvious,” says Stu Tallis, creative director at Taxi Studio who has helped rebuild the way his company runs meetings. “But agencies are fast and furious, and it’s easy for things like this to slip.” And if you put some of this best practice in place, then the idea of a meeting starts to shift. Many design leaders told me that it’s come to be seen as a dirty word in their studio – Tallis even avoids using the m-word altogether. Guanglun Wu, founding partner and chief digital officer at Made by On thinks this is an issue. “Many people are very protective of their focus time,” he says. “But that can lead to this mentality that meeting time is bad, that it’s unproductive. People become afraid of putting them in the calendar, and avoid them at all costs. “But it depends what the aim is. Making time to talk to people and collaborate is important – it’s not wasted.” Badberries’ managing director Natasha Szczerb wrote recently about the tricky balancing act of making time to focus on the clients, and the work, and making time to focus on the business itself. Recognising the tension between the two, Szczerb says, “was crucial to our survival.” And of all the operational decisions to make, and discussions to have, few leaders will feel their hearts fluttering at the thought of going deep on meetings. But take a moment to look at your calendar, and your team’s. How much time are they spending in meetings of one sort or another? And are you confident that time is being spent as efficiently and as effectively as possible? Meetings matter, and good leaders will make sure they are planned and used in the best possible way. And even if you’ve looked at this issue before, what worked for your studio in the past may not work any more. “Companies evolve,” Davis says. “Their rituals and systems evolve. So meetings should evolve too.” Industries in this article What to read next How to run better annual studio meetings 27 May, 2025 Features How to run better meetings 27 May, 2025

"AI is inevitable."That's a phrase that's rattled around my head for a month. Not willingly mind you. It's taken up lodging in my grey matter after hearing it in meetings, reading it in emails, and seeing it buffeted back and forth across Bluesky, LinkedIn, and Discord.It's not a convincing phrase. If you hear it from AI boosters it's easy to brush off as raw hype, and if you hear it from doomsayers it can lull you into a sense of fatalism. But as the philosopher Natasha Bedingfield told us in 2004, today is where the book begins, the rest is still unwritten. Nothing, for better or worse, is inevitable.But in those various calls another phrase—one you may have heard at your studio—has slipped past more unnoticed: "AI is just a tool. It can be used for good or evil, like any other tool."After all this is a business where we use tools for good or evil, right and wrong, correctly and incorrectly. We debate the effectiveness of Unity, Unreal, or Godot. We agonize over whether to use procedural versus hand-crafted content. We debate and discuss the topic so much that Game Developers Conference has a whole Tools Summit dedicated to craft of making game development software.Viewing generative AI through the neutral lens of tool assessment is natural—and I'll go so far as to say admirable—for our community. It's a method we use to get past hype and bombast, to try and take technology on its own terms and see how it fits our purposes. And as the 2025 GDC State of the Industry report tells us, some developers are adopting generative AI, plenty of them not bought in on the hype but through the act of seeking the right tool for the job.Related:But looking at generative AI as 'just a tool' is a deeply flawed lens. That phrase betrays a quiet cynicism (one we hear often from opponents of firearm regulation in the United Stats). Because nothing—not generative AI, not a firearm, not even a hammer—is "just a tool."The function of tools is influenced by their formConsider two tools found in many American households: the claw hammer and the handgun.Normally Game Developer restricts itself to the craft of making video games but I promise this is relevant. Guns are another tool where neutralizing rhetoric is deployed to downplay a tool's negative effects. I grew up in a gun-owning house in a gun-owning neighborhood in suburban Maryland. There were probably four handguns sitting in lockboxes across two rooms, a few rifles and shotguns in a vault in the basement, and one questionably legal World War I firearm tucked away in a closet. The NRA's mantra of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" was commonplace. A neighbor of mine laughed when I advocated for stronger regulations on gun ownership on the basis of "guns are meant to kill." "Guns aren't meant to kill," I recall him saying. "Cars can kill people. Does that mean cars are meant for killing?"His point boils down to this: The outcome of the tool's use is not worth considering when discussing regulation, only its potential use. A gun is a tool and the user has control over a tool is used.Cars are already tightly regulated and cost thousands of dollars, making his point moot, so we'll break down the construction of the claw hammer instead. We generally refer to hammers as being used to pound nails into wood, but I mainly use mine for hammering anchors into drywall because I'm a theater kid and was taught in crew to trust screws.In either case, the physical shape of the claw hammer dictates its most common purpose. The handle extends into a metal object that is blunt at one end, and clawed on the other. The design follows the swing of the human arm, transferring kinetic energy generated by the bicep, down the elbow, through the wrist, and into the blunt end.We also know that claw hammers are not useful for every form of transferring this energy. Variations on hammer design like the ball-peen hammer show how this basic purpose needs to be altered for different tasks. The shape and the material changes depending on the purpose. To sell more hammers, companies invest in better materials and affordances like rubber grips to make their use more comfortable.Like a firearm, hammers can be used as weapons. That same transference of force can be used to harm another living being. Video games sometimes place hammers in a players' loadout alongside guns, grenades, and weapons of war.Neither the hammer nor the firearm is "just" a tool. They are tools that are optimized for a purpose. We can study that purpose, and cast judgements about a tool's safety, merits, and need to be regulated based on that.But. The shape of the hammer is not an efficient way to inflict harm. This is supported by data from the FBI Crime Statistics survey, which gathers data filed by police departments that participate in assembling data. "Handgun" is the most common weapon used in homicides, and "knife/cutting instrument" ranks higher than "blunt objects." That's because handguns are an incredibly efficient means of wounding living beings.Let's break down the handgun the way we did the hammer. Handguns are assembled from an assortment of components that transfer the squeeze of a trigger into the strike of a hammer against a firing pin, which strikes the primer of a bullet's cartridge and sends it propelling out of the tube. Though some bullets seen in larger firearms are meant to penetrate metal, a handgun's bullet is envisioned and designed to cut through flesh.Image via Adobe Stock.These constraints make handguns efficient at few other tasks. In a pinch you could use the butt of a handgun as a hammer. I can't find any data about them being used for that purpose. I can only wander onto a construction site and count the number of firearms in toolboxes as a general sample size.Neither the hammer nor the firearm is "just" a tool. They are tools that are optimized for a purpose. We can study that purpose, and cast judgements about a tool's safety, merits, and need to be regulated based on that. Firearm advocates oppose this process through neutralizing language because it's difficult to dispute the correlation between the number of