Technology

When CD Projekt Red finally announced The Witcher 4 was in development and dropped the first cinematic trailer at The Game Awards 2024, showcasing Ciri in all her butt-kicking glory, I jumped out of bed at midnight and did a backflip. Like most fans, I've been waiting for a new Witcher game for over a decade, and the news that the sequel will star Ciri on her own adventure easily made the game shoot up my most anticipated role-playing games (RPGs) list.

While the game is still in active development and there's no release date at this time, CDPR showcased a tech demo last year, offering an early glimpse into the Unreal Engine 5.6 features that will be used in The Witcher 4. It was confirmed that the demo wasn't actual gameplay, but rather an example of the cutting-edge technology, Unreal Animation Framework and Nanite Foliage rendering, that will power the game. Still, it's clear that CDPR has a huge ambition for the sequel.

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is a massive game, and as a certified fantasy RPG lover, I've spent hundreds of hours across multiple playthroughs exploring it as deeply as possible; so we should expect something similar for The Witcher 4, though I expect the graphical fidelity and attention to detail to be more impressive.

Game director Sebastian Kalemba and executive producer Gosia Mitręga have previously confirmed that the upcoming RPG will feature new regions never before seen in a Witcher game, but fans should expect a map size "more or less" the same as The Witcher 3's.

(Image credit: CD Projket Red)

"The map is definitely more or less when it comes to size, the amount of quests, more or less the same," Kalemba said at the time. "Again, the game is going to be big. But also, the ambition of the entire team is huge. So first and foremost, we want to deliver a super compelling experience.

"Again, quality over quantity. But definitely, what we can promise: Yes, this game is going to be pretty big. It's going to be big compared to everything we've prepared so far..."

I won't lie and say I'm not looking forward to getting lost in the world of The Witcher 4; sprawling landscapes, intricately built cities, hidden dungeons, all wrapped in a sense of realism and reactivity that the Polish studio is best known for? I'll be there day one. That being said, as impressive as a highly detailed fantasy open world can be, it's hard not to worry about the game's launch.

We've seen the same song and dance before. Ambitious open-world RPGs launching in a sorry state, hindered by performance issues, bugs, and crashes, and CDPR's games are no exception.

The Witcher 3, while an exceptional experience today, launched with plenty of instability bugs, and while it took a while for the game to overcome them, it's the studio's futuristic action-RPG Cyberpunk 2077, in particular, that is remembered in history for having one of the worst game launches of all time.

(Image credit: CD Projekt Red)

If you didn't play the game when it released in 2020, let me briefly set the stage. It's 2013, and CDPR just released the first Cyberpunk 2077 cinematic teaser trailer, sparking overwhelming excitement among the studio's fanbase. But it wasn't until five years later that the official trailer was released, promising an expansive and interactive Night City, complex NPC routines and crowds, and incredible levels of character and gameplay customization. It was all the internet seemed to talk about.

It was the most anticipated game ever at the time, and excitement levels hit an all-time high when, in 2019, it was revealed that actor Keanu Reeves would star in the game, as well. An April 2020 release date was set, but the game was delayed twice, until Cyberpunk 2077 finally launched in November 2020. And... it was disastrous.

There were many factors that led Cyberpunk's terrible launch, many of which were down to crunch and rushed time management schedules, marketing promises that set expectations too high, and pressure from executives to release the game on last-gen consoles, which the studio was forced to work on until the very last moment.

"After three delays, we as the Management Board were too focused on releasing the game," said former CDPR president and joint CEO Adam Kiciński at the time, "We underestimated the scale and complexity of the issues, we ignored the signals about the need for additional time to refine the game on the base last-gen consoles. It was the wrong approach and against our business philosophy. On top of that, during the campaign, we showed the game mostly on PCs."

You couldn't ignore the performance issues that persisted, making the game largely unplayable on console; they were so bad on PS4 and PS5 that Sony issued full refunds and temporarily removed the game from the PlayStation Store, and it didn't return until a year later.

Miraculously, Cyberpunk 2077 experienced a renaissance, and over the years, CDPR delivered on its promise to fix the game and release a steady stream of significant patches that smoothed out the critical performance issues plaguing it across all platforms. Those updates even included new content, improved gameplay features, and the critically acclaimed Phantom Liberty expansion. Now, despite all its launch woes, it's regarded as one of the best RPGs you can play today.

While CDPR managed to save Cyberpunk in the end, I don't want The Witcher 4 to have to suffer the same fate at launch. Even though the studio has switched from its in-house REDengine to Unreal Engine 5 for this project, which boasts specialized tools that offer better stability, Unreal Engine isn't without its faults; I think it's in its best interest to address PC and console optimization first over an impressive and massive open world that could cause problems down the road.

(Image credit: CD Projekt Red)

The Blood of Dawnwalker director Konrad Tomaszkiewicz, who also directed The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, recently spoke to TechRadar Gaming about Rebel Wolves' upcoming dark-fantasy RPG, explaining that the game wouldn't exist if it weren't for the experience of former The Witcher 3 and Cyberpunk 2077 developers.

Since the game has so many "complex choices and consequences, with so many unique mechanics," he explained that the team built on what it learned at CDPR. He also confirmed that the team prioritised optimization at the start of development to avoid the same launch issues as The Witcher 3 and Cyberpunk 2077.

"We learned how to approach the optimization of the game," he said. "When we started work on The Blood of the Dawnwalker, we already had people working on the optimization of our game all the time, right from the beginning.

"We didn’t want to be in a situation where we deliver a great game, but there are problems when we release it on consoles or some performance problems."

This is exactly what CDPR needs to do to avoid a messy Witcher 4 launch. Of course, the talented developers should take all the time they need to build the worthy Witcher 3 successor they dream of, but the magic of that experience will be lost if the game releases in rough shape. Focusing on optimization and ensuring that the game runs on current-gen and PC first and foremost, with no major performance issues, should be the priority.

CDPR recently confirmed that The Witcher 4 is in full production and recent comments from CDPR technical writers Jarosław Ruciński and Adrian Fulneczek (via GamesRadar) revealed that the studio is focused on documenting the technical process of its new games, something it wasn't able to do with older projects and which led to major development problems for games like Cyberpunk 2077.

"The future looks really promising for us," Fulneczek said of The Witcher 4 and Cyberpunk 2. "We learned our lesson. We've got some new requirements, especially a new definition of 'done'. So as you know, any project, any game goes through development stages, and right now, every stage ends with a gate. Part of the requirements to pass that gate is the documentation, which wasn't the case before."

Ruciński added, "Unlike in the past, now, today our knowledge isn't locked between specific teams' permissions. It's a shared asset. If a team working on, let's say, The Witcher figures out a solution for a specific issue, the Cyberpunk team can see it, benefit from it, take it into their own code, modify it probably a little bit."

He explained that "problems aren't being solved multiple times by different teams, and also that if a breakthrough happens on one of the projects, the whole company benefits."

While not necessarily a direct comment on performance optimization, I'm cautiously optimistic that this means CDPR has taken lessons learned from Cyberpunk's launch to deliver a Witcher 4 launch experience worth remembering, positively this time.

When Paul Moore heard the European Commission President saying that the EU age verification app will “give children a safer start online,” he was unconvinced.

"Bypassing the latest EU age verification app (2026.07-1) with a Chrome extension," he later posted on X. And it wasn’t the first time.

With over 20 years of experience under his belt, Moore managed to bypass the app back in April, right after the Commission first launched it. Combined, his experiences have led him to a straightforward conclusion: "anonymous age verification doesn't work."

While the process he used to bypass the verification system doesn’t undermine people’s privacy, Moore believes the long-term impact of its ineffectiveness will.

"All it is an escalation path being drip-fed, bit by bit under the guise of child safety," Moore told TechRadar. It won’t just be about proving your age. "The next step will be proving who you are," he said.

The EU’s 'privacy-preserving' approach

(Image credit: Pixabay)

Most of the current age verification methods, which require scanning national ID documents or biometrics, put people's sensitive data at risk. (Think, for example, of the data breach that affected Discord’s age verification provider and exposed 70,000 people's government IDs and personal data last year.)

For that reason, there's a growing sense of urgency to find a solution that helps people prove their age without collecting sensitive information. And the European Commission argues that it has found it.

Drawing on the framework of the COVID-19 certificate app, the Commission came up with a template for a privacy-first, open-source tool that EU member states can use to build their own national apps.

The process — which is part of the bigger European Digital Identity Wallet (EUDI) project — leverages zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs) and verifiable credentials (VCs) to verify someone's age without sharing sensitive information.

In other words, your phone scans your ID and stores that data locally. Websites will then ask users to scan a QR code via the app to prove they are old enough to access certain content.

A European Commission spokesperson told TechRadar that online services won't receive any personal information about the users, saying: "The age proof simply confirms whether the user meets the age requirement."

Moore doesn’t dispute the privacy credentials of the process. Perhaps worse, he just doesn’t think it will work.

Why the EU age verification doesn't work

While the EU age verification blueprint sounds like a welcome improvement compared to the current approach, the advantages don't hold up.

That's because Moore says age checks have to be tied to a person’s identity to be trustworthy. "The second you strip the identity away from how old somebody is, a person can't answer that question," he said.

Since the April launch, the tool's security credentials have even been improved, but Moore says the issue isn’t a bug but the entire process, criticising the latest efforts as mere "security theater."

How Moore bypassed the app

Bypassing the app wasn't difficult. In fact, Moore says he built two Chrome extensions on Claude in minutes.

The first extension he built replicated the Android app, but with the ID checks removed. This meant he could skip the need for a user to scan a document entirely.

"It detects the QR code automatically (when presented by a website) and passes verification," Moore explains, adding that the process is entirely automated with no need to interact with the Chrome extension once installed."

This week, Moore went further and built a Chrome extension that can capture the QR code from a website and automatically forward it to a remote, automated phone to get a genuine signature in seconds.

#EU #AgeVerification unfixable bypass:✅ Automate the device✅ Detect and relay the QR code⏱️ Push to GitHubOnce an age verification QR code appears, it will detect & automatically relay to a legitimate device that completes the verification remotely.If a "technically… https://t.co/O0Z0BpCOs8July 31, 2026

Known as an 'automated relay bypass,' these attacks mean nothing in the process is faked, making prevention almost impossible.

"Even after they enable all other protection mechanisms, both will continue to work," Moore said.

The EU’s response

When asked whether any steps were taken to prevent circumvention, a European Commission spokesperson said: "We of course rely also on parents and caretakers to check what children are doing online," adding that the app's goal is "avoiding the unintended exposure of kids to inappropriate content."

Yet, according to Moore, lawmakers' focus is misdirected. He said: "What [lawmakers] are missing is that the threat actor isn't a third party; the threat actor is the user.

"They don't want age verification in the first place, so they are going to look for ways to bypass the system. And if the system can be bypassed by design, they will do it."

Deciding not to impose a new law or technology simply because it could be bypassed is unlikely to convince lawmakers. But the problem may extend beyond an ineffective system.

In fact, Moore fears that the app's inevitable ineffectiveness could push lawmakers to turn to more invasive checks and an erosion of people's privacy.

Next step? Our identity

(Image credit: Francesco Carta fotografo/via Getty Images)

When Moore says the concept is broken, he is calling out what he sees as a fundamental flaw in the EU age verification framework's design: client-side trust.

The app is more privacy-preserving than passports and face scans because the data won’t leave the user’s device. But this may be exactly why its implementation is bound to fail. If nothing leaves the device, Moore explains, there is no way to trust or verify what has been obtained.

This creates a problematic catch-22 for European lawmakers. When this ‘anonymous’ app fails to keep kids off restricted sites, Moore contends that Brussels is unlikely to simply give up on its flagship safety initiative and drop privacy-preserving practices altogether.

