-
Why Clair Obscur Lost Its Indie Game Award and Did They Deserve It?
Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 just became the latest flashpoint in the games industry’s messy debate over generative AI. After winning Game of the Year and Best Debut Game at the Indie Game Awards, the honors were rescinded when the awards body said the game had included AI-generated background assets at launch, even though those assets were later removed in a patch. The issue is not whether studios should be transparent about their tools. They should. The question is whether it is fair, or even useful, to erase a game’s recognition after the fact when the reported AI use was limited, quickly corrected, and not representative of the final work that players and judges actually praised.
What happened: a short timeline
At the Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 launch, players and dataminers noticed a small number of background textures that appeared to be AI-generated. These assets were not central character art, environments, or story content, but minor background elements such as posters and set dressing. Within days of release, Sandfall Interactive patched the game to replace those assets with custom, human-made artwork.
Despite the quick fix, the issue resurfaced months later after Expedition 33 won Game of the Year and Best Debut Game at the Indie Game Awards. The awards body pointed to its eligibility rules and the studio’s submission disclosures, stating that any use of generative AI during production disqualified the game from consideration, even if the assets were removed before most players encountered them.
As a result, both awards were retroactively rescinded and reassigned to the next highest-ranked nominees. The decision reignited scrutiny of earlier comments from Sandfall Interactive acknowledging limited AI use during development, and it quickly became a lightning rod in a broader industry argument about where, how, and whether AI tools should be permitted in game creation at all.
What the Indie Game Awards policy is trying to do
The Indie Game Awards position on generative AI is rooted in a set of concerns that many developers and artists broadly share. At its core, the policy is meant to protect creative labor, discourage the use of tools trained on unlicensed material, and ensure that awards for art, narrative, and direction reflect human authorship rather than automated generation. In principle, those goals are reasonable, especially in an indie space where budgets are smaller and individual creative contributions are more visible.
A strict rule also offers clarity. By drawing a hard line against generative AI use, the awards body avoids subjective debates about how much AI is “too much” and eliminates the need to audit pipelines or evaluate intent. From an administrative standpoint, a zero-tolerance policy is easier to enforce than a nuanced one, and it signals alignment with creators who fear being displaced or devalued by automation.
Where this approach begins to strain, however, is in how broadly the rule is framed. Treating all generative AI use as equivalent, regardless of purpose, scope, or whether the output ships in the final product, collapses very different practices into a single disqualifying category. Placeholder assets, internal prototyping, and final, player-facing content are all swept together, even though they carry very different creative and ethical implications. This tension between ethical intent and practical application sits at the heart of the Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 controversy and sets the stage for why many view the outcome as fundamentally unfair.
Why stripping the awards is not fair in this case
The problem with the Indie Game Awards’ decision is not the existence of a rule against generative AI, but how that rule was applied. In the case of Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, the penalty was total and retroactive, despite the reported AI use being limited in scope, removed shortly after launch, and unrelated to the elements for which the game was actually celebrated. Awards for narrative, direction, performance, and overall excellence were effectively nullified because of background assets that did not define the finished experience.
Fair enforcement requires proportionality. A distinction matters between AI used to generate core creative content and AI used as a temporary development aid. Placeholder textures and background references, later replaced with original artwork, are not equivalent to outsourcing a game’s art direction, writing, or music to a model. Collapsing those practices into the same category assumes that all AI involvement contributes equally to a game’s creative outcome, which is simply not how development works in practice.
There is also a timing issue that the ruling fails to meaningfully address. The version of Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 that won awards, and the version most players experienced, did not contain the AI-generated assets in question. Judging the final product based on a briefly shipped, already-corrected element shifts the awards away from evaluating the work as presented and toward policing the entire production process after the fact. That approach may satisfy a rigid policy, but it undermines the stated purpose of awards, which is to recognize the quality and impact of completed games.
Finally, the outcome risks setting an unworkable precedent. If any use of AI at any point in development is grounds for disqualification, regardless of intent, scale, or final inclusion, then a growing share of modern games will become ineligible by default. The result is not cleaner standards, but a chilling effect that discourages transparency, incentivizes silence, and replaces nuanced judgment with blanket exclusion. In that context, stripping Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 of its awards looks less like an ethical stand and more like an overcorrection that punishes a strong final work for a narrow and already-remedied decision made earlier in development.
The transparency question, and why it still does not justify the outcome
Supporters of the Indie Game Awards’ decision often point to one specific issue: disclosure. The awards body has stated that Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 was submitted under the understanding that no generative AI was used in development, and that later confirmation of limited AI use invalidated that submission. On a procedural level, that argument carries weight. Awards programs are entitled to set eligibility criteria, and accurate disclosure is a reasonable expectation.
However, even if one accepts that a disclosure failure occurred, the punishment still does not fit the offense. Transparency violations and creative merit are not the same thing. Treating them as interchangeable allows a compliance issue to retroactively erase recognition for narrative quality, direction, performances, and overall execution, areas that were not meaningfully affected by the disputed assets. In most competitive or professional contexts, a disclosure error leads to corrective measures, clarifications, or penalties proportionate to the impact, not a wholesale invalidation of outcomes unrelated to the infraction.
There is also an important practical consideration. The current framing leaves no room for good-faith nuance. A studio can be transparent, patch out questionable content quickly, and still be punished more severely than one that never discloses anything at all. That creates a perverse incentive structure where silence becomes safer than honesty. If awards bodies want disclosure, they must pair it with policies that differentiate between minor, corrected issues and substantive violations that materially shape a finished product.