guns versus the number of murders and assaults with guns in a geographic area.Generative AI proponents sometimes regurgitate that language when defending this new technology. Because like the gun lobby, they don't want the purpose of generative AI decided by its outcomes, only its potential.What is that purpose? It may be the death of truth itself.Generative AI is broadly used to deceive through mimicryGenerative AI is a tool for deception.That's not what its biggest backers will tell you. It's broadly pitched as a tool for efficiency. But efficiency is hard to measure and easy to game. Deception is loud and obvious. Students are using it to cheat on papers. Scam calls with AI-generated voices are on the rise. The Department Human Health and Services published a study citing secretary Kennedy's unfounded health views that cites nonexistent studies, likely generated through AI. There was that cadre of YouTubers creating AI-generated fake movie trailers to attract clicks and make money off people who don't follow entertainment use. Apple marketed Apple Intelligence with advertisements showing people deceiving their neighbors, family, and coworkers. Activision Blizzard used generative AI to advertise games that don't exist.Now here's the rub: games—and all of entertainment—are also a form of deception. We use the phrase "magic circle" to describe how we attract players into our worlds. We use camera tricks, rendering technology, and even VO barks to simulate digital worlds. People engage with games, film, TV, books, and especially magic shows because on some level they want to be not just deceived, but lied to. AI has also been sold as technology that will let every player make their own perfect experience tailored for them by generating worlds, visual assets, and audio on the fly. But the best pitches I've heard for AI tend to "hide" the presence of the LLM, only mildly asking the player for prompts in order to accomplish behind-the-scenes computing tasks. These lies can make shared realities, not wholly distinct ones.That is the difference between telling lies to make virtual worlds and and telling lies to shape the real one. Lies in virtual worlds create shared realities. Lies in the real world tear them down.How appropriate that one such "shared reality," the Star Wars show Andor, recently warned us about the price we pay with treating AI as "just a tool." "The loss of an objective reality is perhaps the most dangerous," said the character Mon Mothma in a climactic speech decrying the whitewashing of a carefully executed genocide."When truth leaves us, when we let it slip away, when it is ripped from our hands, we become vulnerable to the appetite of whatever monster screams the loudest."Game Developers Conference and Game Developer are sibling organizations under Informa.

Developing creative intuition, leaning into courage, and resisting editing away our unique voice.I pasted an Oscar Wilde quote into Notion the other day. As soon as I did, the AI symbol popped up with the “improve writing” suggestion.A quote by Oscar WildeI didn’t click it, but it made me think…If Oscar Wilde was alive today, would he too have been lured to change his words with AI? Would he have trusted AI more than his creative intuition?AI would most likely have edited Wilde’s voice by removing “unnecessary” words and simplifying sentences. But would it have been an improvement? If his work is no longer in his voice, how can we say it’s better?Our authentic voice is our workAs creatives, our authentic voice is our work. Whether we’re writers, singers, designers, painters, or sculptors.I’ve realized lately that I wish for us all to become less concerned with being perfect and more concerned with developing our unique voice and following our own intuition. When we read poetry, we learn that a sentence might not be perfectly correct but it speaks directly to our hearts. It breaks grammatical rules but it’s also able to break us open in ways we could only imagine.With our computers constantly prompting us to change and “improve” our writing, thinking, and making, we have to ensure we don’t lose our unique expression. We must make sure that we don’t lose touch with our creative intuition, that we continue to lean into courage, and that we don’t edit away what makes our work distinctly ours.DesignShift: From artificial to authentic1. Keep developing your own voiceWhen I use AI for my writing, I often find myself questioning if the AI’s version is really better than my own. I’m frequently confused about “why” it changed something, and even when I ask about the rationale, I find the explanation isn’t that convincing.Some would tell me that I’m just not prompting AI well enough to get the best result, but I keep asking myself what this tool is in service of.However, I’ve noticed how our tools encourage perfection, and doubt can start to creep in when AI suggests one thing and our intuition tells us something different. This happens to me on days when I show up to work with self-doubt — days when I’m deep in uncertainty about my own abilities. On those days, I trust AI more, and the prompt to change my words makes my swaying confidence even more rocky.On days like these, I remind myself of poetry. Through poetry, we learn that a sentence might not be perfectly correct but it speaks directly to our hearts. It breaks grammatical rules but it’s also able to break us open in ways we could only imagine. One such powerful voice is Maya Angelou, whose words “just do right” have stayed with me.In her wisdom, she says:“You know what’s right. Just do right. You don’t really have to ask anybody. The truth is, right may not be expedient, it may not be profitable, but it will satisfy… your soul.”Image from https://bookstr.com/article/10-writing-quotes-from-maya-angelou-to-inspire-you/These words move with rhythm, but they also remind us that we DO know what’s right. No one knows our voice better than us. And that is what people want to hear. We don’t always have to ask someone else or ChatGPT for a better way to say something. Trusting our own voice makes all the difference.The same way that a design that breaks the rules sometimes becomes more impactful, I remind myself that embracing my unique voice will take me further than a perfectly crafted bullet-style post powered by a robot.2. The courage to be seenThe other day, I read a quote that said “creativity is the courage to be seen.” While writing this post, this quote kept surfacing in my mind. As creatives, it takes courage to show up as our unique selves. It takes courage to show both the good and the bad. It takes courage to be all that we are. The reward for showing up vulnerably and authentically is connection.How we connect to topics. To someone’s story. To each other. When someone speaks from their heart, unedited and unfiltered, it helps us feel something.Connection happens when someone truly sees us for who we are and embraces all of it. That is true connection.There’s a difference between the desire to be seen and the courage to be seen. The desire is often rooted in external validation — wanting to be liked and wanted. Much of our online world is crafted this way. We edit (with or without AI) in order to be liked and followed. We make sure that our voice matches our brand and we craft one-minute elevator pitches to ensure people understand exactly who we are and what we have to offer.However, the courage that helps us connect to others lies beyond the poses and the polish. The courage to be seen is about showing up as our full selves.3. Connection happens in the cracksConnections and feelings are found in the cracks. They are discovered between the lines. In the awkward pauses and the unpolished thoughts. They exist in unedited, real expressions rather than perfectly written, bullet-pointed lists generated by a robot.As Joshua Schrei said on the Emerald podcast:“Art dies when culture decides that there is a certain way you have to say certain things. Then you don’t have art. You have a press release.”Poetry, art, and also the human experience thrive in its willingness to not