"For them to push ahead with it under the guise of child safety is an escalation path to say we've tried this; the natural route is now you've got to prove your identity," Moore told TechRadar.

It’s clear that age verification is here to stay, despite continuous outcry coming from privacy advocates, technologists, and data scientists who warn it may do more harm than good.

For Moore, the danger is that what’s marketed as a privacy-first breakthrough today may ultimately be used to undermine privacy tomorrow.

Blu-ray turned 20 this year, and although streaming is now the way most people watch films, physical media is dead is far from dead. Collectors are still buying Blu-rays for their new restorations, special features or limited-edition packages — and younger audiences are discovering the value of owning their films rather than dealing with your favorites disappearing on your all the time.

History lesson

Blu-ray replaced DVD in the mid-2000s. Named after the blue-violet laser it uses to read data, it offered high-definition video and much greater storage capacity. In 2016, Ultra HD Blu-ray was introduced, which added 4K resolution and HDR.

Throughout this article, when industry experts refer to “Blu-ray”, they're generally talking about that latest version, Ultra HD Blu-ray, as it's still considered the highest-quality consumer format for watching films at home.

So if people still want to watch movies on discs at home, is there a Blu-ray successor on the horizon to offer something new?

Every major home video format before it has eventually been replaced. VHS gave way to DVD, then DVD gave way to Blu-ray. As someone who appreciates the quality of Blu-ray films but isn't an expert in the technology behind them, I assumed there would be a straightforward plan for something to come supplant them. Maybe an 8K Blu-ray? Maybe another physical format I've never heard of because home cinema is an interest of mine rather than my specialism?

But after speaking to analysts, hardware manufacturers and the organization behind Blu-ray itself, I discovered that most of them don't think another disc is coming. In fact, there’s no obvious "next format" about to be unveiled, and I wanted to find out why.

(Image credit: Future)Why Blu-ray still has loyal fans

To understand why the future of Blu-ray is such an interesting topic, it's worth first getting to grips with why people still buy it. And the top reason came up in every conversation I had: ownership.

"Ownership matters more now than it did in 2005. When you buy a disc, you own that film. It’s yours, permanently, in its best possible form, sitting on your shelf whenever you want it,” says Victor Matsuda, Chairman of the Blu-ray Disc Association, the group behind the development of Blu-ray.

He tells me that people are switching on to the fact that most of what we “buy” digitally today is really a license that can change or disappear. His comments come shortly after Sony removed over 500 purchased movies from people's accounts without compensation, and right at the same time as Disney+ was forced to remove 4K and HDR support in many countries.

“We frequently hear complaints about people losing access to content they thought they’d purchased, and there have even been lawsuits brought on exactly this issue,” Matsuda says. “A disc doesn’t have that problem. Nobody can reach into your home and take it back.”

I've spoken to many physical media collectors over the years, and ownership is almost always the first thing they mention. But the second reason is quality. Ultra HD Blu-ray is still widely considered to be the best technology for watching films at home.

"20 years ago, Blu-ray set the standard for what a movie should look and sound like in the home, and it’s a standard both consumers and the industry recognized,” Matsuda tells me. “Ultra HD Blu-ray remains unsurpassed as the best overall experience for consumers.”

He explains that this has been the case even as streaming services have rolled out 4K and HDR. “The respective Blu-ray formats became the benchmark they chased, and in my opinion they still haven’t caught it. Blu-ray and Ultra HD Blu-ray remain the reference,” Matsuda says. “A stream can approximate it, but the disc carries the full, uncompressed picture and sound with nothing thrown away to fit a data cap.”

Olivier Semenoux, Europe head of GTM and Product Management at TCL Electronics, explains that much of that comes down to bitrate. "Blu-ray can be coded up to 128Mbps because that's the disc's technical limit,” he explains. “Streaming is a different story, most popular platforms cap out natively around 25Mbps, with some going up to 40 or 80Mbps.”

Unfortunately, the latter is very rare — when it comes to the big streamers, 16 to 18Mbps is the maximum you can expect.

This means that Ultra HD Blu-rays carry significantly more data per frame than a typical stream, meaning less compression and what you see at home is more of the original picture and sound being preserved. It's one of the reasons discs continue to set the standard for anyone who really loves home theater.

Variations of the same argument came up repeatedly in conversations with manufacturers too. I spoke with Rob Jones, President of Magnetar, a manufacturer of high-end 4K UHD Blu-ray and universal disc players. “When consumers invest in physical media, they get ownership, content preservation, and quality control,” he says. “While streaming is incredibly convenient, it cannot match physical media when it comes to that combination.” Jones says that’s what continues to drive Magnetar’s investment and development in this space.

But that doesn't necessarily mean streaming and Blu-ray are in competition. One of the more surprising things I heard was that several companies see them as complementary rather than competing technologies.

"We see many customers choosing both formats," Kenichi Ikenoue, Head of Strategic Planning at Panasonic Consumer Europe, tells me. "They enjoy the convenience of streaming for everyday viewing while turning to physical media when they want the highest picture and sound quality or want to own their favorite films."

(Image credit: Future)Why 8K isn’t the answer

If Blu-ray still has loyal fans, isn’t the next step an 8K successor? That's what I expected to find, as someone who isn't deep on movie production. Instead, almost every expert I spoke to questioned whether there was any need for a successor at all.

"Honestly, I don't think so, at least not right now," says Victor Matsuda. "From a BDA [Blu-ray Disc Association] perspective, we don't see anything from content creators or consumers to indicate a need for a new format. They’re both extremely satisfied.”

There are signs elsewhere that the industry isn't preparing for another optical disc format either. In 2025, Sony announced that it was ending the production of recordable Blu-ray discs, MiniDiscs and MiniDV cassettes, saying that there would be "no successor models". Now, while that decision applies to blank recording discs rather than pre-recorded movie discs, it seems to reflect a broader shift away from consumer physical media formats.

One obvious reason for a new format would be 8K support, which is a format that would theoretically offer four times the resolution of today's 4K discs. But that wasn't what the experts I spoke to had in mind.

"The resolution race is interesting, but I don't see 8K finding a place with consumers anytime soon," Matsuda says. "The content community, meaning the Hollywood studios, produces its content in 4K and has stated their intent to continue doing so. Additionally, a number of manufacturers have dropped 8K from their lineups."

Jones agreed that 8K isn't ready for the mainstream, but says the challenge goes beyond content. It's also about the wider home theater ecosystem. "8K is a distraction until it's mainstream and the ecosystem simply does not justify it," he says.

He points out that an 8K player wouldn't just require 8K discs, but would also depend on compatible TVs, projectors, AV receivers and processors. "In order to sit down and experience 8K content, a viewer's entire home entertainment chain needs to support 8K," he says. "A consumer would need to replace every single link in their entertainment chain with a component capable of supporting 8K, which is impractical at best."

And it seems as if lack of demand isn't the only reason experts are sceptical. Some argue we've reached the point where higher resolutions matter much less than other improvements we can make to picture quality. "HDR and wide colour gamut make a far bigger difference to perceived picture quality than resolution does," Semenoux tells me.

Which means the challenge facing an 8K Blu-ray isn't just about a lack of content or compatible hardware; it's that the improvement itself may not feel significant enough to justify an entirely new format.

That's exactly how Mark Vena, CEO and Principal Analyst at SmartTech Research, sees it. "Frankly, an 8K Blu-ray would be a technical feat in search of a commercial problem to solve,” he says. “There's still little native 8K content, 8K TV adoption is modest and streaming platforms will almost certainly meet mainstream demand before another optical format ever reaches critical mass."

In other words, it’s not as if we’re all sitting around waiting for a new format to happen, it’s more that it doesn’t really have a reason to exist.

(Image credit: Future)What creates a new format?

Vena’s point made me realize I'd been thinking about this the wrong way. Every major home video format solved an obvious problem. DVD improved on VHS by offering non-degrading video and the capacity for extra features. Blu-ray improved on DVD with the space for higher-quality video. And now we have Ultra HD Blu-ray, which improved on Blu-ray's quality further.

Crucially, each of those steps solved a real technical problem. But right now, there isn’t a real problem that a successor to Ultra HD Blu-ray could actually solve.

Matsuda explained this to me using a framework from his time as a product planner that he calls "needs" and "seeds". A "need" is a problem consumers or the industry want solving. A "seed" is a new technology that has the potential to create that demand in the future.

"I don't see a compelling driver for a new format at the moment," Matsuda says. "I think it's unlikely that a new format would arise out of consumer demand as there doesn't appear to be an expressed need. Similarly, Ultra HD Blu-ray continues to deliver content that takes full advantage of display technologies so I don't see a need arising from the industry side."

Matsuda says that could change. "From a seed standpoint, companies may have some technologies in development that could plant those seeds,” he explains. “But in my view, if a driving factor ever prompts a new physical format, it will most likely be the emergence of content the internet infrastructure simply can't deliver at scale without compromising quality. As long as streaming can handle what people want to watch, I don't see any real pressure for a new disc."

So a technological breakthrough on its own wouldn't be enough, a new format would also need the entire industry to then build around it.

Panasonic’s Ikenoue makes the same point from a more commercial perspective. "A successor format would also depend on significant investment from film studios and content providers. New hardware alone would not be enough. The content ecosystem would also need to support a new format. For the moment it is difficult to see the requirement for a successor."

A successor wouldn't just need a better disc, there’d have to be a need to even build that better disc in the first place. Only then would studios create the content, manufacturers would build the players, TV makers would support it and consumers would decide if it was worth upgrading. But right now none of the experts could identify a good enough reason.

What if the successor isn’t a disc at all?

That doesn't necessarily mean Blu-ray is the end of the story. Optical storage technology is still evolving. Companies are developing discs capable of storing far more data than today's Blu-rays, but the key thing is that they're aimed at archiving data on an enterprise scale rather than at home entertainment. Which means they aren’t about to become the next movie format that you’ll buy.

Instead, several people I spoke with pointed towards a future where the successor to Blu-ray isn't about discs. "If Blu-ray has a successor, it may not be something you can hold in your hand," says Mark Vena. Rather than another physical format, he believes the future lies in premium digital delivery through high-quality, studio-certified, lossless downloads stored locally on home servers or network-attached storage.

"This is why the real successor to Blu-ray, for most consumers, is not another disc at all," he says. "It's the combination of ultra high bitrate streaming, cloud libraries and AI-powered video optimization that's closing the quality gap."

So maybe the future isn't about replacing Blu-ray with another physical format but instead preserving the quality of audio and visuals that enthusiasts value about Blu-ray without even needing a disc in the first place.

(Image credit: Future / Max Langridge)

One possible future is already beginning to emerge. Kaleidescape, a company specializing in premium digital movie delivery, offers downloads with bitrates to match what Blu-ray is capable of, preserving much more picture and audio quality than traditional streaming services while still providing the convenience of instant access.

Kaleidescape even recently launched a new 'Cinematic 4K' format for movies, which it says will offer even higher-quality bitrates for video, promising over 100Mbps of average bitrate (not maximum), which it compared to 60Mbps of average bitrate for 4K Blu-ray in its own marketing materials.

"In 10 years, the highest-quality movies at home will be delivered digitally, not on disc," Tayloe Stansbury, chairman and CEO of Kaleidescape, tells me. "Consumers will expect instant access, reference-quality presentation, and technology that evolves with each generation of content. That's the future Kaleidescape is building today."

However, for many fans of Blu-ray, the biggest hurdle here is still ownership and Kaleidescape's technical proficiency doesn't address that. It's a digital storefront, and the same concerns of losing access to things you've bought still applies.

Kaleidescape told me that its priority is delivering the best possible digital collecting experience rather than addressing licensing, and it declined to comment on people's increasing concerns about this side of buying movies.

Digital purchases may be able to close the gap on quality, but until they can offer the same promise of permanence as a disc, then physical media will continue to offer something digital can't.