More broadly, this approach risks collapsing a complex discussion about AI into a binary moral test. Development tools, prototyping methods, and final shipped assets are all treated as morally equivalent, even though they clearly are not. The result is not clearer standards, but a rule so narrow and absolute that it becomes detached from how games are actually made. In that light, the stripping of Clair Obscur: Expedition 33’s awards reads less like principled enforcement and more like a rigid response to a topic the industry is still struggling to define.
What a better AI policy would look like
If awards bodies want to take a firm ethical stance on generative AI, the solution is not blanket disqualification, but clearer definitions and proportionate enforcement. The current controversy exists largely because “AI use” is treated as a single, undifferentiated act, when in reality it spans everything from internal prototyping to fully generated, player-facing content. A workable policy has to acknowledge those differences.
A more credible framework would start with mandatory disclosure, paired with precise language. Studios should be required to state whether generative AI was used, where it was used, and whether any AI-generated material appears in the final, shipped product. That information alone would allow juries and audiences to make informed judgments without collapsing every case into the same outcome.
From there, eligibility should be tiered rather than absolute. For example, games that use AI only for internal references or placeholder assets that are fully removed before judging should not be treated the same as games that ship with AI-generated art, writing, or audio. Likewise, limited use in non-creative areas should not automatically disqualify a title from awards that recognize narrative, performance, or direction. Ethics policies should target material impact, not simply the presence of a tool somewhere in the pipeline.
Finally, enforcement should follow a graduated response. Minor or corrected issues could require public clarification or amended disclosures. More serious or deceptive cases could result in category-specific disqualification. Full rescission should be reserved for situations where AI use clearly undermines the creative achievements being recognized or where there is evidence of deliberate misrepresentation. This approach preserves ethical standards while avoiding outcomes that feel arbitrary or punitive.
Handled this way, awards would still send a message about responsible development practices without discouraging transparency or punishing teams for limited, non-material decisions made during production. More importantly, they would keep the focus where it belongs: on evaluating the quality and impact of the finished work, rather than reducing complex creative processes to a single, inflexible rule.
Conclusion: standards matter, but so does fairness
The backlash surrounding Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 is not really about whether generative AI should have limits in game development. That debate is necessary, and it is not going away. What this case exposes is how easily well-intentioned rules can drift into overreach when they are applied without proportionality or context. Stripping a game of its awards after the fact, based on limited and already-corrected use of AI that did not define the final experience, does little to advance ethical clarity.
Awards exist to recognize finished work. In this case, the finished version of Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 was widely praised for its narrative, direction, performances, and artistic cohesion, achievements that were not meaningfully tied to the disputed assets. Conflating a narrow compliance issue with creative merit undermines the credibility of the recognition process and shifts the focus away from what players and judges are actually meant to be evaluating.
If the industry wants transparency, it must also create policies that reward good-faith disclosure rather than punish it. Zero-tolerance rules that treat every use of AI as equally disqualifying will not stop unethical practices; they will simply encourage silence and selective enforcement. Clear definitions, tiered eligibility, and proportionate remedies offer a path forward that protects creative labor without turning awards into blunt instruments.
Ultimately, Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 should not be remembered as a cautionary tale about AI, but as a warning about how easily standards lose legitimacy when fairness is sacrificed for rigidity. The conversation around AI in games deserves nuance. Without it, even the strongest ethical positions risk collapsing under their own weight.
Recommended Products
Predator Triton 14 AI (RTX 5070)
Buy Now
Acer Nitro V 16S (RTX 5070) Buy Now
Predator Helios Neo 18 AI (RTX 5070 Ti)
Buy Now
-
Acer x Intel SFI Starter Packs Are Now Available on Google Classroom
Intel Skills for Innovation (Intel SFI) Starter Packs are now accessible directly through Google Classroom, giving teachers an easier way to deliver hands-on, technology-enabled learning. Educators can create and distribute assignments, organize class materials, and monitor student progress and submissions - all within the familiar Google Classroom ecosystem.
Developed through the Acer x Intel SFI partnership, these Starter Packs are free, ready-to-use teaching modules designed to support practical, skills-based learning. The three currently available Acer x Intel SFI Starter Packs (which you can read more about here) include Screen Sense, which focuses on digital wellbeing and responsible technology use; Optimize, Design, & Minimize, a mathematics-based module that introduces optimization and data-driven thinking; and Durability by Design, an engineering-focused lesson that explores product design, testing, and real-world problem solving.
By making these modules accessible through Google Classroom, teachers can integrate these free-to-use learning tools more seamlessly into their lesson plans - without adding any more complexity to classroom management.
What is Google Classroom?
For those unaware, Google Classroom itself is an online learning platform that helps teachers and students manage classes, assignments, and learning materials in one central location. Designed for in-person, remote, and hybrid classrooms, it simplifies how lessons are shared and completed.
Teachers can create assignments, distribute resources, collect student work, and provide feedback digitally, while students can easily access materials, track deadlines, and submit their work in a familiar, structured environment. Through integration with Google Workspace, files such as Docs, Slides, Sheets, and Drive resources can be attached and managed seamlessly within each class.
Getting Started with Intel SFI Starter Packs on Google Classroom
With Intel SFI Starter Packs now available directly in Google Classroom, hands-on learning can now be introduced the same as any classroom resource - all without changing how teachers already manage lessons, assignments, or materials. The Starter Packs sit alongside existing coursework, making them easy to assign, review, and track within a platform educators and students use every day.
For educators, this means guided, curriculum-ready activities can be integrated without additional software or complex preparation. For students, the Starter Packs are easier to access and complete within their regular class environment, supporting engagement while reducing technical friction.