make complete sense. For example, the raw, uninhibited expressions of artists like Jean-Michel Basquiat show us that perfection isn’t necessary for profound impact. When we share our authentic selves, we invite others to do the same. We often think that the world expects and craves perfection. We’re taught rules… but the human experience is flawed. The cracks make us able to connect with others.Creativity is about connection, and connections are formed in the cracks. When someone shows their weakness or vulnerability, we get permission to show ours.At the heart of it all are feelings. Creative work is about feelings, and even though ChatGPT can act empathetic, it’s not the same as real feelings. Because real connection is built through brokenness. It’s in the cracks that connections are formed.In times of robotsIf Oscar Wilde lived today, would AI have given him prompts? Would AI suggest “improvements” to the works of literary and artistic icons? Would Midjourney have offered to enhance Jean-Michel Basquiat’s expressive style?Would these creative icons have been lured to edit their unique expression to appeal to the masses at the creative direction of a robot? My intuition tells me that they would have resisted the prompts and leaned into their uniqueness even more — and that is what I hope for all creatives today. With our computers constantly prompting us to change and “improve” our own writing, thinking, and making, we have to ensure we don’t lose our unique expression. We must make sure that we don’t lose touch with our creative intuition and that we don’t edit away the uniqueness and the cracks that breed connections.In times of robots, I hope we can lean into our humanness even more. In times of robots, I hope we will remind ourselves and each other that our unique voices matter. In times of robots, I hope you will connect through your cracks without editing your uniqueness.Links and resources:Maya Angelou: Just do right (video)Trickster Jumps Sides: Disruption and the Anatomy of Culture (Podcast)DesignShifts: a better future for and through design (website)The Power of Poetry | Shayna Castano | TEDxLSSC (TED Talk)Burning Questions — James Victore is an irreverent prophet for the creative industries (article)From artificial to authentic was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

27 May, 2025 Most design studios run a meeting that looks back at the year just past, and forward to the year ahead. How can teams make the most of this important annual ritual? This article is part of our meetings series, looking at different types of design meetings, and how they could be improved. You can find all the articles here.  Although they call it lots of different names, most design businesses run an annual meeting where they look back at the year that’s gone, and forward to the 12 months ahead. When done well, these meetings can be extremely useful – to celebrate successes, re-establish focus, and course correct where necessary. But when done badly they can confuse staff, paper over problems, and damage morale. Gillian Davis, an executive coach and leadership expert who works with many creative businesses, points out there is often a huge gap between the way big client meetings are prepared, and the attention big internal meetings receive. We spoke with Davis, and three design leaders, to gather practical advice for running more effective annual get-togethers. Start with why Davis says the first decision for leaders planning one of these meetings is to work out why they are doing it, and what they want to achieve. “It’s too easy for these meetings to become a waste of everyone’s time,” she warns. “Ask yourself, what is the one message we need to get through going into next year? And then design the meeting around that.” That takes clarity, an ability to prioritise what the business needs now, and sometimes self-awareness. SUN’s Jamie Kelly says their most recent annual meeting was part of a “personal reinvigoration” to address a flatness he felt in the studio, despite a string of successful projects. “I wanted to use it as a spur, to look at all this great work we’d done, but also to get down and dirty into the things that we hadn’t enjoyed, or that hadn’t gone so well,” he says. “It was about mixing that celebration with some really honest conversations.” Context shapes content Communication begins way before the first words have been uttered. Where do you hold the meeting? How do you frame it? What do you ask people to prepare? All of these decisions shape how your message will land. For example, if a business is reflecting on a challenging financial year,  holding this meeting in a sun-soaked locale with a generous free bar will seem quite jarring. That may seem like an extreme example, but Davis says she has seen proposals that are totally at odds with the story the leaders want to tell. Number crunching Many leaders use these annual meetings to reflect on the company’s financial performance and its targets for the year ahead. Work out how much you want, and need to share, says John Wilson, CEO of Universal Design Studio and Map Project Office. “We try to be open and transparent, so there’s an understanding of where we are as a studio and there are no sharp surprises,” he says. “But I don’t think everyone needs to know everything.” For Guanglun Wu, founding partner and chief digital officer at Made by On, accessibility is key when it comes to this information. “We need to explain it in a way that can be contextualised by everybody within the organisation,” he says. “Some people understand what numbers and acronyms mean, and others don’t. So we put a lot of effort into those presentations in terms of the information design, so we can make that accessible.” SUN’s Jamie Kelly had a neat approach in his most recent annual meeting. He visualised the turnover as percentages related to specific client projects. “People could see how the projects they worked on contributed to the overall picture, and how their work has impacted the business,” Kelly explains. “I think the team found it interesting and maybe a bit surprising.” Who speaks – Leaders Gillian Davis says that the amount of time taken up by leadership presentations should depend on where the company is and how it’s doing. In tough times, she says, people want to see and hear from their leaders. In this context, she thinks 90% of the meeting should be direct communication from the most senior leadership. In better times, the teams themselves should be encouraged to present and lead discussions. Who speaks – Teams Most leaders like these meetings to include talks from specific teams but there are a couple of things to consider. Davis once saw an 150 slide deck for a company’s upcoming AGM, and every department had its own structure for their individual section. Some consistency is important, she says, as is avoiding it feeling like a long list of things that team has done. It’s great to celebrate successes, but it’s even more useful if that involves some reflection on how and why it worked well. Davis thinks “some element of interaction” helps elevate these sessions even further, so other employees can ask questions. For Made by ON’s Guanglun Wu, it’s all about teasing out what different teams can learn from each other. “What was really interesting about yout project that you want everyone else to know?” he says. “Explain the journey, what you learned and what are the future opportunities where we can be better.” This dynamic may be different in smaller teams. SUN’s Jamie Kelly runs these meetings as a two-way discussion for his seven-strong studio. “I pause after each section to ask questions. I want to hear what they think success could look like, so they can push my thinking,” he says. “It’s much easier in a small studio, where there is less hierarchy, to have that open dialogue.” Who speaks – Clients At its most recent annual session, Made by On invited a panel of current clients to take part in a fireside chat in front of the whole company. Guanglun Wu says it added a whole new dimension to the day. “When you have people come