Blu-ray remains resilient

When I first started researching this story, I thought I'd be talking to experts about the technology that’s waiting to replace Blu-ray. But instead, I learned the future is a little more complicated than that.

Every home video format in the past has reached a point where its limitations became too impossible to ignore. But Ultra HD Blu-ray appears to be in a different position. According to the people building and supporting the format, there isn't an obvious problem left for another new type of disc to solve. It still delivers the highest quality experience available to most consumers and continues to attract collectors who are willing to invest in physical media.

Looking at recent sales numbers, the Blu-ray market is much healthier than I expected. Mark Frampton, Senior Commercial Marketing Manager at Elevation Sales, a film sales and distribution company, says the format has remained remarkably resilient.

"We’re forecasting 2026 to be another year where the market stabilizes. Catalogue [older releases] has been very strong and only 2% down year-on-year. This is driven by collector’s editions and steelbooks, particularly on 4K Ultra HD which remains a format in growth."

In other words, older film releases are continuing to sell well, with premium collector editions helping to keep the market strong — and it's not just older enthusiasts buying discs today.

(Image credit: Future)

“Although the core buying audience is still people over 35, we’re increasingly seeing younger audiences entering the market,” Frampton tells me. “People aged between 25 and 34 are the second biggest buyers of Blu-ray. But Gen Z and Younger Millennials (aged between 14 and 30) who are experiencing ‘digital fatigue’ are becoming highly engaged in the format as well."

The wider industry paints a similar picture. Kath Summersgill, Group Joint Head of Sales at Key Production Group, a music manufacturer that specializes in producing physical media, points to figures from the Entertainment Retailers Association showing continued growth. "The current state of the physical movie market is incredibly encouraging, with ERA’s 2025 figures showing Blu-ray sales increased by 19.5%,” she says.

Now, these surprisingly healthy numbers don’t mean Blu-ray discs will be around forever. Streaming will continue to improve, premium digital libraries will become more sophisticated and companies like Kaleidescape are already demonstrating that top-quality movies don't necessarily need to be on a disc.

All of this means another physical format may never arrive. Instead, the next chapter for home theater could be digital — but there's a long way before collectors would be ready to trust digital libraries.

For now, at least you know you won't have to worry about buying your favorite movies yet again on another new disc format in the future.

Thinking of buying a new TV?

Try our TV size and model finder! You tell it how far you sit from your TV, we'll tell you what size to buy based on viewing angle advice from image quality experts, and we'll recommend our three top TVs at that size for different prices.

Artificial intelligence is fast becoming a game-changer for cybersecurity, with new frontier models such as Claude Mythos and OpenAI's GPT-5.5 demonstrating their capabilities in hunting software vulnerabilities and evaluating how they can be chained to harm an organization.

But these models have proven to be a double-edged sword, with both companies disclosing incidents where their models have escaped sandbox testing and compromised other organizations.

Couple this with how threat actors are turning to AI to increase their own skill in breaching organizations at an industrial scale, and you are presented with a bleak picture for the future of cybersecurity. But the best resilience is to adapt, and make sure those at the top can make the right decisions at the right time.

AI as a tool for defense and resilience

The latest challenge threat actors are presenting for businesses is their ability to match the skill of state-sponsored groups. The tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) of these groups are being bolstered by the adoption of AI tools. Jailbreaking allows groups to use legitimate AI models to perform reconnaissance and research at scale, as well as the ability to modify and improve existing malware and attack vectors.

A recent IBM report found that since 2025 there has been a 44% increase in cyber-attacks exploiting public-facing applications, a 40% increase in vulnerability exploitation, and a 50% growth in the number of active ransomware operators. Much of this is the result of attackers adopting AI tools into their workflows.

Professor Julian Richards is a leading expert in intelligence and security who held senior roles in intelligence analysis, training program design, and strategic liaison at the UK's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ).

I spoke with Professor Richards on the effects AI is having on the threat landscape, how defense strategies can adapt, and where training can be best applied to keep businesses one step ahead.

• What does cyber resilience really mean in a world where AI is being leveraged by threat actors to compromise businesses at a level that matches the craft of state-sponsored groups?

It is indeed the case that highly advanced techniques, the likes of which were previously the preserve of advanced states, are now readily available to a range of threat actors. This is partly because of thefts of highly advanced exploits such as ETERNALBLUE and their resale on the dark web.

Cyber resilience is about a range of approaches, however, which go beyond the technical into human layer factors. Keeping the response dynamic, diversified and creative will offer opportunities for resilience.

• Has the age of saving and storing vulnerabilities for later use passed, and how are defense strategies changing in regard to the rapid exploitation of vulnerabilities?

Almost certainly not, and experience from potentially parallel worlds such as that of cryptography tell us that exploits can remain productive for multiple years after their exposure.

Many threat actors are investing heavily in HNDL (harvest now, decrypt later); and a widened notion of "harvest now, exploit later" is also on the menu. Again, a reverse view offers opportunities for defenders.

AI can be used, for example, to more comprehensively and dynamically map and analyse attacks, even where they are mutating and evolving rapidly. This allows for more immediate and dynamic response.

• How are active defense strategies shaping the protection of businesses and their infrastructure, and what challenges are businesses experiencing with implementing these strategies on aging and legacy infrastructure?

As above, dynamic and active defense strategies are sensible and increasingly necessary. As with all areas of cybersecurity however, there are good and bad products on the market, and good and bad investment decisions being made.

One of the most important considerations for all businesses is making sure the defense strategy is appropriately tailored in scale and shape to the business itself; and making sure we deal with honest and adept brokers.

• AI is rapidly reducing the timescale between vulnerability discovery and exploitation for both businesses and intelligence agencies. Where do legislated threat disclosure windows play into these shrinking timeframes, and how do you perceive they will evolve?

One of the problems with compliance legislation (or indeed any legislation) is that it moves and updates much more slowly than technology. This will increasingly mean that the challenge described becomes a real problem.

In intelligence, selective disclosure has always been an understood protocol under the rubric of protecting national security, but this may not wash for commercial organisations. Two things will need to happen.

First, compliance legislation in such areas as threat disclosure will have to be written in a way that businesses are protected in fast-moving situations, allowing, perhaps, for post facto disclosure in many cases. Creative regulation and legislation is possible to allow for this.

Second, court cases may have to be brought to challenge overly stringent threat disclosure penalties, and subsequent case precedents will hopefully balance and protect organisations in this fast-moving situation. All of this will require the leveraging of advanced cyber expertise in the areas of law and legislation.

• What are the major blind spots business leaders have when it comes to the latest threats, and what is the role of AI in addressing these problems?

Probably two things, both of which have applied for a long time and are proving remarkably intractable! The first is complacency: "sure this happened to them, but it won't happen to us". Well it probably will.

The second is not understanding the importance of the human factor risk, which continues to be the biggest threat factor. Training, awareness, exercising for crises and internal compliance protocols might be irksome, but they remain crucially important for all businesses.

• What steps can business leaders take to ensure their AI tools are providing accurate intelligence and data while reducing false positives and hallucinations?

Work with reputable cyber threat intelligence suppliers and analysts. Develop expertise such that triangulation (checking across multiple sources and feeds rather than just accepting one source of information) is understood and readily implemented.

Expect the unexpected - in short, all the things that intelligence organisations have had to do since the dawn of time. For larger organisations, this is will mean a continual upskilling of key staff to be at the top of the game of understanding the dynamic threat picture.

• Where can C-suite executives seek support in making key decisions on incident response when defending against threat actors increasingly leveraging AI?

C-suite executives need to upskill themselves to really understand the threats and their dynamism in such a way that they can support everyone in the organisation battling with these issues.

It is still the case that many at the top have either a sketchy understanding of the risk, or see it as something that others in the organisation will sort out. This is increasingly untenable today.

Ultimately, those at the top will have to take the hit when it all goers horribly wrong! What this means is that training, workshopping and exercising through crisis scenarios is as important for the C-suite executives as it is for any other members of the organisation.

As a puzzle nut and fan of all things quizzes, I was unreasonably excited to learn that we now have the power to create crosswords here on TechRadar. So, I've taken it upon myself to bring you the first of what I intend to be a weekly TechRadar Crossword.

I've always enjoyed finding a quiet moment to sit with a crossword as a way to start or end my day — or pass the time while travelling. I actually remember first making some when I was a lot younger and forcing my dad to try and solve them while on holiday. I'm sure he only begrudgingly complied.

It wasn't until the Covid-19 lockdown, though, when I spent many hours watching Cracking the Cryptic on YouTube, that I started doing my best to learn the ins and outs of cryptic crosswords. They've been a lot of fun to tackle.

I've not tried anything as fiendishly difficult for the first outing, though. It's simply a mix of clues related to recent news and everything we know and love here at TechRadar — be that tech, games, streaming, AI, and more — as well as some of my favorite nerdy interests.

There's a leaderboard, so if you're quick, we'll put your name in lights to show off to the world. Let me know if you enjoy it and I hope you'll be back for the next one. I'll likely keep experimenting with clues and the construction over time to make this a fun little weekly challenge. Good luck!

As far as Taylor Sheridan shows are concerned, nothing is topping Landman. We all know that the Yellowstone creator is most at home in the Western genre, and we seem to want that from him just as much as he yearns to give it.

But Lioness season 3 is an outlier, and with new episodes dropping from August 2, I can't help but feel it remains that way. Closer in tone to the likes of Tulsa King and Mayor of Kingstown, viewers are thrown into the governmental deep end, following an off-the-books special operative group of the titular name, which is led by hot-headed Joe (Zoe Saldaña).

In season 3, Joe's working life has gone from bad to worse. By the end of season 2, she looked to jack her perilous and secretive lifestyle in for the sake of her husband Neal (Dave Annable) and their two daughters, but a leopard can't change its spots.

Credit where credit is due: without giving anything away, the stakes have been raised fatally high as season 3 takes off. The emotion feels a lot more genuine, and now that there are finally no new team members to contend with, we've got the space and breadth to fully invest in everyone present.

But as always, the bombardment of military jargon and circumstances that a civilian will never understand — and will hopefully never have to — feels incredibly alienating.

I'm also often taken out of the moment when Cody, a character played by Sheridan, is featured in episodes. Does this entire IP exist purely to indulge his fantasies of playing soldier? The answer frequently feels like yes.

Lioness season 3 raises the dramatic stakes — and takes aim at AI along the way

But let's get back to the action. Unlike seasons 1-2, which involved different Middle Eastern conflicts at their centre, Lioness season 3 pushes the focus to the brooding tension between Russian operatives and domestic US forces.

Interestingly, Sheridan wastes no time at all addressing real-life crises, including Gaza-Israel and Ukraine-Russia. It's the latter that gets the most expansion, with war on Ukrainian land forming the backbone of the storyline that will send Joe to the brink... and beyond.

It also allows for us to fully consider how AI and technology are shaping how fights are fought on the ground. Within minutes, Errol (Martin Donovan) is seen telling Kaitlyn (Nicole Kidman) that AI is an undoubtedly bigger threat to us all than the potential end of democracy — and that's just the start of Sheridan's blatant takedown.

Much like we've seen across endless social media clips and news reports, the introduction of drones into a warzone also becomes a point of contention. None of this is an angle to modern warfare that I'd even considered, and I'm both impressed and pleased that Sheridan has created the space for that conversation. The Lionesses are raging, and so should we be.

Even amidst the backdrop of change, our team is as strong as ever, and I continue to be bowled over that the busiest working woman on Earth, Nicole Kidman, has made time for such a heavy screen presence. Personally, I think that speaks volumes about the level of craft Sheridan is operating at, and what Kidman thinks of him in turn.

The action itself is fast-paced and unflinching in who or what it takes prisoner. Deaths happen from the get-go, and Joe quickly finds herself reckoning with two different realities. Things feel elevated from what we've seen in the past, which could often become monotonous and inconsequential.