To see how this works in practice, the step-by-step video below walks through how to access and use Acer x Intel SFI Starter Packs in Google Classroom:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmtiZEonJf8
Beyond ease of access, the Intel SFI Starter Packs are designed to spark hands-on, project-based learning across subjects. Teachers could use Screen Sense to have students analyze their own screen time data and develop strategies for healthier technology habits, apply Optimize, Design, & Minimize to a project where students design more efficient packaging using math and sustainability concepts, or introduce Durability by Design by challenging students to prototype and test a classroom object for strength and usability. And because these starter packs are now available on Google Classroom, they can be assigned like any other assignment - making it easy to experiment, adapt, and build interactive lessons within an existing syllabus.
To explore the Starter Packs in more detail and see how they can fit into your own lesson plans, visit the Acer x Intel SFI landing page and try out a module today.
Recommended Products
Acer Chromebook Plus 516
Buy Now
Acer Chromebook Spin 511
Buy Now
Acer Chromebook Spin 512
Buy Now
-
Acer Gaming Laptops That'll Carry You Through 2026
With 2026 on the horizon and GPU and RAM prices threatening to go through the roof, now’s the time to start sizing up new gaming laptops. Ah yes, there’s no time like the present, and thankfully we’ve taken most of the hard work out of finding a gaming laptop that will help you sail through 2026 and beyond. We’ve got five of the best gaming laptop deals for you, so read on, and hopefully you can find a device to take your gaming to new heights. First though, what’s the forecast for computer prices in 2026?
GPU and RAM inflation?
GPUs, or graphics processing units are the parts in a computer responsible for rendering visuals in games and accelerating demanding tasks such as video editing and AI workloads. GPUs do the heavy lifting in games, and right now they are in great demand for gaming and content creation, as well as ever-evolving AI workloads.
RAM, or memory pricing is cyclical, and there’s currently an upswing, reflecting tighter supply and stronger demand. High demand for memory in AI development and data centers, is also causing a scarcity of RAM worldwide.
Put simply, both GPUs and RAM are in great demand, while manufacturers (obviously) prioritize higher margin (AI) products, meaning higher prices all round. This in turn has reduced the supply of regular consumer components. On top of all that, global currencies, supply chains, and of course logistics are increasingly unstable, all leading to higher prices. Still curious? Here’s an in-depth article covering the GPU price inflation forecast in 2026.
Computers: forecast to get a lot more expensive in 2026
Before we hook you up with the best gaming laptop for next year and beyond, let’s decipher the true cause of these soon to soar prices. New generations of CPUs and GPUs will arrive in 2026 at higher starting price points, particularly at the performance end of the market. At the same time, AI-focused features are pushing baseline specifications upward, meaning today’s mid-range hardware increasingly becomes tomorrow’s entry level.
Rising manufacturing, energy, and compliance costs are also feeding into higher retail prices, while vendors continue to focus on higher-margin configurations. So while laptops have never been cheaper than in recent years, in 2026, there will be fewer genuinely affordable systems, coupled with a steady upward drift in what consumers can expect to pay for a decent gaming laptop.
Five of the best gaming laptops from Acer
1. Predator Triton 14 AI - PT14-52T-972D
First up, here’s a Triton for gamers seeking premium power in a carry-on friendly size. A Copilot+ PC, the Predator Triton 14 AI - PT14-52T-972D is available now for $2,499.99. This is a device built for gamers and creators who demand serious performance in a compact, premium design, with OLED clarity. Hardware wise, the Triton 14 features an Intel® Core™ Ultra 9 processor and an NVIDIA® GeForce RTX™ 5070 GPU. The Triton 14 AI delivers stellar gaming performance while remaining perfectly portable. The 14.5-inch WQXGA+ OLED touchscreen offers a sharp 16:10 aspect ratio, smooth 120 Hz refresh rate, and beyond vibrant visuals for gaming and creative work. 32 GB of LPDDR5X memory and a 1 TB SSD, is basically equivalent to gold dust in 2026.
2. Nitro V 16S - ANV16S-71-72KE
Slimline and looking fine, the Acer Nitro V 16S ANV16S-71-72KE is a 16-inch gaming fortress ready to conquer and create. Recently reduced from $1,469.99 to the festive price of $1,399.99, you’d better get the Nitro V 16S while you can. Powered by an Intel® Core™ 7 240H processor with a deca-core design and a base frequency of 2.50 GHz, the CPU is paired with an NVIDIA® GeForce RTX™ 5070 GPU for modern gaming performance. 16 GB of DDR5 SDRAM and a 1 TB SSD, deliver a solid combo of memory and fast storage. All of this on a 16-inch WQXGA (2560 x 1600) 16:10 ComfyView (Matte) IPS display with a smooth 180 Hz refresh rate for sharp, responsive visuals, what’s not to like?
3. Predator Helios Neo 18 AI - PHN18-72-902R
Jumping up a bracket to the Predator family, let’s see what the Neo 18 can throw into the mix. The Predator Helios Neo 18 AI Gaming Laptop - PHN18-72-902R is an 18-inch gaming galleon ready to sail the seas of gaming, currently priced at $2,849.99. Designed for gamers who demand maximum performance and screen real estate without stepping into full desktop mode, this laptop is powered by an Intel® Core™ Ultra 9 275HX processor and an NVIDIA® GeForce RTX™ 5070 Ti GPU. There’ll be no messing about with the Helios Neo 18 AI. This laptop is ready to handle demanding AAA titles and intensive workloads by the bucketload. The gargantuan 18-inch WQXGA display pairs a 16:10 aspect ratio with a lightning fast 250 Hz refresh rate for ultra-smooth, insanely immersive gameplay. Stacked with 64 GB of DDR5 memory and a 2 TB SSD, the Helios Neo 18 AI delivers desktop level gaming in laptop form.