in and talk about their perspective on working with us, and how we enable their success, or how we communicate, then it builds that empathy.” Be practical and specific Let’s say leaders want to encourage more accountability in their teams. Saying that is the easy part, but it isn’t enough on its own. “Explain why you want to become more accountable as a business,” Gillian Davis says. “Say how you noticed it’s a problem. Describe the impact on the business. And then say how you are going to fix it, in a practical, day-to-day way.” Similarly give people the tools they need to make the changes you want to see. “Don’t just tell people something like you want them to develop their LinkedIn network,” Davis says. “Give them a playbook, a step-by-step breakdown of what that means and how to do that.” Beware of big surprises If you want to use the meeting to announce big changes around culture, structure or process, it’s worth getting some people on board first, says Made by On’s Guanglun Wu. “It’s important to give the people who need to instigate the change early visibility,” he says. “Explain the reasoning to the people it’s going to affect first, and give them a forum where they can give input.” Then when changes are announced to the wider group, you have a cadre of people who can help explain it to their colleagues, and allay any concerns. End on a high Like any performance – and Gillian Davis thinks these meetings do require an element of performance from leaders – the ending really matters. Think about how you want to leave people feeling, and tie it back to that one key message you were looking to land. Davis once saw a brilliant annual meeting at a big creative firm, which ended on a massive high. People were visibly enthused and excited. Until someone immediately grabbed the microphone to explain the travel arrangements for people who needed the shuttle bus. See annual meetings as part of a bigger strategy While these big set-piece meetings are important, they need to work as part of a consistent and coherent approach to leadership. Gillian Davis says leaders should look at how annual, monthly, and weekly meetings work together, some of which may be for everyone, and others for specific teams. “I think the monthly meeting should be a super-engaging company health check, and then the teams should have their own weekly rituals, where the real brass tacks of the work is discussed,” she says. For John Wilson, leadership is ongoing work, that shows up in myriad ways, big and small. “My gut feeling is that it’s not really about these big single meetings,” he says. “It’s about constantly iterating and refining and re-strategising and re-budgeting. “The best leaders I’ve worked with are not necessarily always standing up at the front, they are also gently pushing and prodding from behind.” Industries in this article What to read next Features How to run better meetings 27 May, 2025 How to run better pitches 27 May, 2025 “We need to talk about meetings…” 27 May, 2025

DreamPark, the creator of what it calls “the world’s largest downloadable mixed reality (XR) theme park,” said it has raised $1.1 million in seed funding. The investment will accelerate DreamPark’s mission to make Earth worth playing again by transforming ordinary spaces into extraordinary adventures through mixed reality technology. I got a demo of the game in Yerba Buena Park in San Francisco and it made me smile. It also made me think it was part of a pretty good plan to convince property owners to get more out of their entertainment venues. But we’ll get to that in a bit. Long Journey Ventures led the investment round, with participation from Founders Inc. The company is the brainchild of Aidan Wolf, CEO of DreamPark; Kevin Habich, cofounder; and cofounder Brent Bushnell. They came up with the idea while working at Two-Bit Circus, a zany entertainment venue in Los Angeles run by Bushnell. Bushnell encouraged the idea, incubated it and became a cofounder. The DreamPark founders (left to right): Brent Bushnell, Aidan Wolf and Kevin Habich. Positioned at the forefront of mixed reality innovation, DreamPark said it is capturing a significant early advantage in the global XR (extended reality) live event market, valued at $3.6 billion in 2024 and projected to surge to $190.3 billion by 2034 at a 48.7% compound annual growth rate (CAGR). This explosive growth trajectory presents an opportunity that DreamPark’s technology and business model are uniquely designed to address, the company said. “We’re building the world’s largest theme park – one that exists everywhere and is accessible to everyone. We want to make getting out to play worthwhile again,” said Bushnell. “This investment allows us to expand our footprint of access points across the country rapidly, develop partnerships with premium IP holders, and continue enhancing our technology to deliver magical experiences that bring people back to real-world spaces.” Bushnell is the eldest son of Atari cofounder Nolan Bushnell. And the younger Bushnell knows the costs of investing in physical properties, as he runs Two-Bit Circus in downtown Los Angeles. It’s built inside a physical warehouse, and Bushnell’s company has to pay for that property — even weathering the pandemic. But with DreamPark, he can reinvigorate a physical venue without investing anything in a new property. By contrast, a new virtual reality entertainment venue can cost more than $1 million to open. Hands-on demo DreamPark foundes in Yerba Buena Gardens park in San Francisco. Wolf and Habich, and Bushnell’s sister Alyssa Bushnell, showed me the DreamPark virtual theme park in San Francisco in the park near the Metreon building. There was a concert going on at the time and it was very noisy. But the game worked fine anyway. Looking down at my feet, Wolf said the QR code on the mat on the groun was an “access point.” That’s where you can scan and enter the virtual world. The company is still building a front end for distributing the headsets, but people will be able to bring their mixed-reality headsets from home and play the same content. “We’re setting these up all over,” Wolf said. “Once an area is mapped, it’s there and you just show up and play. The big difference here is that DreamParks are places. They exist in the real world.” Don’t be surprised if you see people doing this soon. The mapped area was around 50,000 square feet in the park, so it was a pretty big game space. Soon, the company will break into 100,000 square feet for the game with another update. That’s about 10 times the restricted size of Meta’s VR headsets. “We’re going way past the usual limits,” Wolf said. “I think this fundamentally changes what mixed reality means. Now it’s not this living room experience bound to the couch. It’s an actual world to walk around and explore and touch. Once we get people there, we’re gonna really see that cognitive shift, where now augmented reality (AR) is something I can go out and experience, like enjoying a concert.” The cofounders gave me a headset to wear. The first one didn’t work, but a second one functioned fine. It was a modified Meta Quest 3 headset that was locked down so it would play just the DreamPark game. It took a short time to load and then I looked through the headset. Thanks to the outward-facing cameras, I was able to see the park in mixed reality. That meant I didn’t trip over anything as I walked around. I held the headset to my forehead and looked around. I could see a Mario-like set of bricks floating in the air, and floating virtual coins along the physical path. I started walking around and picking up the coins and tapping the bricks to collect points in the game. I didn’t go where there were people lying on the grass, but I didn’t manage to navigate to some lava pits in the middle of the park. The founders pointed out that far away from me, on the Carnaval concert stage, there was a boss. Normally, if there was no concert, I could have waltzed over to that location and engaged in a boss fight. DreamPark overlaid on the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica, California. The