Sheridan really is his own hero, and I applaud that

(Image credit: Paramount+)

You know how watching enough episodes of Grey's Anatomy starts to make you feel like you could be a doctor just through absorbing so many medical terms? Lioness season 3 somehow has the opposite effect.

I don't think there's been one season of the show yet where I've been able to confidently and succinctly explain the overarching narrative of the show. I've never once watched one of the many CIA boardroom scenes and properly been able to follow along with the plan, strategy, or off-the-books mission.

Partly, I wonder if this is down to my levels of practical intelligence, in the same way you sometimes panic during test conditions. But mostly, I think this is a script issue. The dialogue is (rightly) peppered with so much military terminology, but there's rarely a let-up in it. How is the average person supposed to relate to this, unless they've played a lot of Call of Duty?

But my favorite part of Lioness — which is either a positive or negative, depending on how you look at it — is how the show seems to exist simply to fulfil Sheridan's own desires. Once again, episode 1 contains a hefty dose of Delta Force operator Cody, but this time, he's the indisputable hero.

Again, no spoilers here, but Cody essentially leads a mission that is successful almost solely thanks to his own conspiring, and I think of the little boy who must have played with Action Man figures and wanted a slice of combat for himself.

Sheridan has won just as much as we all have with season 3 (except for the many onscreen casualties), in spite of its flaws. The man is allergic to making outright terrible TV, and for that, we should always be thankful.

It's time to bid farewell to July 2026 — and, if you won't be heading out to catch Spider-Man: Brand New Day this weekend, you're going to need something to watch at home instead.

Thankfully, the world's best streaming services have plenty of great-looking new movies and shows for you to check out before Monday arrives once more. Don't delay, then — scroll on to see what you'll be adding to your watchlist ahead of the new working week. — Tom Power, senior entertainment reporter

The Devil Wears Prada 2 (Hulu/Disney+)

Gird your loins, people: The Devil Wears Prada 2 is finally available to stream on Hulu and Disney+. As an 11-year old girl who grew up wanting to be Andy Sachs, I can safely say that nothing has changed 20 years later.

This time around, Andy is brought back into the Runway Magazine fold when Miranda comes under fire for printing false information in an article. As the new Features Editor, it's Andy's job to navigate a PR crisis fit for the 2020s, which includes getting a little help from Emily.

With all of the nostalgia and dreamy fashion montages you could hope for, and an new original song by Doechii and Lady Gaga that slaps, I'll be watching this over and again. — Jasmine Valentine, entertainment reporter

• Watch The Devil Wears Prada 2 on Hulu (US) and Disney+ (internationally)

The Super Mario Galaxy Movie (Peacock)

Yahoo! Almost fourh months after it initially landed in theaters, The Super Mario Galaxy Movie has finally made its official streaming debut on Peacock.

Mario's latest animated adventure is way more polarizing than its predecessor, yet it still managed to pull in $1 billion at the worldwide box office. For that reason alone, it's probably worth giving it a whirl — but, seeing as you'll need something to entertain the kids for 90 minutes or so, it's definitely worth putting on.

But, I digress. For those who might not know: this time around, Mario and his allies traverse the cosmos as they attempt to stop Bowser and Bowser Jr from enacting a new masterplan that would see them kidnap Princess Rosalina and drain her cosmic powers to build a super weapon. Expect plenty of Nintendo Easter eggs and references in this multiverse-esque sequel that certainly acts as a jumping off point for a shared Nintendo cinematic universe. — TP

• Watch The Super Mario Galaxy Movie on Peacock

The Drama (HBO Max)

The first of three films that Zendaya and Robert Pattinson appear in this year, A24's dark rom-com drama called, well, The Drama has made its debut on HBO Max.

Starring the aforementioned A-listers, it tells the tale of soon-to-be-newlyweds Emma and Charlie, whose forthcoming wedding is derailed when a particularly dark secret comes to light. The twist in question? Honestly, it's best if you go into the movie knowing as little as humanly possible, because it's such a blind-siding narrative device that it's too good to spoil here. Get it watched ASAP, because I imagine it's all you and your work colleagues will be talking about come Monday. — TP

• Watch The Drama on HBO Max

The Bombing of Pan Am 103 (Netflix)

There are some national tragedies that are so horrifically terrible, history is forever changed. In Scotland and the US, this was the Bombing of Pan Am 103, which is now a Netflix docuseries of the same name.

In a nutshell: on 21 December 1988, flight Pan Am 103 was en route from Heathrow to JFK when a bomb exploded in its hold over Lockerbie, killing all 270 people, including 43 British citizens and 190 Americans, on board, and spawning an international investigation involving local law enforcement and the FBI.

The community of Lockerbie has definitely never been the same since, with the attack leading to the Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990. Be prepared for a difficult yet emotionally poignant watch. — JV

• Watch The Bombing of Pan Am 103 on Netflix

Batman: Caped Crusader season 2 (Prime Video)

Batman is back — well, in Amazon's animated TV show, that is. That's right, season 2 of Batman: Caped Crusader has made its Prime Video debut, so fans of the Dark Knight have some new content to consume while the wait for The Batman Part II goes on.

This season, the eponymous vigilante and friends are forced to navigate an increasingly combustible turf war and the arrival of new iterations of the Caped Crusader's packed rogues gallery. Eager to see the Big Bad Bat go up against Joker, Scarecrow, Riddler, and more for the umpteenth time? Caped Crusader season 2 should be your first streaming port of call this weekend. — TP

• Watch Batman: Caped Crusader season 2 on Prime Video

Furious (Hulu/Disney+)

Female police chasing female serial killers? It's almost as if the glory days of Killing Eve are back. This time, the dynamic comes courtesy of Furious, which has already been described by critics as one of the best shows of 2026, which is seriously high praise.

I've got a hunch that this is mostly down to its leads in Shameless' Emmy Rossum, and Lola Petticrew, who was absolutely astonishing in Trespasses and Say Nothing. What's even better is that it's set in the 1980s and allegedly has a vert satisfying payoff. Ticks all of the great crime drama boxes, if you ask me. — JV

• Watch Furious on Hulu (US) and Disney+ (internationally)

Lioness season 3 (Paramount+)

We've been without a new Taylor Sheridan show for the first time in 2026 this month, but never fear... Lioness season 3 is here. And, by here, I mean on Paramount+.

Joe continues to walk the line between duty and home as "unseen forces" circle her world. Frankly, I think this means that we should do a fan sweepstake on just how many minutes of each episode she's going to be shouting for. My guess is 42 out of 48 minutes.

What's even more impressive is how Lioness season 3 has managed to retain Nicole Kidman and Morgan Freeman in their supporting roles. That's the brilliance of a Taylor Sheridan series, I guess. — JV

• Watch Lioness season 3 on Paramount+

Artificial intelligence is reshaping the balance of power in security. Attackers are using AI to make deception look increasingly human while making fraud faster to execute, easier to scale and harder to detect. At the same time, security teams are turning to AI tools to identify and stop these threats.

Fraud is becoming more convincing, more sophisticated and more scalable, contributing to an estimated $9.5 trillion in global cybercrime damages each year. Attackers are bypassing traditional signals of legitimacy through deepfakes, synthetic identities and highly personalized phishing attempts.

There is no longer a single type of deepfake or attack variant. Each new generation of models improves on the last, and security controls must evolve to remain effective.

Today, fraud has become more systematic. Rather than trying to break everything, attackers probe systems first, learn how defenses respond and focus on the weakest link.

Trust can no longer be established through a single verification point at the beginning of an interaction. Organizations need to evaluate trust continuously as behavior, context, and risk can change over a course of that interactions. The faster an organization can determine whether it is interacting with a legitimate user or a threat, the less opportunity for fraud to cause damage.

In this AI-driven environment, speed and accuracy in establishing trust are no longer differentiators. They are table stakes. The question facing security teams today is whether their identity verification infrastructure can adapt in real time to threats that are outpacing the models built to stop them.

How AI is making fraud feel legitimate

The same capabilities that allow AI to replicate human behavior and generate convincing content at scale are now being weaponized to make fraud feel indistinguishable from real activity. Attackers are using tools to bypass the signals security teams have traditionally depended on to separate legitimate users from threats.

What once requires insider-level knowledge of onboarding and identity workflows can now be generated on demand. Attackers have the visibility into how systems operate and where they are most vulnerable.

Identity-based attacks are evolving rapidly. Synthetic identities are increasingly passing initial identity verification checks, while voice clones can now be generated from just seconds of audio.

More advanced techniques like identity morphing are emerging. Attackers are combining their own facial features with a real people sourced online, creating hybrid identities that are harder to detect than traditional spoofing attempts.

At the same time, many attackers using advanced AI still miss foundational signals, including reused devices, repeated IP addresses or behavioral inconsistencies. That is why layered defenses still matter: newer attack methods do not eliminate the need for foundational controls.

This shift means that fraud is no longer presenting itself as an obvious intrusion. Instead, it blends into normal digital activity, making it harder to distinguish malicious behavior from legitimate engagement. Static trust signals and one-time verification steps are now increasingly insufficient on their own.

Why speed now determines outcomes

Since fraud is becoming embedded into everyday digital behavior, detection alone is no longer enough to keep pace. A critical factor is how quickly an organization can recognize risk and intervene before damage occurs.

Modern AI attacks are operating at machine speed and adapting tactics the moment they encounter resistance. Static checks and delayed reviews are struggling to keep pace, allowing fraud to move through workflows before defenses can respond.

However, as automation increases, attackers are also making more basic mistakes. They are caught reusing the same devices, IP addresses or behavioral patterns. As they focus on more advanced techniques, they are overlooking foundational signals. This is reinforcing that even simpler controls remain essential in a layered defense.

Fraud prevention must depend on real-time signals across the full interaction lifecycle. That means evaluating behavioral biometrics, device intelligence, identity signals and contextual risk together rather than in isolation.

Detecting subtle behavioral changes in real time allows organizations to challenge suspicious activity at the right moment, stopping AI-driven fraud before damage occurs rather than reacting after the threat has already succeeded. Keeping pace with AI-driven fraud means organizations must move beyond single checkpoints and implement layered defenses that validate trust across the whole journey.

Winning the AI vs. AI arms race requires layered, real-time defense

As AI lowers the barrier to fraud, security teams cannot rely on isolated controls or point-in-time checks. Attackers rapidly layer tactics, moving from one technique to the next as soon as initial trust is established, and static defenses are not adapting fast enough to keep pace.

Effective fraud prevention is not about replacing older controls with newer ones, but ensuring each layer evolves alongside new attack models.

The most effective defense strategy is not a single point of control. Identity, behavior, device intelligence and contextual signals need to be evaluated together and continually reassessed throughout the customer journey, not just at login.

Each layer has a role addressing a different fraud vector. Some are better suited to detecting advanced attacks, while others can catch basic mistakes. Both are equally necessary because attackers are often stopped at different points in the stack.

What it takes to win the trust race

Organizations should not have to choose between innovation and security to secure customers and operations. Building identity assurance so it can hold up as interactions become faster, more automated and easier to exploit requires treating verification as a continuous process rather than a one-time check.

AI has also lowered the barrier to entry for fraud. What once required insider knowledge or experience within financial systems can now be generated on demand, giving attackers visibility into how systems operate and how they can be bypassed.

Defending against AI-driven fraud requires evaluating identity, behavior, device signals and context together rather than in isolation. When controls are applied in isolation, gaps emerge. Fraud succeeds by exploiting those gaps between systems rather than defeating any single control.

The future of fraud prevention is continuous

Organizations still relying on static trust models will increasingly find themselves outpaced by AI-powered fraud that never slows down. What will separate effective security strategies is not the number of controls in place, but how effectively those controls work together.