4. Predator Helios Neo 16 AI Gaming Laptop - PHN16-73-979X
Staying strictly in the Predator family, our next super-powered gaming laptop is none but the Predator Helios Neo 16 AI Gaming Laptop - PHN16-73-979X. This laptop has recently undergone a hefty reduction from $2,649.99 to a mere $2,299.99. Under the hood, you’ll find an Intel® Core™ Ultra 9 275HX processor with a 24 core design and a base frequency of 2.70 GHz, paired with an NVIDIA® GeForce RTX™ 5070Ti GPU with 12 GB of dedicated memory. Fear not the spike in RAM prices, for this system is configured with a hefty 64 GB of DDR5 SDRAM and 2 TB SSD, providing ample memory and storage for all workloads. Let’s not omit the display! The Helios Neo 16 has a 16-inch WQXGA (2560 x 1600) 16:10 CineCrystal (Glare) display running at a respectable 240 Hz refresh rate. For speed, power and portability, you simply can’t go wrong with the Helios Neo 16.
5. Predator Helios 18 AI Gaming Laptop - PH18-73-99A8
Last, and certainly not least in our odyssey of Acer gaming laptops that’ll carry you through 2026, meet the Predator Helios 18 AI Gaming Laptop - PH18-73-99A8. This is Acer’s second most powerful laptop, reserved for the elite forces of the gaming world. First, the price: $6,999.99. Now that we’ve got that out of the way, let’s take a closer look. As you’d expect, this laptop has some serious specs for the pinnacle of gaming on-the-go. Powered by an Intel® Core™ Ultra 9 275HX processor and an NVIDIA® GeForce RTX™ 5090 GPU with 24 GB of dedicated memory, it’s designed to crush all games and tasks in its path. The expansive 18-inch WQUXGA display delivers sharp visuals with a 16:10 aspect ratio, while Windows 11 Pro adds productivity-grade features as expected. Stacked with 192 GB of DDR5 memory and 6 TB SSD, buy the Helios 18 AI you’ll be able to rent space out to your friends and neighbors.
Future-proof in 2026 and beyond
We hope you’ve enjoyed today’s article, and now have a clearer picture of the best gaming laptops to carry you through 2026. With GPU and RAM prices climbing and 2026 forecast to be a more expensive year for PC hardware, locking in a capable gaming laptop now is the best choice. From slim, portable machines built for gaming and creative tasks to desktop-class powerhouses, Acer’s laptop lineup covers every rung of the performance ladder. If you plan to play seriously in 2026 and beyond, acting sooner rather than later could save you money and hassle down the line. Head to the Acer store to discover the freshest deals as we head into 2026, and don’t forget that students get a 15% discount.
Recommended Products
Acer Nitro V 16S (RTX 5070)
Buy Now
Predator Helios Neo 16 AI (RTX 5070 Ti)
Buy Now
Predator Helios 18 AI (RTX 5090)
Buy Now
-
The Nemesis System: A Brilliant Idea Trapped by Patents
First introduced in Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor in 2014, the Nemesis System is one of the most ambitious gameplay innovations of the past decade. Developed by Monolith Productions, it transforms ordinary enemy encounters into evolving rivalries by giving enemies persistent identities, memories, and the ability to change based on how players interact with them. Orc captains remember past defeats, taunt you over previous humiliations, rise through ranks when they kill you, and sometimes even return from death bearing scars and grudges. What begins as a procedural villain generator quickly becomes a deeply personal, player-driven story engine, one that reached its full potential in Middle-earth: Shadow of War and left a lasting impression on players who experienced it.
How the Nemesis System Works
At its core, the Nemesis System functions as a dynamic storytelling engine that reacts to player behavior rather than following a fixed script. Instead of enemies existing as disposable NPCs, the system tracks encounters, outcomes, and patterns of interaction, then uses that data to shape future events.
Every notable enemy is procedurally generated with a name, appearance, voice, combat traits, strengths, weaknesses, and a distinct personality. More importantly, they remember you. If an enemy defeats you, escapes, is humiliated, or cheats death, that outcome is logged by the system and referenced in future encounters through dialogue, behavior changes, and even visual alterations such as scars, prosthetics, or altered armor.
The system also relies heavily on non-lethal outcomes to sustain long-term narratives. Enemies may flee, mock you instead of killing you, survive fatal blows, or ambush you later when you least expect it. Likewise, the player’s own deaths are treated as canonical events rather than failures, allowing rivals to grow stronger, gain promotions, and develop reputations based on how they defeated you.
All of this operates within a living hierarchy. Enemies exist in a structured chain of command, where captains can rise to power by killing the player or defeating rivals, and powerful leaders can fall through humiliation or betrayal. These power shifts often occur independently of the player through background missions, ensuring the world continues to evolve even when you are not directly involved.
What makes the Nemesis System especially effective is that it combines procedural generation with handcrafted content. While encounters are systemic and unpredictable, they are anchored by curated dialogue, animations, and personality archetypes that make individual rivals feel memorable. The result is a system that creates stories in real time, assembling them from player actions, enemy reactions, and emergent relationships rather than pre-written narrative beats.
Why Gamers Loved the Nemesis System
The Nemesis System resonated with players because it made their experiences feel genuinely personal in a way few single-player games ever had. Instead of delivering the same scripted moments to every player, it allowed unique stories to emerge organically from moment-to-moment gameplay. No two playthroughs were the same, and no two players ended up with the same rivals, allies, or outcomes.