graphics were rudimentary, 8-bit style, and yet I didn’t mind it at all due to the novelty of seeing them overlaid on the real world. Still, I was reluctant to go walking in the lava pits, as that was a bad idea in the virtual world and I somehow felt like it would be a bad idea to walk there in the physical world. “Our graphics are more cartoonish, but our Wizard theme has a more realistic look,” Wolf said. “We’re creating four theme parks.” One of them is a sci-fi Crash Course, which is an obstacle course. And DreamPark is working with a partner as well. There’s one with a psychedelic theme and one that is ambient fun. It’s easy to turn the experience into a multiplayer game. You can, for instance, race around the park and complete a timed experience in competition with your friends. The appeal of a virtual overlay on the real world DreamPark mixes the virtual and real worlds. DreamPark transforms physical locations into immersive mixed-reality environments through its network of access points: physical markers, like QR codes, that, when scanned with a Meta Quest 3 headset or mobile device, unlock digital overlays on real-world spaces. The company has already established successful installations at Santa Monica’s Third Street Promenade and The LA County Fair, with planned expansions in Seattle, Orange County and several expos and corporate events. It’s pretty cheap to create new locations. All they really have to do is scan an area, overlay a digital game filled with simple games, and then drop a mat with a QR code on the property so people can scan it and start playing the game. For property owners, this means they can draw people back to their location, getting them to re-engage with the place because people want to play a digital game at the physical place. It’s a way to enhance the value of a physical property, using virtual entertainment. Bushnell pitched the idea for DreamPark on CNBC’s Shark Tank television show. The sharks didn’t go for it, but the publicity from the show helped surface investors, Bushnell said. (The Bushnell family is going to appear at Augmented World Expo in Long Beach, California, in June). “As a longtime investor, I have seen countless pitches promising to merge the digital and physical worlds, and DreamPark is the first that truly delivers on the real-world metaverse,” said Cyan Banister, cofounder and general partner at Long Journey Ventures, in a statement. “Aidan is a visionary builder of immersive systems, and Brent is a pioneer in playful public spaces, making them the perfect team to make emerging tech feel human, accessible, and unforgettable. They’ve cracked the code on location-based AR, delivering a 10x experience that’s as magical as it’s scalable. This isn’t just immersive entertainment; it’s a whole new category.” The funding comes when retail landlords and event venues seek innovative solutions to drive foot traffic and increase engagement. While typical VR venues cost over $1 million to build, DreamPark delivers a fully immersive, multiplayer experience that pays for itself in its first month of revenue. DreamPark in Santa Monica. “Our capital expense is like one of a hundredth of our competitors, which is amazing. And then this lets us move astronomically faster than everyone else. I kind of believe in a Nintendo philosophy, which is, they take antiquated technology, but they use it in a new way that makes it valuable. We’re using access points,” Wolf said. There’s no construction or permanent infrastructure required. It’s a radically more affordable way to turn underused spaces into high-impact destinations. “We’re not just creating engaging content, we’re building a platform that revitalizes communities by giving people a reason to gather, play, and connect in physical spaces in real life,” said Wolf. “DreamPark bridges the digital and physical worlds, creating a new category of play where the magic of virtual worlds enhances real-life connections. We’re reimagining what’s possible when the spaces around us become canvases for shared adventure and imagination.” The seed funding will support DreamPark’s aggressive expansion plans, including deploying access points across new locations, launching partnerships with major IP holders to create branded theme park experiences, and expanding the company’s fleet of rental Meta Quest 3 headsets units nationwide. DreamPark is growing the development team to accelerate content creation and platform capabilities. DreamPark’s leadership team brings deep experience from companies including Two-Bit Circus, Smiley Cap, and SNAP, Inc., positioning them to execute their ambitious vision of creating the infrastructure for worldwide mixed-reality entertainment. Where it’s going What alien technology is this? Bushnell said the team has been working for around two years. But the founders have been involved with AR for more than a decade. They showed up at Two-Bit Circus and started making mixed-reality games, which take into account physical reality as a game space. There are about 10 contractors in the company working on content. They found that players are happy to wear the headsets for 30 minutes at a time, particularly when they are playing with friends. “We see ourselves more as a tech company than like a location based entertainment company. We hope to stay small as a core team while still reaching millions or billions of people,” Wolf said.The games are in a private alpha testing phase now. “I would say that the headset we currently have in our hands is the exact headset we need to bring this to the masses. So the nice part about the company we’re building is we aren’t waiting for some like watershed moment,” Wolf said. “We’re not waiting for anything now. We’re just getting it into lots of places where people already congregate.”DreamPark is coming out with an app that will let users scan their local park and then start using that space as a level, Wolf said. But DreamPark itself will create partnerships with some of the best places itself and get permission to do the game on the properties. At Two-Bit Circus, for instance, DreamPark could extend the entertainment into the outdoor parking lot, giving more square footage for entertainment. Bushnell had a great moment when he was playing an AR game with drift racing on a racetrack in the Two-Bit Circus parking lot. He noted that mixed reality doesn’t have the Achilles Heel of VR, which is that it makes half the people nauseous. “That was really the moment that broke my brain for mixed reality,” he said. “We were on actual drift bikes, pedaling around collecting coins. And I went twice around that thing, chasing after somebody else on a drift bike. And, you know, my heart rate was at 150. And I was just absolutely going bananas. And I took the headset off, and all that world that had motivated me to pedal my ass off was gone. It just really felt like this is not just going to change entertainment. This is going to change therapy and fitness and learning.” Bushnell said so many other kinds of entertainment are based on deploying huge amounts of capital. But this kind of theme park could be up and running in a matter of minutes. Bushnell believes people will be happy to buy tickets to get a chance to play. He said his four-year-old kid loves it, as does his 82-year-old father. DreamPark is adding virtual entertainment to real venues. To me, it felt a bit like the beginning of the world of Cyberpunk 2077, while Bushnell said it reminded him of the Korean drama, The Memories of Alhambra, where people wear contact lenss displays and have an adventure overlaid on real streets. “These are beautiful places naturally. Let’s augment them with a little more cool storytelling, and you’re off and running,” Bushnell said. “The world is lonely and isolated, We think of this a path to being social again, getting people out in public. And we want to invite landlords of all stripes to host DreamParks.” GB Daily Stay in the know! Get the latest news in your inbox daily Read our Privacy Policy Thanks for subscribing. Check out more VB newsletters here. An error occured.