Fraud is iterative and intelligence-driven, with attackers continuously refining their approach based on which defenses are easiest to bypass.

Every layer in a defense stack can catch what others miss, and fraud gets in by probing gaps between them. When a threat slips past the first layer, it will most likely be caught by the next layers. The more intelligently layered a security stack becomes, the greater the likelihood that suspicious activity will be identified and contained before damage occurs.

Continuous reassessment is what makes layered defense work in practice. Every interaction creates an opportunity to reassess trust based on evolving risk signals. A device linked to past fraud, behavioral patterns that do not match the established identity, or a login that appears legitimate but shows signs of automation are all indicators that risk has shifted.

This challenge is also expanding beyond identity. The same pressure is now emerging across payments, transactions and check-related fraud, widening the scope of what organizations need to defend.

If organizations want to keep pace, they must focus on closing gaps between layers and ensuring each control adapts as attack techniques evolve. AI is giving fraudsters the ability to probe systems, adapt in real time and make attacks increasingly difficult to distinguish from legitimate activity.

In this AI vs. AI environment, the only way to keep up is to stop treating verification as a single moment and start treating it as an ongoing discipline.

We've featured the best authenticator app.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

Trust has become the world’s most vulnerable infrastructure, yet most people don't realize we're already at war to defend it.

Every online interaction, phone call, password reset, remote job interview, and even a pickup or delivery now raises the same basic question: is the person on the other side really who they say they are?

Global businesses and governments in the AI era face a war where identity is the weapon, the attackers are invisible, and the battlefield is the infrastructure we rely on for daily connected life. AI has accelerated fraud and made sophisticated deception accessible to any bad actor.

Criminal rings, nation-state adversaries, and even ordinary people can now make fraud attempts against people and businesses at massive scale. Often, the money they take funds other criminal activities, or even military programs for rogue states.

Socure’s own network saw an 8,000% increase in AI-accelerated fraud over the past year, a number that firmly demonstrates that fraud has evolved from back-office risk to strategic business threat.

Unsafe identities

Most people would be shocked by how unsafe their identity actually is. Major data breaches have exposed private and sensitive information like names, addresses, birth dates, phone numbers, emails, and more. And fraudsters aren’t starting from zero anymore. AI can be used on top of real data to create hyper-realistic deepfakes and synthetic identities that can’t be caught through traditional fraud signals.

I spent more than a decade in the U.S. Army, with much of that time in Special Operations. There, I learned what asymmetric threats look like up close. AI-accelerated fraud has the same hallmarks: low-cost attacks, fast adaptation, distributed networks, and targets that don’t even realize they’re under attack until the damage is already done.

Our fraud fighting research team at Socure discovered one fraud operation that purchased 340 domain names, created more than 24,000 fake identities, and launched more than 35,000 identity attacks on a single company in a matter of weeks. The ring avoided traditional linkages: no repeated emails, phone numbers, addresses, or other notable identifiers tied the attacks together. The pattern only became visible by connecting the infrastructure behind the attacks.

This is just one example. With AI as a partner, the enemy is evolving quickly, from identity theft farms with hundreds or thousands of phones running scams around the clock, to people coerced into becoming fraud mules for North Korea-linked laptop schemes.

An unseen war

This is a war that most people don’t see, but they are feeling the impacts every day. Fraud breaks trust and the burden of proof is on the consumer. Businesses are suspicious of trustworthy customers, while customers can’t trust most of the messages they receive.

This paradigm forces the entire digital economy to spend more time proving what used to be assumed: that the person on the other side is real.

I know because it has happened to me.

Someone once used my personal information to open a business account at a major bank. I work in this industry. I had frozen my credit and it still happened. I spent weeks calling, disputing, waiting, and wondering what else they might try to do in my name. Even after the matter was investigated and closed, the unsettling feeling always stayed with me.

Beyond the money, the human toll is real. Victims lose time, peace of mind, and trust. In the worst cases, identity crime can lead to a national security crisis, no matter the country. It’s clear why this is a war we have to win.

But the fight is bigger than any one company, or any one country. The lesson I learned in Army Special Operations applies here: it takes a network to defeat a network. You can be the best bank, the best fintech, the best government agency, but if you’re fighting a networked enemy with only your own data, you’re still fighting in a silo.

That is exactly what fraudsters want: each company sees just one piece of the attack, so no one has the ability to connect the dots.

Organized fraudsters

The fraudsters are already organized. The defenders have to be one step ahead and band together. That means lawful, privacy-preserving shared intelligence across global businesses, governments, financial institutions, technology providers, and infrastructure companies.

When one defender sees a fake face, a fake document, a mule pattern, or a fraud ring’s infrastructure, that insight should help protect everyone else.

The urgency is not only about today’s attacks. Quantum computing is on the horizon and it is bound to accelerate fraud even further than AI has. The window to build stronger defenses is closing.

World War Fraud is here. If we fight it together, we win. If we can't come together around a shared understanding of AI-accelerated fraud and its true scale, we risk seeing trust between organizations and people fractured forever.

We've tested, reviewed, and ranked the best identity theft protection.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

LinkedIn, one of the most notorious bastions of AI slop online today, is finally cracking down on the deluge being seen across its site.

The social network is introducing a range of controls as it looks to turn off the tap of the torrent of AI slop increasingly dominating its website. You can try it now - just click on the three dots at the top-right of any LinkedIn post, and among the usual options to save, share or embed, you'll see a new option - "Seems like AI slop".

My only question is - what took you so long?

"We really care about this"

In a LinkedIn post of his own, Hari Srinivasan, CPO at the company, explained the reasoning behind the roll-out in words which should be music to the ears of most LinkedIn users.

"AI slop is a top priority for all of us. We really care about this," he declared. "People come to LinkedIn to connect with real people and share their real perspectives, ideas and expertise."

Now, I try and keep my LinkedIn feed fairly professional - like many of us, I do try and use it for work purposes, after all. But the odd slop does slip in every now and then - usually 3rd-level connections trying to shill some crypto scam, or religious-themed pep talk.

I have to say, it's incredibly satisfying to click the "Seems like AI slop' and relegate such posts to the dustbin of history - much more so than LinkedIn's previous system of reporting posts which may have sounded like scams or spam, but often just disappeared into silence.

As Srinivasan explained on the new reporting tools, "Slop is hard to define and the definition changes; this lets us tune our models and make better feeds."

"We asked ourselves why do people post with AI anyway? The answer is LinkedIn isn’t a one-word kind of place and they feel more confident running their posts through AI. We’re taking this learning, removing the ‘enhance your post’ feature you see when you write a post or message & replacing with a feature that proofreads your words, but does not change your voice."

Hopefully they more we use the tool, the smarter it will get - and cut down on the stuff we don't want to see. The action goes two ways though - and LinkedIn will also be testing a way for admins and members to see in their analytics dashboard when your own content has been flagged as potential slop.

Let's hope this is a bit more regulated - we don't want online vigilantes carrying out campaigns against a company or person they may have a vendetta against.

Srinivasan says the approach is based on two learnings - "First, AI and slop are not the same thing; many people refine thoughts with AI, and we believe they want to know when they sound inauthentic. Second, we want members to get feedback from real humans on what sounds authentic - not just have an AI detector review it and get it wrong."

Srinivasan also noted that LinkedIn (which let us remember is owned by Microsoft) will "continue to improve and invest in our automation defences..on comments alone, everyday we are now catching hundreds of thousands of automated comment attempts, and have blocked billions of other automation attempts (posting at scale, slop) in the last couple months alone."

This is a very welcome first step by LinkedIn, and lets just hope it's the start of an ongoing crusade against AI slop - because no one wants to see any of that anymore.

I got a rare peek into Samsung’s Gumi manufacturing facility, where phones like the Z Fold 8 Ultra are in production.

Are you keen to spend less time staring at a screen, but don't want to sacrifice the practical benefits of owning a smartphone? The “balance” of the Balance Phone is that it’s about halfway between the dumbphones of yesteryear and the attention-grabbing overload of today’s best phones.

Crucially, it is still a smartphone (a basic Samsung one, to be specific), so it solves all the usual dumbphone issues of lacking WhatsApp, maps, and music, but runs a limited operating system called Balance OS that’s designed to help curtail your scrolling habits.

I just spent a week using the Balance Phone as my main device to get a feel for how effective its digital detox features are. Would it help me reclaim my time, be more present, or be more productive? Or would this glimpse into a post-social-media-ban future for kids leave me bored and left out? The answer is complicated.

What is the Balance Phone, and what does it block?

(Image credit: Future)

The Balance Phone is essentially a Samsung Galaxy A37 running Balance's locked-down Balance OS. Balance also offers the lower-spec Balance Phone Kids (a Galaxy A17) and higher-spec Balance Phone Pro (a Galaxy S25), and all three phones cost a touch more than their non-restricted Samsung counterparts. The model I tested for this article was a previous version of the Balance Phone based on the Galaxy A16.

Much like the UK's impending under-16 social media ban, the Balance Phone blocks social media platforms (including X, Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook) while exempting messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal.

It puts pretty aggressive limits on your browsing behavior, too, by not only blocking access to adult content, but also stopping adult image searches altogether and even blocking various news websites and blogs (you can’t even use browsers that aren’t Chrome — imagine!).

(Image credit: Future)Does it help with your screen time?

Yes, I’d actually say that the Balance Phone is one of the most effective solutions for getting you off your phone that I’ve experienced so far.

You can’t remove or alter the OS even if you wanted to, so I reckon it’d be a great phone for getting kids off social media, too. It would make an ideal first phone for younger users, and is super simple and intuitive to use.

In many ways, it’s a phone that’s made not to be used. In the past, I’ve felt Nothing’s handsets were designed to be used less, with their minimalist designs and purpose-driven OS, but the Balance Phone takes the latter to another level.

If you pick the Balance home screen during setup, it’s just a customizable black screen with the names of eight apps (of your choosing) on display. You can get to an app library view with a couple of swipes, but it’s limited by default.

(Image credit: Future)

I compared the amount of time I spent on the phone to the previous week on my iPhone 17 Pro — and the difference was huge. My screen time dropped from around 5 to 6 hours a day to under an hour (about 30 to 45 minutes of use). While I’ve been mainly working at home and not using the Balance Phone for navigation, I’ve mainly found myself on emails or reading on the device, as I can still load up apps like Instapaper and Kindle. I’ve not been able to retreat to my usual distractions of TikTok, Instagram or Reddit.

Did it make me more present or productive, though? I think that’s much more debatable. The Balance Phone can force you to change your habits, but that doesn’t mean you automatically change or become more efficient; I found myself still picking up the phone to try to scroll or just do something, even if there was nothing to do on it. And, yes, I found I got a bit more bored during one week of using it. If you’ve been using smartphones for a long time, you’ll find the habits are pretty ingrained.

What I missed in my week with the Balance Phone

(Image credit: Future)

While I used the Balance Phone, I felt I kept up with reading articles I’d saved in Instapaper or cracking on with the book I’m reading in the Kindle app. But the lack of Reddit and relatively poor browsing experience meant I didn’t read quite as much news, and I did notice all the extra friction for social media apps in both positive and negative ways.

A self-imposed social media ban is great at stopping you from scrolling away your days, but I also found I missed out on some of the more fun aspects of social media. I was out of the loop on some entertaining memes, and my wife ended up gathering a long list of TikToks and Instagram Reels that she wanted to send me during the week. I got these in one big batch at the end of the experiment!

Of course, it’s all just random House of the Dragon commentary and silly cat videos, so arguably nothing serious or important, but it feels like I missed out by not being able to share these things in the moment.

It makes me wonder: we can all agree social media is addictive, but a blanket ban ignores that it’s something enjoyable in moderation, too. I expect that if I actually used the Balance Phone full-time, I’d still want to use a normal tablet or laptop where I can reply to messages on Instagram and watch YouTube videos, to be honest.