One of its greatest strengths was emotional investment. Enemies were not just obstacles. They were characters with history. When an Orc killed you, mocked your failure, earned a promotion, and later ambushed you again with new scars and taunts, it created a powerful sense of rivalry. Revenge felt earned rather than scripted. Victory carried narrative weight because it resolved a relationship that had been built over hours of play.
Players also appreciated how naturally the system integrated storytelling into core mechanics. You did not have to make dialogue choices or follow branching narrative menus. Simply playing the game, fighting, fleeing, dying, or humiliating enemies, was enough to shape the story. This made the Nemesis System accessible to players who might normally ignore narrative-heavy RPGs, while still offering depth for those who cared about emergent storytelling.
Another reason for its popularity was how it blurred the line between single-player and multiplayer experiences. The system replicated the feeling of rivalry normally found in competitive games, where recurring opponents develop reputations and grudges over time. According to Monolith Productions, this sense of multiplayer-style relatedness was a core design goal, and it is something players consistently praised as fresh and memorable.
Ultimately, gamers loved the Nemesis System because it respected player agency. It did not tell players what their story was. It observed what they did and built meaning around those actions. That combination of systemic design, emotional payoff, and player-driven narrative is why the system is still discussed more than a decade later, despite appearing in only a handful of games.
Why the Nemesis System Is in Patent Hell, and How U.S. Gameplay Patents Work
The biggest reason the Nemesis System has not appeared widely across the industry is not technical complexity. It is legal ownership. Monolith Productions, under its parent company Warner Bros. Games, was granted a U.S. patent covering the core mechanics behind the Nemesis System. That patent does not protect a specific character or story. It protects a method of gameplay, specifically the idea of procedurally generated enemies who remember past encounters, evolve based on player interaction, and form persistent relationships within a hierarchy.
In the United States, game mechanics can be patented if they meet three criteria: they must be novel, non-obvious, and useful. Unlike copyright, which protects expression, patents protect systems and processes. Once approved by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the patent holder gains exclusive rights to that system for a fixed period, generally twenty years from filing.
This creates a chilling effect across the industry. Even if another studio builds a system that feels meaningfully different in tone or presentation, the risk of infringement remains if the underlying mechanics resemble the patented claims. For most developers, especially indie and mid-sized studios, the cost of defending a lawsuit is enough to stop experimentation before it begins. As a result, many teams avoid deep emergent enemy systems altogether rather than risk legal exposure.
Warner Bros. has technically been free to reuse the Nemesis System internally, but it has done so sparingly. Planned projects that were rumored to incorporate it never materialized in a visible way, and the system remained closely associated with the Middle-earth games rather than becoming a studio-wide pillar.
More recently, industry discussion has intensified due to reports that control of the Nemesis System patent now sits under Netflix’s games division following corporate asset transfers involving Warner-related properties. While the exact corporate structure is still being clarified publicly, what matters to developers is simple: the system remains locked behind exclusive ownership, with no clear, standardized licensing pathway available to outside studios.
This is why the Nemesis System is often described as being in “patent hell.” It is widely admired, broadly requested, and technically feasible to adapt, yet functionally unreachable for most of the industry due to legal risk rather than creative limitation.
If you are ready, the next section can cover whether the system could realistically be freed, including the current petition and what a developer-friendly licensing model could look like in practice.
Could the Nemesis System Be Freed Soon?
For the first time in years, there is a realistic conversation about the Nemesis System becoming accessible to the wider industry. This shift is driven by reports that control of the Nemesis System patent now sits with Netflix, following its future acquisition of Warner-related assets and expansion into game publishing.
This change in ownership matters because Netflix is not a traditional games publisher with a single franchise to protect. Its games strategy is still evolving, and its long-term value comes from growing an ecosystem rather than guarding one specific implementation. That creates an opportunity for a different approach to the patent.
Developers are not asking for the Nemesis System to be open sourced or stripped of protection. Instead, the current push focuses on something far more practical: a clear, affordable, and transparent licensing program. Under this model, Netflix would retain ownership of the patent while allowing studios of all sizes to legally build Nemesis-inspired systems without fear of litigation.
A community-led petition is already calling for exactly this kind of solution. The proposal argues that a standardized licensing framework would benefit everyone involved. Developers could finally experiment with emergent rival systems in genres like RPGs, strategy games, immersive sims, survival titles, and roguelikes. Netflix would gain licensing revenue, goodwill within the developer community, and long-term influence over how one of gaming’s most celebrated systems evolves.
Importantly, this petition does not demand immediate action or retroactive permission. It asks for dialogue, visibility, and a pathway forward. In an industry where innovation often stalls due to legal uncertainty, even a modest licensing program would represent a major step.
Whether the Nemesis System is freed depends entirely on Netflix’s willingness to treat the patent as a platform rather than a locked vault. If it chooses engagement over restriction, the system could finally move beyond a single franchise and become a foundational design tool for the next generation of games.
Next, we can close by looking at the long-term future of the Nemesis System and what kinds of games could benefit most if it is finally allowed to evolve beyond Middle-earth.
Final Thoughts
The Nemesis System remains one of the clearest examples of how systemic design can create stories that feel personal, reactive, and genuinely memorable. First introduced in Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor, and refined in Middle-earth: Shadow of War, it showed that enemies do not need scripted arcs to become compelling characters. They only need memory, consequence, and the ability to change.
Its absence from the wider industry has never been about lack of interest. Developers have been vocal for years about wanting similar systems, and players continue to cite the Nemesis System as one of the most distinctive mechanics of the last generation. The barrier has always been legal uncertainty, not creative hesitation.