Traditionally, PC graphics cards have included two types of ports: DisplayPort and HDMI. Now, they may be adding a third: Thunderbolt. Sparkle showed what it called “Project Thundermage” this year at Computex, a prototype OPC graphics card that put HDMI, DisplayPort, and a pair of Thunderbolt ports onto the same graphics card. The tell, however, was the partner: Intel, whose “Battlemage” Arc GPUs were paired with the Intel “Barlow Ridge” Thunderbolt 5 controller. To date, graphics cards have taken advantage of either the latest DisplayPort or HDMI ports, which both offer the bandwidth necessary for gaming-class displays — such as in the graphics card above, which isn’t from Sparkle. Meanwhile, displays with integrated USB-C ports were typically paired with laptops with Thunderbolt 3 or Thunderbolt 4 ports for laptop docking stations: perfect for productivity, but lacking support for the high-refresh-rate displays normally associated with gaming. Thunderbolt 5, however, alters that equation. Thunderbolt 5 offers 80Gbits/s upstream, and even 120Gbits/s in certain cases. That’s enough for both high-resolution content creation as well as high-speed gaming, provided that manufacturers support it. It’s not clear whether display makers will be willing to add yet another port to their displays, but Intel partner Sparkle is obviously making the case that it could. Videocardz, which noted a @akiba_ten_M’s photo showing off Sparkle’s booth, notes that Thunderbolt’s integrated power delivery could be used to power external displays, too. That seems less likely, but certainly could be a way to reduce the cost of an external display.

The big Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 interview: Sandfall and Kepler on team size, the return of AA games, and what's next Plus: how Kepler plans to be the A24 for games, and why a follow-up to Clair Obscur won't involve a big studio expansion Image credit: Sandfall Interactive Feature by Lewis Packwood Contributor Published on May 27, 2025 The success of Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 – which sold 2 million copies within 12 days of launch – has meant all eyes are now on its developer, Sandfall Interactive. As the games industry mulls how to move forward, faced with a saturated market, widespread layoffs and spiralling development costs, the fact that an original title made by a relatively small team could see such massive success gives hope to everyone. It's also an emphatic validation of the strategy of Clair Obscur's publisher, Kepler Interactive, which since its formation in 2021 has focused on original titles with eye-catching art styles and mould-breaking gameplay, including Sifu, Tchia, Scorn, Pacific Drive, Ultros, Bionic Bay, and the upcoming Rematch. "They respect creativity and innovation in games, they have a very high standard in choosing games to publish, and they are very fun people to work with," enthuses Shuhei Yoshida, former president of Sony Interactive Entertainment Worldwide Studios, and now a freelance consultant for Kepler. Yoshida has been helping to evaluate game pitches for the publisher since he left Sony in January, as well as helping to promote Bionic Bay and Clair Obscur. "They have a great balance in looking for innovation in games and investing in commercially viable projects," he says. "I think the way Kepler chooses games and supports developers is a great example of sustainable indie publishing. I expect many companies in the industry will look for inspiration from what Kepler is doing." Coop mode One thing that immediately marks out Kepler as different is its structure. "Kepler is co-owned by a group of studios, but they all operate autonomously," explains portfolio director Matthew Handrahan, who joined Kepler from PlayStation in 2022 (before that, he was editor-in-chief of this very site). "They make a lot of their own choices creatively and commercially in terms of the direction of their business. But there is a collaborative aspect that they can draw upon if they feel they need it. The thing that we definitely are very clear on is Kepler is not sitting here telling anyone what to do." The idea is that Kepler can provide support into each studio in terms of things like HR, legal teams, and IT. "And each one of them can draw on that to the degree that they want to, in the belief that if you give people that solid base, they can just focus more on being creative," says Handrahan. Image credit: Sandfall Interactive But the plan was always for Kepler to become a third party publisher, he continues. So in addition to publishing games from its own studios, since 2024 Kepler has started releasing games from outside developers, like Pacific Drive, Clair Obscur, and the newly signed PVKK from Bippinbits, the creators of Dome Keeper. "As we go forward, what we really hope is that people can spot a Kepler game," says Handrahan. So what marks out a Kepler title? CEO Alexis Garavaryan has previously emphasised the publisher champions games with "bold art direction and innovative game design" that avoid familiar influences like Star Wars and superheroes. Handrahan says this is essential in today's market. "I remember writing about Steam being overcrowded for GamesIndustry.biz 10 years ago, and saying, 'Oh, there's too many games'," he says. "Well there's five times more games being released now. So if you are coming to market with a game, it had better be doing something genuinely fresh." What Kepler definitely isn't doing is chasing trends, which Handrahan says is a dangerous strategy. He gives the example of Balatro imitators. "If you're making something hot on the heels of that, by the time you get to market, there'll probably be 150 other alternatives." One can't help thinking, too, of the expensive failure of Concord at PlayStation, which proved to be one hero shooter too many. The next expedition Sandfall's COO and producer François Meurisse says that the fact that studio head Guillaume Broche was deliberately avoiding chasing trends with Clair Obscur was what attracted him to join in the first place. "Some people predicted to us that it was a tricky [sector] when we started development, and there could be kind of a curse on AA games" François Meurisse, Sandfall Interactive He was immediately on board with Broche's passion for revitalising the kind of flashy, 3D, turn-based JRPGs that had long gone out of fashion. That passion came first: the strategy came later. "A bit after, when we tried to rationalise that yearning he has for this kind of game, we realised that it wasn't addressed as much in the market, and maybe there was a place for it," says Meurisse. The end result went beyond their wildest dreams. "The game has had success to an extent that we didn't imagine," he says. "We smashed our forecasts pretty fast." Naturally, thoughts are already turning to a follow-up. "There will be another video game, for sure," says Meurisse, adding that it's a little early to say exactly what form it will take. "I can't wait to dig more into the ideas we already have for the next game," he says. "Plus the team has grown up, has acquired new skills throughout production," he says. "Many of them were junior when we started. We learned to work together. So I can't wait to get to the next project, because we'll start from a more efficient position than when we started the company five years ago. And that [comes] with higher expectations as well, so it will be challenging. But I can say that we have – and Guillaume in particular has – great ideas for the next game." AA comeback Image credit: Sandfall Interactive The success of Clair Obscur has led many to herald the comeback of AA games, a sector that has shrunk significantly over the past couple of console generations – even if it's a harder category to define in 2025 based on a lack of publicly available budget numbers. "Some people predicted to us that it was a tricky [sector] when we started development, and there could be kind of a curse on AA games," remembers Meurisse. "But from our perspective, we didn't care too much about market considerations. […] In a sense, A Plague Tale or Mortal Shell or Hellblade, games like those were already proof for us that small teams of less than 50 people could have great games and great execution." Speaking of team size, much was made of the claim that Clair Obscur was created by a team of around 30, although many were quick to point out that the credits include dozens more people than that, working on things like QA, localization and voice production, as well as a ‘gameplay animation' team in Korea. "These kinds of games did exist in much greater numbers about 15 years ago, and I think there are some threads that the AAA industry lost as they grew and grew and grew" Matt Handrahan, Kepler Interactive So was the game mis-sold? "I don't think so," says Handrahan. "I think that the creative engine of the game was that group of 30. […] In terms of what the game is – the vision of it and the way in which it's executed – [that] does come from that nucleus of staff that is at Sandfall." "In terms of main credits over the four years of production, we were on average about 30 people," clarifies Meurisse. "We started with less than 10 people, scaled up until 30, and close to 40, and then scaled a little bit down. You mentioned Korean animators, but it's important to mention that none of them were full time. They