Who is this phone actually for?

(Image credit: Future)

If you want your phone to be restricted to the apps you need to communicate, listen, read, plan and navigate, the Balance Phone does the job well. You can load up your calendar, books, messaging apps, music, email and maps, but no video apps, social media or anything with infinite scroll.

And, because the Balance Phone is ultimately a phone that’s not meant to be used, it really is best for digital minimalists. If you’re already trying to give up social media and are comfortable with the extra restrictions, you’ll get on with the enforced digital detox. I think it also could function well as a work phone. You can put Slack, Gmail, Outlook, and the like on it, and then just stick to using it in the office.

We can all agree social media is addictive, but a blanket ban ignores that it’s something enjoyable in moderation, too.

Overall, I found it highly effective at limiting my screen time. And that’s why I’d also recommend it for kids. As a first phone, the Balance Phone is ideal and mirrors the coming social media ban and adult content restrictions for children. So, it works for kids and serious detoxers (for more child-friendly phone recommendations, check out our guide to the best phones for kids).

However, the lack of adjustability to its limits makes the Balance Phone harder to recommend for everyone else. It would be interesting if it had a little more nuance for app time limits or focus modes at particular times of day, for instance.

(Image credit: Future)

And a quick word on the phone's hardware: while the fingerprint scanner, underlying OneUI base software and simple Balance OS are all solid, the weak performance of the lower-end models makes the Balance Phone a little harder to recommend. The Samsung Galaxy A16 phone I tried was seriously slow and laggy, even when simply opening and switching between apps, and while the newer Galaxy A37 version will almost certainly offer better performance, I'd keep your expectations low.

Still, even for kids, I’d recommend the Galaxy A37 option over the cheaper Galaxy A17, as it’s just that bit more likely to keep you going for longer. Adults should consider the Balance Phone Pro, too, even if just because the cameras on the Galaxy S25 are leagues ahead of those on the other two models (it also has a slightly smaller 6.2-inch screen size).

Would you consider using a distraction-free phone like the Balance Phone? Let us know in the poll or comments below.

Air stylers are very much the hot hair tool of the moment. When Dyson's first Airwrap hit the shelves in 2018, it felt like we were immediately hooked. We watched, entranced, as this wand-shaped styler grabbed a limp piece of hair, span it around, and left a perfect curl in its wake. And all without any extreme heat? It felt too good to be true.

The more watched women use this device on social, the more I saw women being very, very upset that they spent $600 on a device that created a curl for maybe a minute.

Dr Julie Chung, T3

And maybe it was. When I spoke to Dr Julie Chung, co-founder of major haircare brand T3, she advised that we take a much more cautious approach to the air styler phenomenon than we're used to hearing.

"This device is not for all hair types," she tells me. "And for any company to say, 'Oh, this is for all hair kind', 'this is for every single woman', it's simply not true."

She talks about how cool air-styler tools look on social media, but how, after the initial curl-creation magic has been captured, many women will find the styles just don't last on their hair.

T3 hair an air styler, but Dr Chung is clear it's not suitable for everyone (Image credit: Future)

"The more that I would watch women use this device on social, the more I saw women being very, very upset that they spent $600 on a device that created a curl for maybe a minute. They'd be in the mirror, it looks great, then they turn away for two seconds, look back and the curls have fallen," she recalls of the early days of air stylers.

One size does not fit all

Dr Chung is clear that even T3's own air styler — the Aire 360 — isn't for everyone. "Curls in general… it depends on the woman's hair type," she explains. "Some women can use a Dyson Airwrap with no product and be able to curl their hair and it'll stay. But that's because these are women whose hair tends to hold a curl really, really well.

"A woman with fine hair, for example, will dm me and say, the Shark didn't work. The Dyson didn't work. Should I get the Aire 360? And I would tell her, no. Just like Brandy Melvilles [a fashion brand that's been criticized for only offering clothing in one, small size] one size does not fit all. I can't even get the shorts over one leg."

A woman with fine hair, for example, will DM me and say, the Shark didn't work. The Dyson didn't work. Should I get the Air360? And I would tell her, no.

Dr Julie Chung, T3

So you might have hair that will naturally hold an air styler curl with no further effort required. Or you might need to add product, and take time to cool and set the air-styler curl.

Alternatively, a curling iron might give you much better and longer-lasting results (Dr Chung is also of the belief that 'heat has been demonized incorrectly — but that's a different subject), or you might need to use a curling iron to create ribbon curls. Dr Chung mentions T3's CEO, whose hair won't even hold a curling iron curl, and who needs a hot-roller set.

Your needs will be shaped not just by your hair texture, Dr Chung explains, but all manner of other aspects, from your lifestyle to the kind of climate you're living in, to your hair cut, and whether it's been colored, and the products you're using on it. There's a full spectrum of needs, and a full spectrum of tools.

She adds: "I've always said this to both consumers and editors alike: I can help you find the tool that will work for you, but that one tool that you're looking at, that some companies say it's for everybody. It's not for you. "I'm not going to sell you something that you'll come back and say it didn't work because I knew it wasn't going to work. I don't think that's some mind-blowing concept."

• Disney+ subscribers in some European countries have lost 4K and HDR support, including basic HDR10 as well as Dolby Vision
• This is highly likely to be the result of a patent dispute, which was the cause of Disney+ losing Dolby Vision previously, but Disney hasn't confirmed this yet
• Premium customers are paying more for very little advantage now, but there's no word on a refund or compensation as yet

A few months ago Disney+ removed Dolby Vision in parts of Europe after a patent court ruled against the entertainment company, although it brought Dolby back the following month. But now there's a much more serious removal: 4K and HDR10 are gone for many European customers as well as Dolby Vision, and these are pretty core things you pay for if you have Disney+ Premium.

It appears to be another patent issue. In a statement to FlatpanelsHD, The Walt Disney Company Nordic & Baltic said: "Following a recent court ruling affecting the technology we use to deliver 4K UHD and HDR, we have temporarily removed support for 4K UHD and HDR on Disney+. We are disappointed and share our customers' frustration. We are working hard to restore support as quickly as possible."

We're not sure exactly which countries are affected yet, but it doesn't include the UK (or US) — we'll update with a full list when we can, but it's likely to be the same countries affected by the Dolby Vision removal. The reported list of countries in that case was: Austria; Belgium; Germany; Denmark; Finland; France; Italy; Netherlands; Portugal; Romania; Sweden.

That isn't just frustrating. It's taken away a key reason for subscribing to the most expensive Premium plan (though you will still get Dolby Atmos and the ability to stream to four devices).

But still, if you're paying the extra price specifically to upgrade from 1080p to 4K HDR, right now you're paying extra for nothing, there's no sign of any compensation for customers so far.

Maybe we should all go back to Blu-ray

It's no wonder that many movie fans are moving back to Blu-ray. Between price rises, digital deletion of paid-for titles and external issues such as patent disputes taking away picture quality you had access to until two days ago, it's not a great time to be solely reliant on streaming.

This current issue isn't Disney's fault. The major streaming services have all been targeted by patent owners claiming breach of their intellectual property, and this appears to be another one of those cases; if so, it'll probably be resolved relatively quickly.

But it does make me wonder about the bigger picture here, because I think streaming is in danger of losing what made it so popular as we pay ever increasing prices for what we used to get as standard.

In this particular case the loss of 4K and HDR has been imposed by an external issue. But the highest quality options have been moving upwards into the most expensive tiers for a couple of years now, so unless you pay for the premium subscriptions you don't get the best quality.

That means what used to be a one-size-fits-all offer is now much more complicated and more expensive every year. For example, I'm in the UK, where Disney+ has three plans, only one of which gives you Atmos and 4K. Netflix has three plans too, once again limiting 4K to the most expensive tier.

My previously ad-free Prime Video subscription is so stuffed with ads now it's a hilariously miserable experience with me and the kids swearing at the screen, and Dolby Vision and Atmos became paid-for upgrades two years ago.

I'd bet that if you're reading this you probably subscribe to, or use the ad-funded version of, a music streaming service; they're so convenient that looking for pirated songs is more trouble than it's worth. But can you say the same for the movie streamers?

I don't condone piracy at all. But as someone who's been reporting on digital piracy since the days when Metallica didn't know what a Napster was, I've seen piracy ebb and flow in music and in movies, and it's very clear that no matter how hard you try, no matter how much money and how many lawyers you throw at it, you cannot stop digital piracy. What you can do — what Netflix, the OG streamer, did — is offer a better alternative that makes it unappealing.

In a world where perfect digital copies of movies and TV shows are only a few clicks away, the only way to prevent people pirating is to make your product better in ways that persuade people to pay for it, or to accept the advertising that pays for it.

And to me it looks like only one of the major streamers is doing that: Apple TV+. What I'd love to see is the other streamers doing what it does. What I fear, and which is more likely, is that Apple TV is going to end up doing what they do.

With AI tools and services now increasingly common in workplaces across the country, finding the right use cases where the technology can really have an effect is becoming more and more important.

Accounting and finance seems an obvious use case for AI, where an automated system can quickly go through reams of data to find the solution, or ensure everything is properly sorted.

I spoke to Akankshu Dhawan, Xero SVP, Product & Tech, at the recent Xerocon 2026 event in London, to find out more.

"The best way to build products"

“It's a very fortunate place to be in, when customers want more of what you have,” Dhawan tells me following the Xerocon 2026 keynote, where the company announced a whole host of new tools, products and services.

Xero seems fairly unique to me in that it really seems to take care to listen to users and customers when developing new offerings - transformation and customization seems to be the key watchwords.

“I think that's the best way to build products,” Dhawan says, “sometimes you do need to push the envelope sometimes - as the world is changing so fast, technology is changing so fast, not everybody is going to be comfortable with it, but that's also an opportunity to listen.”

As mentioned, accounting and bookkeeping are clear and obvious use cases where AI should be able to have an impact, taking complex procedures and tedious manual processes and streamlining them, freeing up workers for other tasks.

But for this reason, it may require extra time and care to ensure tools are intuitive for accountants and bookkeepers, some of whom may have started out working with pen and paper, then moved to computers, and now to the age of AI. This is especially true for those with small businesses or start-ups as customers, where any filing mistake or accounting error could have major consequences.

“Our job is to help bring as much calm to this,” Dhawan says, “as long as (accountants) feel they are in control, and we can give them the right set of controls, that can help them navigate this with as little anxiety as possible.”

(Image credit: Xero)

This includes JAX, Xero’s AI platform, which the company says looks to offer “accountable intelligence” (pun probably intended), as part of its philosophy to infuse AI into every part of the product, built on top of its Xero operating system.

“It was very obvious to me any industry where there is a source of truth, and you can build a full loop...where customers can validate the input and give you the data...as long as you can do that well, you will have the ability to disrupt,” Dhawan says.

Xero had announced JAX will be able to create full end of year accounts, a significant escalation in capabilities, and an area where any mistake could be extremely costly in every sense of the word, so I ask Dhawan about the concerns some businesses may have on relying too heavily on AI tools.

“I think it's a risk if not done properly,” he says, “we keep coming back to the sense of control, and making sure the right controls are in place - we don't our AI to just send you a notification one day saying ‘I've sent your taxes to HMRC’ without you having even looked at it…you need to strike the right balance.”

He notes that the company’s AI is trained on 20 years’ worth of data from over five million customers, so it should be able to avoid troublesome variants.

“Because we have this…we can give you an idea of ‘it’s either this, or this’ - now check,” he says, “it’s much more productive, and you still save time, and you still keep the human in the loop.”

"Always in control"

All of this seems to result in what Xero had pledged about offering extra oversight when it comes to what can be the most critical part of running a business.