With the patent now reportedly under the control of Netflix, there is a rare chance to reset that trajectory. A fair, transparent licensing model would not diminish the value of the patent. It would amplify it. It would allow one of gaming’s most celebrated ideas to evolve across genres, studios, and creative visions, rather than remain frozen in a single franchise.
Whether that happens is still an open question. But the renewed discussion, the active petition, and the continued admiration for the system all point to the same conclusion. The Nemesis System deserves more than to be remembered as a great idea locked away by circumstance. If given room to grow, it could still shape the future of how games tell stories, not through scripts, but through play itself.
Recommended Products
Acer Nitro 60 (RTX 5070)
Buy Now
Predator Helios 18 (RTX 5080)
Buy Now
Acer Nitro V 15 (RTX 5050)
Buy Now
-
10 Underrated Digital Nomad Destinations for 2026
If working remotely is on your wishlist for 2026, you’re in luck! This week, we are introducing 10 of the best digital nomad locations that aren’t overexposed or saturated. Some digital nomads work as they travel as part of a worldwide trip, or move to a new destination every few months with just a reliable laptop and a few belongings. However, some people are moving on from typical locations like Bali or Bangkok and exploring places that are less popular with fellow digital workers or tourists. From Europe to Africa and Asia, there’s sure to be a city to suit your digital nomad lifestyle.
1. Ljubljana, Slovenia
Located in the heart of Slovenia, Ljubljana is an exciting blend of German, Mediterranean, and Slovenian culture, with a medieval castle and fascinating museums. It has a stunning old town and beautiful parks, making it an ideal place for digital nomads to base themselves while working and exploring the sights. While Ljubljana is increasingly popular with tourists, the digital nomad community in this hidden gem is still relatively small. However, there are plenty of coworking spaces and cafes with stable WiFi, so you can get work done as you go. If this sounds like your next destination, Slovenia recently launched a 1-year digital nomad visa for non-EU/EEA nationals who work remotely or are self employed.
2. George Town, Malaysia
George Town is the vibrant city of the state of Penang, Malaysia. It is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and is located a few hours north of Kuala Lumpur. There are temples, museums, and mosques to explore, along with artsy streets and delicious cuisine. George Town is a great choice for digital nomads due to its low living costs, cozy accommodations, and comfortable coworking spaces.
The DE Rantau Nomad Pass lets digital nomads stay in Malaysia for 3 to 12 months, renewable for another year on top, with some income and eligibility requirements
3. Da Nang, Vietnam
Da Nang is a coastal city with sandy beaches, mouth-watering street food, and amazing scenery, making it a unique choice for digital nomads. While Da Nang is more on the tamer side in terms of nightlife, it offers beautiful mountains and sights like the Lady Buddha. Digital nomads can make affordable oceanfront apartments their home for a few months, explore the city and surrounding areas with excellent transportation options, and work from cute and comfortable cafes.
Although Vietnam does not currently offer a dedicated digital nomad visa, there are a range of visa options that could help make Da Nang your next destination.
4. Essaouira, Morocco
Situated on Morocco’s Atlantic coast, Essaouira is a charming North African port town with a lot for digital nomads to explore. Essaouira boasts Portuguese, French, and Berber architecture, while surfers and beach lovers can check out local beaches Cap Sim and Sidi Kaouki. It is located around 3 hours from the bustling city of Marrakech, offering digital nomads a more relaxed vibe, along with cafes and coworking spaces for working. Those looking for a digital nomad community might not favor Essaouira, however, as it is still an up-and-coming remote working location. Although there is currently no specific digital nomad visa for Morocco, there are other visa options available.
5. Mindelo (São Vicente), Cape Verde
Cape Verde is a popular tropical destination comprising ten islands located off the coast of Senegal in West Africa. It offers a unique blend of African and Portuguese influences. São Vicente is known for its lively music scene, vibrant nightlife, and delicious restaurants, and there are lively festivals to enjoy twice a year. Cape Verde is appealing to digital nomads because of its relaxed lifestyle, budget-friendly living costs, and year-round sunshine.
Cape Verde has offered a Remote Working program designed for digital nomads since 2021. It gives remote workers from various locations up to 6 months of living and working in Cape Verde with extensions available.
6. Valparaíso, Chile
Located around 70 miles (113 km) from Santiago, Valparaíso is Chile’s main port and is renowned for its artistic vibe and beautiful architecture. The city’s colorful streets are a must-see, while its 100-year-old funicular leads to incredible ocean and city views. Although internet speeds can vary, there are lots of cafes and places to work remotely in Valparaíso with reliable internet access.
Chile does not currently offer a specific digital nomad visa, however if you are considering it as your next destination, there are other visa options available.
7. Tbilisi, Georgia
Georgia is located between Eastern Europe and West Asia, and is home to a growing number of remote workers. Tbilisi is a great alternative to other cities like Lisbon for digital nomads, delivering your fix of beautiful architecture and unique cultural experiences on a budget. It has become somewhat of a digital nomad hotspot, and local cafes and coworking spaces offer stable internet connections to support this. If you are planning on staying for a while, digital workers can even open a bank account on arrival.
There are several digital nomad-friendly visa options for those considering Tbilisi as their next stop.
8. Mérida, Mexico
Mérida is the largest city in southern Mexico, and is known as the country’s cultural capital. It has a strong Mayan influence and a population of over 1 million people, with sources citing an expat community of around 10 thousand people, largely from the United States. Mérida is considered a strong digital nomad option thanks to its reliable internet and inexpensive living costs, however it is relatively quiet and it does not offer a party lifestyle. There are some coworking spaces located in the north of the city, and digital nomads can also check out local cafes as their office for the day. While Mexico does not offer a digital nomad visa, there is a 6-month tourist visa and temporary residency available.