were doing some extras beside some other jobs of animation. So the core team was on average 30 people in the home studio, plus privileged contractors like the lead writer or the composer, for example: I include them in that core team." "But of course, we had a galaxy of partners revolving around the project. Kepler in the first place – and I want to really pinpoint that they were really key in the success of the game – plus some other creative people as well, like musician players, translators, QA testers also. And that definitely extends the team, and I'm super grateful we could work with all those super […] passionate partners from all over the world." "I think people fixated on this number," adds Handrahan, "but actually the more useful thing that was being said was that this is not a AAA game, right? You can look at those credits, and it's still definitely not a AAA game." "These kinds of games did exist in much greater numbers about 15 years ago, and I think there are some threads that the AAA industry lost as they grew and grew and grew, and brought in different ways of monetising," he continues. "We have to remember there was a time when AAA companies were making games like Vanquish and Mirror's Edge and Kane & Lynch, and all of these really cool, interesting, not small games, but much smaller scale games. And you've seen the number of releases from AAA publishers dwindle and dwindle and dwindle. Now there's an opportunity for teams like Sandfall to come in and give players something that they really have not been given for quite a long time." Which leads us to ask, if Clair Obscur can't be classed as a AAA game, how much did it cost, exactly? Neither Handrahan nor Meurisse is willing to disclose the true figure. "I would say that I've seen a lot of budget estimations that are all higher than the real budget," muses Meurisse. Handrahan agrees. "Everybody's desperate to know what the budget is, and I won't tell them, but I would guarantee if you got 10 people to guess, I think all 10 wouldn't guess the actual figure," he says. "I'm sure Mirror's Edge and Vanquish cost more, put it that way." Keeping the team small Image credit: Sandfall Interactive With a success like Clair Obscur, the temptation might be to scale up the studio for a blockbuster sequel: a pattern we've seen with successful franchises many times before. But Meurisse says that's something Sandfall wants to avoid. "For now, our vision would be to stick to a close team working in the same city with less than 50 people on board, focusing on one project after another, and keeping this agility, and this creative strength, and smartness of a small group of passionate people wanting to do something big," he says. "That's how video games were made for years," he continues. "The team that made Ocarina of Time or Half-Life 2, I think those were max 60 or 70 people*, and that kind of size allows for good decisions and great creativity." He adds that the studio might recruit a few more members, but it won't start working on multiple projects simultaneously, and they will deliberately avoid growing too big and unwieldy. "We want to keep the organisation that made us successful," he says. Handrahan notes that because game making is an iterative process, maintaining only a small permanent team makes sense. "I think keeping a core team to hold the vision and to build out what the game is, and then expanding as you need to through things like outsourcing, is a very smart and sustainable way to manage game development," he says. "I think that there's been a lot of irresponsible practices in the industry," he continues, referring to the inherent risks involved in ballooning AAA budgets and team sizes. "Some games can make it work. Grand Theft Auto 6 is going to make it work, I think we can all say with great confidence. But there are plenty of games made with very large teams and for huge amounts of money that don't land, and there is a human cost to running things that way. People lose their jobs. God knows how many layoffs there's been in the industry over the last few years." He worries that the temptation to scale up is too great. "I do see a lot of developers who ship a game and then get some level of success – even very small levels of success or on very small budgets – and then almost instinctively feel like they need to double or triple the budget of the next game. And that is something I definitely question." No bloat He also questions the need to make games bigger. "One of the things that's great about Expedition 33 is it really respects the player's time. It gives them plenty to do, and it gives them plenty of satisfaction, but it isn't arbitrarily 500 hours of gameplay. It's impactful because it's scoped correctly. […] It doesn't have any sense of bloat or extraneous things that are put there just to make it larger and larger and larger." "Brevity should be more of a virtue in gaming," he adds. "Something can be better by being shorter – something that's being discussed in film at the moment. Every film seems to be two and a half hours long, and I think most people are like, 'Can they all be a bit shorter, please? Because we have other things to do with our lives'." Meurisse notes that the focus for Clair Obscur was always on quality over quantity. "From the beginning, we wanted to do an intense and short experience," he says. "The first length estimates of the game were closer to 20 hours for the main quest. I think we ended up closer to 30, even 40 hours if you take a bit of time. As a player, there are so many great games out there that I want to experience, [and] what's important to me is the level of excitement and fun I get from a game, rather than how long it is." He also questions the link between game length and price. "The value that players get from games does not align systematically with the length of the game," he says. "For example, one of my favourite games of all time is Inside, which lasts about two hours, but it's one of the most polished, and intense [experiences] – and even life changing for some people." What are games worth? Notably, Clair Obscur launched at a price point of $50/$45, at a time when the standard price for big-budget games is creeping up to $80. "I think as that AAA price goes up, I think it creates more of an opportunity to be launching games – more sensibly scoped games – [and] pricing them at that $40–50 range," says Handrahan. "And I don't think anyone that played Expedition 33 would think they didn't get their money's worth out of that." "When we announced the pricing at $50 we did actually have a little of a backlash online," adds Meurisse, "with people fearing it would be a 12-hour-long game with unfinished content, and that it was suspicious to have a $50 game that was looking like this in the trailers. But in the end we stuck with the price, we doubled down on it, [and] we provided some context about the fact that it wasn't a AAA." "In the end, it was a win-win situation, because it was a way to attract more players towards the game, to have good player satisfaction about their buying [decision], and it could actually end up doing more sales. So maybe players' perception can change a bit about that kind of price [point]." The Kepler brand Image credit: Sandfall Interactive Clair Obscur has obviously provided a huge boost for Kepler as a publisher, and Handrahan says the plan now is for Kepler to build a brand as the home for high-quality, mid-sized games with a unique vision. He gives the newly signed PVKK as an example. "The art direction is very high quality, it's very, very bold. It has a strong narrative component. It has innovative gameplay design. It speaks to wider culture, it's not an insular vision for a game. I think you get a lot of games that are kind of just about other games, and that is not something we're interested in necessarily." It's a model that he thinks others could follow. "We definitely want there to be strong associations with the games we do, so if that is something that other publishers could imitate or follow along from, then all the better," he says, adding that it makes little sense for publishers to cast a broad net of styles and genres in such a crowded market. But of course, there is a risk to championing unique, untested visions. So what does Kepler do to mitigate that risk? "We definitely do market research," says Handrahan – although he adds that ultimately the process is subjective. "I came to this company because I really trusted the taste of the people that I work for. I have always felt that if I'm really excited by a game, there will be other people out there who are excited by it. Yes, you can test that against market research, and that is definitely a function that we have in the company, and we use it. But our litmus test is a subjective level of excitement and belief in the vision and creativity that we see in the games that we sign." He points to companies in other media, like A24 or Warped Records, that have taken a similar approach with great success. "We want to be that in games." *Fact check note: Valve's core team was actually 84 for Half-Life 2, without including the many people involved in voice acting, QA, IT, legal, and so on. The team behind Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time numbered around 66, although the people involved in QA testing aren't listed individually in the credits.

