Fight offline with friends in new 'Star Wars Battlefront' mode

The 'Skirmish' game-type makes bot matches of Walker Assault and Fighter Squadron on July 20th.

With the Battlefield 1 closed alpha raging on and the full game launching in October you might think that developer DICE is forgetting about its other shooter, Star Wars Battlefront. That's not the case. Come July 20th, the game will have a new offline gametype dubbed "Skirmish." A post on the EA Star Wars site says that Skirmish is playable against bots, either solo or with a co-op partner in Walker Assault and Fighter Squadron modes.

The free update is welcome, of course, but I'm not sure how many people still playing this are jonesing for a new AI-based bot mode. Or if they've abandoned the game, if this could win them back. This is a problem of publisher Electronic Arts' own making, though. The last time EA mentioned the Death Star expansion pack we had a vague "fall 2016" launch date, but that was it. Now the fog has cleared a bit and we know that it's coming out in September. Next month, EA will probably give us an exact date. It's frustrating, but that's unfortunately how this stuff tends to go. The post goes on to say that the pack will feature ground-and-space based maps (fingers crossed for a trench run gametype a la Walker Assault's Battle of Hoth reenactment), new weapons and a pair of shiny heroes. Specifically, "one larger-than-life character we know you've been patiently waiting for." Who could that be, hmm?

Thanks.......

Warner Bros. paid YouTubers for positive game reviews

It apparently paid PewDiePie and other YouTubers for good reviews of 'Shadow of Mordor.'

Warner Bros. has settled an FTC complaint accusing the company of paying YouTubers "hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars" to make positive review videos for Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor. FTC filed the complaint back in 2014, after the studio ran an online marketing campaign for the game. According to the the commission, Warner Bros. required (PDF) the online influencers they hired to make a video that "promote[s] positive sentiment about" Shadow of Mordor. That video should "not show bugs or glitches that may exist" and should "not communicate negative sentiment" about Warner Bros. These influencers also had to promote their videos on Facebook and Twitter. The commission didn't release a list of the YouTubers the studio paid, but it did name PewDiePie as one of them. Since those influencers received payment for videos praising the game, their creations are classified as sponsored content.

/

That wouldn't have been a problem if they disclosed it, but the FTC says the company didn't require them to do so within the video itself. Warner Bros. only instructed them to place disclosures in their videos' description boxed, and most of the time, you can only see the entirety of what's written in there by clicking "Show More." In PewDiePie's case, you'll see a line that says "This video was sponsored by Warner Brother" when you view the video's whole description. Some of the reviewers didn't even say that their videos were sponsored, only that they received a free copy of the game. In all, the paid reviews raked in 5.5 million views, 3.7 million of which came from PewDiePie, who has over 46 million subscribers.
It's worth noting that Shadow of Mordor was well-received and won eight out of the nine DICE awards it was nominated for. Warner Bros. probably didn't even need to pay people to get good reviews. If you're wondering what kind of penalty the company got, well, let's just say it got off real easy. The commission only wants the studio to make sure the influencers it hires clearly and conspicuously disclose that they received payment from Warner Bros in the future. It also has to review those videos for compliance and withhold payment if they don't contain the proper disclosure stating their status as sponsored content.

thanks................

NVIDIA's GTX 1070 is a mid-range GPU that feels high-end

NVIDIA's GTX 1070 It's more affordable than the flagship GTX 1080, and nearly as powerful.

As impressive as NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 1080 GPU is, its high price of $599 is tough to stomach for even the most dedicated gamers. That's where the mid-range GTX 1070 comes in: It's almost as fast as its more powerful sibling, but it starts at a more reasonable $379. That's still a hefty chunk of change, but for the money it can tackle pretty much every game today (and likely for the next year or two) without breaking much of a sweat. That's not too shabby for a mid-range video card.