9. Nairobi, Kenya
Known as the start-up and tech hub of East Africa, Kenya is an excellent choice for digital nomads looking for their next destination. The country’s capital, Nairobi, has a population of 5.76 million and is a bustling metropolis boasting wildlife, pulsing music clubs, and local shops and markets. Nairobi is home to coworking spaces like The Foundry Africa and Ikigai Nairobi and coffee shops that provide a productive environment for digital nomads working remotely.
Kenya has a Digital Nomad Visa that allows remote workers or freelancers to live and work in the country for up to a year.
10. Cáceres (Extremadura), Spain
Spanish cities like Bilbao, Palma, and Barcelona have previously featured in our list of digital nomad-friendly locations before, but let us now introduce Cáceres. With wonderful architecture and tasty tapas, Cáceres is a hidden gem that is bound to delight even the most traveled digital nomad. Bordering Portugal to the west and just a few hours from Madrid, Cáceres is a UNESCO World Heritage Site that is a prime location for digital nomads.
The regional government has launched a new initiative to attract remote workers, and has allocated a 2 million Euro (USD $2.34 million) budget for digital nomads, freelancers, and those who are self-employed. There are some administrative hoops to jump through first though, and there is also a Spanish Digital Nomad Visa available for non-EU citizens.
2026 digital nomad destinations: the takeaway
If 2026 is your year to travel, why not choose one of the lesser known digital nomad destinations we’ve covered here? From a chilled port vibe to bustling city life, there is something for everyone. Acer’s range of lightweight Acer Swift laptops might just be the perfect travel companion, while our bags and sleeves will help keep your device protected while on the move. Happy travels!
Recommended Products
Acer Swift X 14
Buy Now
Acer Swift 14 AI
Buy Now
Acer Barcelona Luggage 28 - Crystal Pink
Buy Now
-
Rescue Raiders in ARC Raiders: Who They Are and Why They Exist
At first glance, ARC Raiders looks like a familiar survival shooter built around risk, scarcity, and distrust. Every trip topside is dangerous, every encounter uncertain, and every other Raider a potential threat. The game actively encourages caution, misdirection, and decisive violence, because hesitation often means losing everything you brought with you. And yet, within that hostile framework, a small but growing group of players has chosen to play against expectation rather than against the rules. Known as the Rescue Raiders, they enter matches not to hunt other players, but to protect them, revive them, and, when possible, get everyone home alive.
Their existence feels almost paradoxical in a genre that rewards ambushes and punishes trust. But that paradox is precisely what makes the Rescue Raiders worth examining. They are not a developer-designed faction or an official system. They are a player-made response to the social pressures created by ARC Raiders itself, an example of how emergent behavior can reshape the experience of a PvPvE game from the inside.
Understanding ARC Raiders: PvPvE by design
ARC Raiders is built around a PvPvE structure that forces players to contend with two constant threats at once. On one side are the ARC, autonomous machines that dominate the surface and act as the game’s primary PvE challenge. On the other are fellow Raiders, human players with their own objectives, risk tolerance, and moral boundaries, or lack thereof. Loot routes, contracts, and extraction points push these groups into shared spaces, ensuring that player interaction is not optional, but inevitable.
Crucially, the game does very little to dictate how those interactions should play out. There are no hard alignment systems, reputation meters, or karma mechanics separating heroes from villains. A Raider who helps you one match can betray you the next, and the game treats both outcomes as equally valid. This design creates tension, but it also creates ambiguity. Every sound cue, silhouette, or voice line carries weight, because intent is never guaranteed.
That ambiguity is the foundation on which both the game’s best and worst moments are built. It enables thrilling standoffs, uneasy alliances, and last-second rescues, but it also opens the door to camping, fake-friendly tactics, and predatory behavior aimed at less combat-focused players. Understanding that design philosophy is essential to understanding why groups like the Rescue Raiders exist at all. They are not resisting the PvPvE nature of ARC Raiders. They are operating entirely within it, responding to its pressures in a way the game deliberately leaves open-ended.
The PvE vs PvP divide
While ARC Raiders does not formally separate its players, an informal divide has naturally formed. Some Raiders approach each deployment with a PvE mindset, prioritizing contracts, exploration, resource gathering, and survival against the ARC. For these players, combat with other Raiders is often a risk to be managed rather than a goal in itself. Avoidance, awareness, and efficient extraction matter more than kill counts.
Others lean heavily into the PvP side of the game. They study player movement patterns, control high-traffic zones, and treat each match as an opportunity to outplay or outgun other Raiders. From a mechanical standpoint, this approach is just as valid. ARC Raiders allows it, and in many cases rewards it. However, the overlap between these playstyles is where friction emerges. PvE-focused players tend to move predictably through objective areas and extraction points, making them easy targets for experienced PvP players willing to camp or ambush.
Over time, this imbalance has shaped the tone of many encounters. Being eliminated by another Raider is not inherently frustrating, but being repeatedly caught at extraction, deceived by fake-friendly behavior, or killed while reviving an ARC downed teammate can make the experience feel punitive rather than competitive. The result is a perception, especially among PvE-leaning players, that they are being hunted not for strategic advantage, but because they are simply easier prey.