Google I/O's 2025 keynote could have more reasonably been called The Google AI Show. Almost everything the company talked about was AI-powered, some of which is promised to arrive in the future, and some of which is available today. Features were spread across Google's whole range of products, but here are some of the ones you're actually likely to see.It's tough to talk about Gemini because it simultaneously refers to a set of models (like Gemini Flash, Gemini Pro, and Gemini Pro Deep Research), different versions of those models (the latest seems to be 2.5 for most of these), and different apps that these models are available through. There's the dedicated Gemini app, the voice assistant in things like Pixel phones and watches, as well as Gemini tools built into apps like Google Docs, Gmail, or Search.I'll do my best to specify which features are coming to what products, but keep in mind that sometimes Google tends to announce the same thing a few times.Agent Mode is coming to Gemini, Search, and moreThe Gemini app is getting a new Agent Mode that can perform tasks for you while you do something else. Google showed off an example of asking Gemini to find apartments in a city. The app then searches listings online, filters them by the criteria you set, and can offer to set up apartment tours for you.The most interesting aspect of this is that Google pitches this as a task you can have Gemini repeat regularly. So, for example, if you want Gemini to search for new apartments every week, the app can repeat the process, continuing with the information in previous iterations of the search.Agent Mode is similarly coming to Google Search for certain requests. Google uses the example of asking for tickets to an upcoming event. Google scours ticket listing sites, cross-references against your preferences, and presents the results. Gmail will pretend to be you when it replies to your emailsGmail has had smart replies for a while, but they can sound pretty generic (without intervention, anyway). It's a dead giveaway to your recipient that you're not really paying attention. To help you get away with quietly ghosting your friends, Gmail will soon be able to tailor its responses to you by referring to your past emails and even Drive documents.Google uses the example of a friend asking how you planned your recent vacation, a common thing we all email each other all the time. In this case, Gmail can draft a response based on your email history, with the advice you would be likely to give, and even write it how the AI thinks you would write it.Thought summaries will summarize how AI summarizes its thought processYes, you read that right. AI "reasoning" models typically work by taking your query, generating text that breaks it down into smaller parts, sending those parts to the AI again, then carrying out each step. That's a lot of instructions happening behind the scenes on your behalf. Usually, reasoning models (including Gemini) will have a little drop down to show you the steps it took in the interim.If even that is too much reading for you, Gemini will now summarize the summary of the thought process. In theory, this is to make it easier to understand why Gemini arrived at the answers it gives you. Native audio output will whisper to you (in your nightmares)This is technically a new feature of the Gemini API, which means developers can build on these tools in their apps. Native audio output will let developers generate natural-sounding speech. In its demo, Google showed off voices that could switch between multiple languages, which was pretty cool.What isn't so cool, however, is the model can also whisper. I do not yet know what the practical use-cases are for an AI-generated voice that can whisper, but I do know I won't be able to get it out of my head for a week. At best.Jules will fix your code's bugs in the background while you workLast year, Google announced Jules, a coding agent that can help you with your code, similar to Github's Copilot. Now, the public beta of Jules is available. Google says Jules can fix bugs while you're working on other tasks, bump dependency versions, and even provide an audio summary of the changes that it's made to your code.Google Search will let you virtually try on clothes while shopping onlineI'm not great at visualizing what a piece of clothing will look like on my particular body, so this new try-on feature might actually be useful. Google is launching a Search Labs experiment that lets you upload a full-length photo of yourself that Google will alter to show what the clothing will look like on you.The company is also integrating shopping tools that can buy items for you and even track for the best price. It will then be able to buy stuff for you via Google Pay, using your saved payment and shipping info. This one isn't available quite yet, and frankly we'd want to learn a little more about how the process works and how to prevent purchases you don't want before we'd recommend using it.New Veo and Imagen models will generate audio and videoVideo is, definitionally, a series of images played at a fast enough speed to convey a sense of motion. With that definition, I can confidently say that the demos of Google's new Veo 3 model does, in fact, show video. Whether that video is any good is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.Google seems to be betting on users finding the video generated by Veo 3 (and, by association, the images from Imagen 4) to be worthwhile, because the company is also building a video editing suite around it. Flow is a video editing tool that ostensibly lets editors extend and re-generate clips to get the right look.Google also says that Veo 3 can generate sounds to go along with its video. For example, in the owl scene linked above, Veo also generates forest sound effects. We'll have to see how it generates these elements (can you edit individual sounds distinctly, for example?) but for now the demos speak for themselves. Veo 3 is now available in the Gemini app for Ultra subscribers.

No plans for Game-Key Cards "on titles where we are the manufacturer and publisher".Raidou Remastered CE isn’t a standard, numbered Limited Run Games release, but we were still surprised to see that the Switch 2 Collector’s Edition they're offering retails for a whopping $249.99 USD and doesn't include a full game on a cartridge.This edition includes a Switch 2 Game-Key Card, which requires the customer to connect to the internet and download the full game on their console. This feels like it goes against the 'Forever Physical' motto of LRG.Read the full article on nintendolife.com