Dhawan had mentioned in his keynote the theme that users were “always in control - that's our promise to you”, and I ask him how realistic an aim that can be in a rapidly-changing and evolving market.

“Honestly, that's table stakes in our industry - I'm often blown away by promises that companies sometimes make,” he says.

“We are here because of this group of accountants and bookkeepers, and when they're sitting in the room with their small business clients, there's that trust, which kind of doesn't matter whether it's AI or not - they want to know, can I trust the advice.”

“It can be a win-win situation…it’s a no-brainer that that is our way of creating value for the ecosystem that we serve.”

“If we can really rise to the occasion, meet our customers and capture this AI tailwind, that's front and center - it's very real, it's happening, we've got to just keep our eye on the ball.”

• Existing ban on drones and routers extended to "advanced" robots
• FCC has confirmed that robot vacuums are included
• No effect on products already authorized by the FCC for US sales

The US's latest ban on foreign hardware is coming for an unlikely target: robot vacuum cleaners and likely robot lawn mowers too.

The ban comes via the White House, which has extended its previous ban on foreign-made drones and Wi-Fi routers. The ban now includes foreign-made power inverters and "advanced robots" on the grounds that they pose a national security risk to the US.

If you're finding it hard to imagine Russia rigging your vacuum cleaner, or Iran invading the US via an army of lawnbots... yeah. Us too.

These are the kind of robots we're worried about. (Image credit: US Army)How will the ban on robot vacuum cleaners work?

The ban doesn't outlaw the use of robots that you already own, so you're not going to have to hand over your robo-vac to the authorities. However, it bans the sale of "advanced robotic devices".

The definition of advanced robotic devices refers specifically to "autonomous mobile robots, humanoid robots, and quadrupeds" that can move around, avoid obstacles and weigh 4.4lbs or more including any ground station or docking station. Many robot vacuums and lawn mowers meet those criteria, and the FCC has confirmed to PC Mag that the ban does indeed apply to cleaning robots.

This is bad news for the big robot brands such as Ecovacs, Roborock and Dreame; the top five US robot vacuum brands are all Chinese, and therefore fall under this ban, so we contacted them for comment.

"We are aware of the FCC’s recent update," Eric Villines, Chief Communications Officer at Anker Innovations (the parent company of Eufy), told TechRadar. "Based on our current understanding, the new rule does not affect the continued availability, use or support of products we currently sell in the United States. Those products remain available and will continue to receive updates and customer support,

"Like others across the industry, we are seeking further clarity on how the rule will be applied to future products, and we will keep our customers informed. We remain committed to complying with all regulatory requirements in every market where we operate."

Several other smart home brands declined to comment at this early stage, but we get the general impression that this news might have come as something of a surprise.

Can you keep using your robovac?

There is one bit of sunshine in this cloud, however: the ban is not retrospective, so if a robot already has FCC authorization to be sold in the US that's fine. The ban does not prevent retailers "from continuing to sell, import, or market relevant models approved previously."

That said, PC Mag identifies a separate FCC order that says existing robot vacuums and similar products "may continue to receive software and firmware updates that mitigate harm to US consumers at least until January 1, 2029." If the FCC decides not to extend that then it's just put a countdown clock on any new Chinese-made robot vacuums sold in the US.

For the affected manufacturers, the next step will be to lobby the FCC in the hope of gaining an exemption for some or all of their products: after all, there's a big difference between a self-driving, self-cleaning mop and a robot dog capable of carrying an AR-15. However, so far there haven't been any exemptions for major Chinese drone or router manufacturers so the future is not looking very bright for the affected companies.

Thinking of buying a new TV?

Try our TV size and model finder! You tell it how far you sit from your TV, we'll tell you what size to buy based on viewing angle advice from image quality experts, and we'll recommend our three top TVs at that size for different prices.

The Nintendo Switch was nothing short of a phenomenon. It won the hearts of millions, possesses one of the greatest games libraries in console history, and became one of the highest selling systems of all time. It brought the best parts of its failing predecessor, the Wii U, forward, assuming an ultra-convenient hybrid form, and during the COVID 19 pandemic, it felt like everyone and their dog were building their perfect island on Animal Crossing: New Horizons, or racing to the finish line in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe.

All of that is to say, that whatever came next would have huge shoes to fill. And so, in came the Nintendo Switch 2 — a system that appeared to be less of a revolution, and more of an evolution. It took what made the Switch great and ran with it, offering higher resolution and refresh rates, a larger screen for handheld mode, and even a mouse mode.

And in some respects, the Switch 2 has hit the ground running. It’s the second-fastest selling games console in recorded US history, and at just over a year old it's already seen multiple exclusives (such as Donkey Kong Bananza and Pokémon Pokopia) release to critical acclaim. But at the same time, some have been disappointed over the lack of a 3D Mario or truly new Zelda title on the horizon, while issues around battery life and pricing have also proved to be a turn off for others.

So, this got me thinking. Would gamers consider the Switch 2 to be more of a hit, or a flop? Sure, its sales figures have been impressive, but are users satisfied with the hardware upgrades? What are their thoughts on its game catalogue?

I spoke with industry experts, fellow journalists — and most importantly, you, our wonderful readers, and it proved to be a fascinating experience. I heard a lot of varying viewpoints, and now I’m here to report back.

Hit or miss: the expert take

(Image credit: Future / Nintendo)

To begin with, I spoke with Mat Piscatella, Executive Director of Games at the Market Research firm Circana, who had some excellent insight into the commercial performance of the Nintendo Switch 2.

“Well, over its first 12 months in the market, Nintendo Switch 2 hit 5.9M units sold in the US,” Piscatella told me.

Did you know TechRadar now has membership?

(Image credit: Future)

Become a TechRadar Insider by simply clicking 'Join Now' at the top of this page. Have a question? Please email membership@techradar.com

This, he noted, ensured it became the second fastest-selling video game hardware in the US since Circana’s records began in 1995 — finishing behind the Game Boy Advance only. “If that's not considered a hit, I'm not sure what would be,” he remarked.

“For the 2026 year-to-date period ending May, US hardware spending in total was up 37% compared to the same period a year ago,” Piscatella said. He stated that this was “entirely driven by Nintendo Switch 2 as double-digit percentage sales declines were experienced across the other in market platforms”.

He also highlighted high sales of software, such as Donkey Kong Bananza, Metroid Prime 4: Beyond, Pokémon Legends: Z-A, Pokémon: Pokopia, and Mario Kart World, a game which was largely obtained via a bundle with the system.

With one year in the books, it would be hard to ask for much more when it comes to the sales performance of the Nintendo Switch 2

Mat Piscatella, Executive Director of Games at Circana

So far so good, then, for Piscatella, who also highlighted the benefit of the Switch 2’s backwards compatibility — giving users access to thousands of unique titles from the original system.

He did flag that June date may indicate “tough year-on-year comp for the system,” largely due to sales being compared to the launch month. “After that we should see Switch 2 continue to perform well into its announced September price increase. Then we'll have to see what happens."

What does the TechRadar team think?

(Image credit: Future / Nintendo)

The early signs have been promising, commercially speaking, but our Managing Editor of Social & Engagement (and Nintendo enthusiast), Josephine Watson, says that “the Switch 2 needed more than sales to break Nintendo’s generational curse of yo-yo-ing console success. It needed sticking power”. So, one year on, has it stuck the landing?

She argued that the Switch 2’s weaker holiday sales and subsequent production cuts suggest that “the console has yet to prove its mettle in the same way the first-generation [Switch] did, even with such high sales figures in its first year.” Despite this, she did acknowledge the mid-lifecycle boom that the OG Switch experienced, largely due to the release of Animal Crossing: New Horizons during the pandemic.

In terms of games, Watson had a somewhat mixed take, arguing that the Switch 2 had “a concerningly hollow launch title line-up carried mostly by Mario Kart World,” though she did suggest that the system gained momentum moving into the new year, especially with titles like Pokémon Pokopia and strong third-party additions like Resident Evil Requiem.

Is the Switch 2 a success one year on for Watson? “No — but yes, kinda,” she said. She lamented the lackluster battery life and pointed to how Nintendo could’ve done more to eradicate stick drift from the Joy-Con 2 controllers, but did express satisfaction with the improved processing power and refined eShop. And even though her views on the game library haven’t been entirely positive, the Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time remake, scheduled for release in 2026, “is the game-changer,” she said.

TechRadar Senior Writer, Hamish Hector, admitted that he was “a little skeptical” of the Nintendo Switch 2 — both a little before and a little after its launch. But since grabbing one in the latter stages of 2025, those worries seem to have largely dissipated.

“It has cemented itself as my go-to gaming handheld,” Hector told me. “While it doesn’t have the raw power or library breadth of my Asus ROG Xbox Ally X — a handheld gaming PC with access to Steam’s vast suite of games — the Switch 2 does still boast a solid selection of AAA ports, incredible first-party hits and superb indie darlings”.

He noted how some AAA third-party ports have varied in quality, although hit the mark more often than they miss, and most issues manifest themselves as simple “graphical performance hitches” rather than “anything majorly frustrating”. He even hailed the Switch 2’s value for money, emphasizing that “At $449.99 / £395.99 it’s much more affordable than any worthwhile PC handheld, and even after its upcoming price hike to $499.99 it’ll still be a solid pickup”.

Here’s what our audience has to say

(Image credit: Future)

We’ve heard a range of views so far, albeit generally positive ones. It feels as if the general consensus is that the Nintendo Switch 2 has been an overall success, with a strong start in terms of sales and a commendable library to match. But I was most excited to hear from were you, our audience. So, I asked, and you answered: here’s whether you considered the Switch 2 to be a hit or a flop.

I asked our audience about their feelings on the Switch 2 across multiple platforms. With our poll here on the TechRadar website and over on WhatsApp, users were given four choices: 'It’s a hit'; 'it’s pretty good'; 'it’s a little disappointing'; and 'it’s a flop'. We got 892 votes, and the breakdown was as follows.

Is the Nintendo Switch 2 a hit or a flop? Main poll results

Response

Votes (raw numbers)

Votes (as % of total)

It’s a hit

224

25.1%

It’s pretty good

197

22.1%

It’s a little disappointing

378

42.4%

It’s a flop

93

10.4%

Over on YouTube, we wanted to try a more direct approach and gave our audience only two options: hit or flop. We received 446 votes (at the time of writing), with 61% selecting ‘hit’, and 39% going with ‘flop’.

But what do these results actually tell us? At a glance, the picture seems pretty divided. Across all of our polls on our website, WhatsApp, and YouTube, we received 1,338 responses. Of those, 693 (51.8%) were generally positive on the Switch 2 (respondents called it ‘a hit’ or ‘pretty good’), whereas 645 (48.2%) were generally more negative (respondents either selected ‘it’s a little disappointing’ or ‘it’s a flop’).

Over on our Facebook page, the reasons for such division became clear, with a wide range of differing opinions floating around.

Posted by TechRadar on 

Of course, the very meaning of ‘hit or flop’ in itself can be interpreted in a number of ways. One commenter, Andreas Carmblad, stated that “hit or flop is reflected in the sales figures,” suggesting that Nintendo’s new console has been a success so far.

Others were more focused on the quality of the system’s software lineup, with most talking up the first-party line-up — though one commenter described the current set of exclusives as “woeful,” adding “hopefully a few big releases can turn it around [like] OoT and a new 3D Mario game”.

Elsewhere, commenters expressed disappointment over the console’s battery life in handheld mode — understandable given that it can run flat in around 2 hours with more demanding games.

However, many considered the new hardware changes to be a hit, with Tim McDougall saying “It's an improvement in almost every way [over the original Switch] and it's now much closer in performance to the current gen home consoles. It's 99% backwards compatible with the first Switch, with many performance benefits. I'd say it's a success”.