Due to travel (Computex was quite the trip) as well as limited supply from NVIDIA, it's admittedly taken me a while to put the GTX 1070 through its paces. But now that I've had some time with it, I can say without a doubt that the 1070 is an intriguing GPU. Even NVIDIA admits that among this generation of cars, this is the one most consumers will likely end up going for. Rounding out the lineup, the company also announced the lower-end GTX 1060 this week, which is quite the bargain at $249. The GTX 1070 is NVIDIA's second card based on its 16 nanometer Pascal architecture, and it packs in 8GB of GDDR5 RAM and clock speeds between 1.5GHz and 1.7GHz. The company claims it pumps out 6.5 teraflops worth of computing power, compared with the 1080's nine teraflops.
I tested the slightly pricier $449 Founders Edition of the card, which sports the same elaborate metallic heatsink design as the 1080 Founders version. It has three DisplayPort connections, one HDMI port, one DVI port and is powered by a single eight-pin connector. Let's get to what you're really here for: benchmarks! Not surprisingly, the GTX 1070 sits right between AMD's $240 Radeon RX480 8GB card and the GTX 1080 in terms of performance on my rig (a 4GHz Core i7-4790K CPU, 16GB of 2400Mz DDR3 RAM and a 512GB Crucial MX100 SSD on a ASUS Z97-A motherboard). But it also consistently bests the Radeon R9 Fury X, which was AMD's flagship card from last year. (Unfortunately, I didn't have a GTX 970 or 980 Ti to benchmark.) Rather than pining for 60 fps 4K performance, I've settled on 1440p (2,560 by 1,440 pixels) as my ideal gaming resolution.

It's noticeably sharper than 1080p, and it's easy to get high frame rates even with every graphical nicety imaginable turned on. With the GTX 1070, I consistently reached 60 fps with ultra settings (which will still look pretty great on a 4K display). Of course, it also had no trouble scoring well in 1080p benchmarks, but that's no surprise. If you're getting a new GPU today, you're better off aiming for 1,440p performance.
       

 Given that AMD's cheaper RX 480 had no trouble with VR, I didn't expect any hiccups with the GTX 1070. Indeed, it didn't disappoint.

	3DMark	3DMark 11
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070	Standard 13,918/ Extreme 7,703/ Ultra 4,110	X7,778
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080	Standard 15,859/ Extreme 9,316/ Ultra 5,021	X9,423
AMD R9 Fury X	Standard 13,337/ Extreme 7,249/ Ultra 3,899	X,6457
AMD Radeon RX 480	Standard 10,279/ Extreme 5,146/ Ultra 2,688	X4,588

Dogfighting in Eve: Valkyrie was fast-paced and didn't show any sign of slowdown, and exploring alien environments in Oculus' Farlands felt as immersive as ever. In fact, I didn't notice any performance difference from the GTX 1080 with VR. When the GTX 1070 was announced, it seemed like the ideal affordable choice for PC gaming. Since then, though, we've seen the $200 AMD RX 480 debut, and NVIDIA announced the GTX 1060, a $249 option of its own. So where does that leave the 1070? Based on what I've seen so far, it's still a better option than the RX 480 and 1060 if you want to play at 1440p, or simply want a GPU that can handle next year's games. And, of course, you've also got the option of picking up another GTX 1070 to run in SLI mode in a year or so, as well as overclocking to get some extra performance free. It's hard to call a $379 video card affordable, but when you're comparing it to a $599-and-up card, it seems a lot more palatable. And when you put it in context, as a GPU that trounces the cream of the crop from last year, the GTX 1070 is undeniably a great value.

Pokemon go adds billions to Nintendo's market value

Pokémon Go is the latest hotness in mobile gaming and Nintendo is basking in its glow -- to the tune of $7.5 billion in additional market value. Nintendo stock closed up 25 percent on Monday, and by the end of last week, when Pokémon Go hit mobile devices across the US, Australia and New Zealand, the company's stock was already up 9 percent.

Nintendo added $7.5 billion to its market value on Friday and Monday alone, Reuters reports. Nintendo didn't directly develop or publish Pokémon Go, but it holds a large stake in the series' licensor, The Pokémon Company. Pokémon Go was developed and published by Niantic Labs, Google's former AR division that was responsible for the Ingress mobile game. Nintendo and Google invested an estimated $30 million in Niantic while it was working on Pokémon Go.

The stock boost is great news for Nintendo, which has been struggling to save face and money since 2011.Its living room console, the Wii U, hit shelves in November 2012 and it didn't sell nearly as well as the company expected or needed it to. Nintendo executives predicted they would move nearly 100 million Wii U consoles, but they've sold just 13 million since 2012. Nintendo lost money annually between fiscal years 2011 and 2014, largely banking on legacy titles like Mario, Animal Crossing and Super Smash Bros. Of course, market value doesn't translate directly to profit for Nintendo, but rising stock is a sign that investors still believe in the house that Mario built. Nintendo will need all the support it can get ahead of its next console launch, which we expect in March 2017. The Wall Street Journal reports that Pokémon Go will hit Europe, Japan and other Asian nations within a few days, citing people with knowledge of internal plans.