I was slightly surprised to see so many members of our poll select ‘slightly’ disappointed in our poll, and I expect that this comes down to a sentiment that the console is still a few games short of being a true must-have for all gamers. However, with Zelda and Pokémon games releasing soon, a lot of opinions could be swayed — and I suspect a blockbuster Mario title would only seal the deal.

What I was pleased to see, however, is that very few members of our audience (10.4% in our main poll) consider the Switch 2 to be an outright flop. After all, the sales speak for themselves, and there have been a lot of very well received exclusives early in the system’s lifecycle.

Some personal thoughts

(Image credit: Future)

This brings me onto my personal thoughts. I pre-ordered the Nintendo Switch 2, and my expectations were high for the new system. Although I loved the original Switch’s library and appreciated its flexibility, the truth is, I actually didn’t love it all that much. For me, quality often felt overly compromised in handheld mode, with a lot of intensive titles struggling to reach up to 60fps. But the Switch 2 changed everything.

Now, I can enjoy titles in full HD at 60fps (and sometimes up to 120fps) in handheld mode, and I feel like the gap in quality when playing on the go — rather than in front of the TV — has shortened. What’s more, the Switch 2’s Handheld Mode Boost means that I can enjoy my original Switch games as if I was playing them with my system docked — a truly fantastic feature.

Then there’s the games. Controversially, I consider Mario Kart World to be the series’ best entry since the Wii generation, with a return to the true chaos and zaniness that made the games great in the first place — with knockout mode and the bizarre cast of characters being highlights for me. I’ve also had a blast with DK and Pokémon Pokopia, have spent countless hours racing in Kirby Air Riders, and exploring in Yoshi and the Mysterious Book.

The Switch 2 has also managed to do what the original model never could for me, in that I now often choose Nintendo for third party experiences. The brilliant combination of portability and higher fidelity visuals has made grinding in Dragon Quest I & II HD-2D Remake or playing detective in Raidou Remastered: The Mystery of the Soulless Army feel free of compromise.

Pair that with impressive sales performance, more convenient magnetic Joy-Cons, and even some pretty impressive virtual surround sound processing, and the Switch 2, in my eyes, is a sure-fire hit.

Yes, I share many users’ battery life gripes, and I personally believe that some of the first party games are far too pricey — I mean, $79.99 / £74.99 / AU$119.95 for a physical copy of Mario Kart World? Really? But even with incoming price hikes, I’d consider Nintendo’s latest hardware to offer plenty of bang for your buck, and although I’d love to get Super Mario Odyssey 2 within the next year or so, I’m perfectly satisfied with the current, and upcoming crop of titles at this stage.

During the first wave of AI adoption, much of that cost was effectively hidden from customers. AI came wrapped in subsidized pricing, generous allowances and a relentless focus on driving usage. The message was simple: use more AI.

In some organizations, usage itself has become the goal. The rise of concepts like "tokenmaxxing" took this to an extreme, celebrating volume over value and falsely equating outputs with outcomes.

But while tokenmaxxing may be a questionable habit that’s been widely exposed, it is not the biggest problem facing enterprise AI.

The bigger issue is the hidden token tax that comes with their use of gen AI and agentic AI capabilities in everyday operations.

The token tax is kicking in

Enterprises are already beginning to see the impact. Uber reportedly exhausted its planned 2026 AI budget by April, just four months into the year, after rapid adoption of AI coding tools across its engineering organization.

Amazon reportedly shut down an internal AI-usage leaderboard after concerns that it encouraged “tokenmaxxing,” with executives urging employees not to use AI merely to increase usage metrics.

As AI moves from experimentation to production, organizations are discovering that the economics of scale can look very different from the economics of experimentation.

Tokenmaxxing may encourage organizations to consume more AI, but the token tax is the bill that eventually arrives. And for many enterprises, that bill is proving far larger than expected.

Why is this happening?

On the surface, it seems counterintuitive. Per-token pricing continues to fall, and model providers regularly announce cheaper rates. Yet with enterprise AI bills continuing to rise, the reason lies in how modern agentic systems actually work.

The visible output you receive is only a small part of what is happening behind the scenes. Before generating an answer, an AI agent may interpret the request, decide which tools to use, retrieve data, evaluate results, and loop, calling tools repeatedly until the task is completed or the agent determines it is stuck.

Think of it as an agent having an inner monologue: interpreting the request, planning, calling tools, checking results, and deciding what to do next. Each step may trigger additional model calls and may carry forward more context, so the visible answer can represent only a fraction of the total tokens consumed.

So, while the cost per token is dropping, the number of tokens required to complete a task is often increasing dramatically.

Goldman Sachs Research estimates a 24-fold increase in token consumption by 2030, reaching around 120 quadrillion tokens per month as consumers and enterprises adopt agentic technology.

With this, organizations may believe they are benefiting from lower pricing while their overall costs continue to rise. And the issue is not just cost; it is also predictability, and the lack of a clear link between token usage and outcomes.

This is becoming one of the biggest economic challenges facing enterprise AI, and it is only beginning to be discussed. The economics of agentic AI are making it increasingly expensive to run agents at scale.

What is the token tax?

We position the token tax as the hidden cost organizations incur when AI systems repeatedly consume expensive run-time agentic resources to perform work that could have been designed once and reused many times.

Unlike traditional business software, where the cost of execution is largely fixed, many agentic AI systems effectively rethink the same process every time they run. The more complex the workflow, the higher the tax. Many repeatable enterprise tasks do not require, or even allow for open-ended run-time reasoning.

This creates a disconnect between activity and value. Organizations may be consuming millions of tokens, but that does not necessarily translate into better outcomes. In many cases, it simply means paying repeatedly for the same agentic planning process.

Are we using agents in the right place?

Run-time agents are valuable when solving new, unique and underspecified problems, designing workflows, or exploring options. But using expensive reasoning to repeatedly execute the same business process introduces not just cost but also unpredictability. If you ask an agent to re-reason the same question 100 times, you may get 100 different answers.

To compare this to something in the real world, it's a bit like paying a five-star gourmet chef to invent a recipe every time a new order for a meal comes in. The smarter approach is to use agentic AI once to design the optimal workflow, and then use a lighter-weight AI to select the right workflow that executes consistently.

In other words, use the five-star chef's creativity and expensive brain once a season to come up with a new menu and recipes. Then use skillful but much cheaper chefs to prepare the meal following the recipe that has already been designed.

Shift agentic AI left from run-time to design time

This is where the distinction between design-time and run-time becomes critical. Agents can be very useful at design time, where creativity, exploration, and problem-solving create lasting value.

Run-time execution is different. Here, predictability, consistency, governance and cost efficiency matter most. Run-time agents should only be used selectively, workflows should be used for deterministic, repeatable and governed processes.

By using agentic AI to design processes up front, organizations can dramatically reduce the token tax associated with run-time execution while improving reliability.

Sustainable AI is not about eliminating agents, but about being deliberate about where agents deliver value.

The next phase of enterprise AI

This next chapter will be defined less by impressive demos and more by economic discipline. Organizations will need predictable outcomes, predictable costs and a strategy for reducing the token tax embedded within agentic systems. The winners will not necessarily be the organizations that use the most AI. They will be the ones that generate the most business value from every token consumed.

The companies that address this challenge early by optimizing token consumption and architecting for design-time intelligence and run-time efficiency will not just save money, but will build AI systems that are easier to trust, easier to govern, and easier to scale.

As AI moves from experimentation to enterprise reality, the organizations that minimize their token tax while maximizing business outcomes will have a significant competitive advantage.

We've featured the best IT automation software.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

The conversation about AI and shopping is happening in the wrong place.

Everyone wants to know whether agents will browse for us, compare prices for us and, eventually, buy for us without asking. It's a fair question. But it’s not the one that matters right now.

The more consequential shift is happening somewhere far less visible: inside payment networks, authorization protocols and the systems that decide whether software is allowed to spend money on our behalf.

The technical capability for an AI agent to complete a purchase has existed for some time. What has been missing is the infrastructure that allows businesses and consumers to trust those transactions: confirming an agent had permission to act, ensuring it stayed within agreed boundaries, and creating a verifiable record if something goes wrong.

Over the past few months, that infrastructure has started to emerge. The biggest moves in this space haven't come from AI labs building increasingly showy assistants. They've come from the companies that move money.

At its annual conference, for example, Stripe used the opportunity to introduce wallets that agents can spend from, alongside a partnership letting businesses sell directly inside AI search and chat environments.

Visa introduced an early protocol to help merchants tell a legitimate AI agent apart from a bot. Mastercard announced its own framework for registering and authenticating agents before a transaction is allowed to proceed. Agents are already showing up at volume. What's been missing is the infrastructure to handle what happens next.

The limitation was never autonomy. It was authorization.

Adobe research from early this year shows that AI traffic to US retail sites grew 393% YoY in the first quarter, with AI-referred visitors converting 42% better than non-AI traffic. Just a year before, that same traffic was converting 38% below standard channels.

That’s why the language from the payments industry has shifted so noticeably toward authorization, intent and trust. Mastercard's own leadership has made things explicit: how do you distinguish a legitimate agent from a malicious one? How do you confirm the consumer really authorized the purchase? How do you verify that the agent did what it was told?

Those aren't AI questions. They're identity and trust questions that just happen to involve AI.

Whoever defines the boundary captures the value

What's notable about the recent announcements is how consistent the underlying logic is across companies that otherwise compete directly. Visa's protocol and Mastercard's framework work the same way in principle: register the agent, verify intent and pass credentials only once trust is established.

Stripe's approach, issuing single-use payment credentials per task rather than exposing a customer's card details to an agent, solves the same problem from a different angle.

The protocols may look like back-office plumbing. Functionally, they're architecture for autonomous commerce. Every time a payments provider decides what counts as a verified agent, what data has to be passed to prove intent or how disputes get resolved, it's writing rules that shape who gets to participate and on what terms.

A consumer can be persuaded by an AI assistant to want something, but if the transaction can only execute through a specific track, with specific verification steps, then influence over the purchase decision and control over the purchase itself become two separate things. The company that captures the second captures the economics, regardless of who captured the first.

For merchants, this creates a concrete operational problem. If a transaction gets disputed, can the business prove what was authorized, by whom and under what constraints? These are the exact questions Visa, Mastercard and Stripe are quickly trying to answer; whoever answers them first effectively writes the rulebook everyone else follows.

The race that's already started

Autonomous shopping is imminent, and in some categories it’ll come faster than in others. Routine reordering and B2B procurement are likely to happen first. Other more considered, emotionally fueled purchases will take longer; trust has to be earned. Payment readiness is only part of it, however.

The commerce stack underneath, covering product data, pricing, inventory and checkout, needs to be structured and accessible enough for agents to actually operate it. Businesses that haven't addressed that layer will find the payments question is the least of their problems.

The infrastructure being built right now by payment providers won't just process agent-driven transactions. It will determine which businesses are visible to agents in the first place, which transactions are trusted by default and which get pushed into friction and manual review. The real battle isn’t over autonomy. It’s over who owns the infrastructure of trust.

We've featured the best ecommerce platform.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

At TechRadar, we test dozens of gadgets each month. We've reviewed them all; TVs and tablets, smartwatches and speakers, home hubs and hair stylers, monitors and mice, cameras and coffee machines. Why? So we know exactly what's worth buying and what you should skip. We want to be able to recommend exactly the right tech to exactly the right person, no matter their budget.

When we're testing so many products, it can be tricky to find ways to help the standouts really shine. So every month, we round up just the very best gadgets from each month for you to browse. To qualify for the Reviews Recap, a product needs to score 4.5 or 5 stars in our fiendish tests. This showcase is just for the best of the best.

To keep things simple, we've also narrowed the remit to just physical products. Although we also test tons of games and plenty of software, you won't find those reviews included. This is strictly gadgets and gizmos.

Scroll down to browse our very favorite products of each month.