The birth of the Rescue Raiders
The Rescue Raiders emerged directly from this growing tension. Rather than pushing for rule changes or a separate PvE mode, a subset of players chose to respond in-game by changing how they engaged with others. Organized through the r/RescueRaiders subreddit, the group formed around a shared philosophy: the surface did not have to be governed solely by kill-on-sight logic, even in a PvPvE environment.
Their approach was not to eliminate PvP, but to set boundaries around it. Rescue Raiders committed to never shooting first, to prioritizing revives and escorts over loot, and to intervening when encounters became one-sided or exploitative. In effect, they positioned themselves as a stabilizing presence, stepping in where the game’s systems intentionally remain neutral.
Importantly, the Rescue Raiders were conceived as a role-playing community, not an enforcement body. They do not claim authority over how others should play, nor do they attempt to punish behavior outside their own engagements. Their rules exist to govern their own actions and representation, not to impose a moral hierarchy on the wider player base. In a game that thrives on uncertainty, the Rescue Raiders chose to make their intentions unmistakably clear, even when doing so puts them at a disadvantage.
What do Rescue Raiders actually do in-game?
In practice, being a Rescue Raider is less about passive friendliness and more about deliberate, often risky decision-making. Rescue Raiders deploy with the expectation that they may enter active firefights, unstable situations, or ambiguous encounters where intent is unclear. Their priority in those moments is not to secure kills or loot, but to stabilize the situation. This typically means reviving downed Raiders regardless of affiliation, providing cover during ARC engagements, and escorting injured or under-geared players toward safer routes or extraction points.
Rescue Raiders will also place themselves between vulnerable players and known danger zones, particularly around extractions or high-traffic objectives where camping is common. Communication is central to how they operate. Hostile intent is announced clearly when PvP is unavoidable, and many Rescue Raiders rely on in-game cues such as glow sticks or voice lines to signal their role before an encounter escalates. Even after a firefight, revives are encouraged whenever possible, with the goal of restoring agency rather than removing players from the match.
This approach does not eliminate conflict. It reframes it. Combat becomes a last resort rather than a default response, and success is measured less by eliminations and more by how many players make it back to Speranza alive.
Rules, discipline, and self-policing
What prevents the Rescue Raiders from devolving into inconsistent or performative friendliness is the structure behind the role. The r/RescueRaiders community enforces a clear and public set of rules that govern how members engage with others. Chief among these is the principle of never shooting first. Rescue Raiders are expected to withhold fire until aggression is unmistakable, even when doing so puts them at personal risk.
Equally important are the rules around restraint and accountability. Cross-match grudges and witch hunting are strictly prohibited. Player IDs are never shared for retaliation, and members are discouraged from carrying personal vendettas across matches. The community also maintains firm standards against discrimination, harassment, and pre-teaming, recognizing that trust collapses quickly when those boundaries are crossed.
Notably, the Rescue Raiders make room for adversarial play within their own space. Players who engage in kill-on-sight or fake-friendly tactics are not banned outright, but are required to identify themselves transparently through designated user flairs. This emphasis on disclosure reinforces the group’s core value: clarity of intent. By holding themselves to explicit standards and policing their own behavior, the Rescue Raiders aim to model a form of play that coexists with ARC Raiders’ inherent hostility rather than pretending it does not exist.
Is this good for ARC Raiders?
Whether the Rescue Raiders are ultimately good or bad for ARC Raiders depends largely on where a player sits within its PvPvE spectrum. For PvE-focused players, the presence of Rescue Raiders often makes the game feel more survivable and, importantly, more humane. A timely revive, an escort out of a camped extraction, or a neutral third party stepping into a chaotic fight can turn what would have been a frustrating loss into a memorable story. In that sense, Rescue Raiders help preserve player retention by softening the sharpest edges of the game’s social friction.
At the same time, their approach is not without drawbacks. Because ARC Raiders is built on ambiguity, Rescue Raiders can be exploited by bad actors who feign friendliness or take advantage of revive-first rules. Well-intentioned interventions can backfire, accidentally enabling repeat campers or prolonging encounters that PvP-focused players believe should carry consequences. From that perspective, Rescue Raiders can be seen as diluting risk in a genre defined by it.
What is notable, however, is that these outcomes are not design failures on the part of the Rescue Raiders. They are natural consequences of operating within a system that intentionally withholds certainty. The Rescue Raiders do not eliminate danger; they absorb it, often at personal cost. Their mistakes are not evidence of naïveté, but proof that the role they have chosen is difficult to sustain in a game that constantly incentivizes distrust.
A product of the game, not a rejection of it
The Rescue Raiders are not an anomaly imposed on ARC Raiders. They are a direct product of it. PvPvE games, by design, encourage players to define their own roles once the systems stop short of prescribing behavior. Some players optimize for combat efficiency, others for survival and progression, and a few choose to prioritize cooperation in a space where trust is never guaranteed. The Rescue Raiders exist because the game leaves room for that choice.
Rather than rejecting conflict, they redefine how and when it occurs. They operate within the same risk framework as everyone else, often accepting worse odds in exchange for clarity of intent. In doing so, they highlight something easy to forget in high-stakes survival shooters: player-driven culture can be just as influential as balance changes or new content.
That culture, however, is still shaped by access. ARC Raiders rewards awareness, communication, and stable performance under pressure, all of which are easier to maintain with reliable hardware. For students diving into PvPvE games like ARC Raiders, Acer’s Predator and Nitro gaming laptops and desktops offer strong performance for modern shooters without unnecessary complexity. Through Acer’s student discount program, eligible buyers can save up to 15%, making it easier to invest in a system that keeps pace with demanding games while staying within a realistic budget.
Whether you play as a hunter, a survivor, or something closer to a first responder, ARC Raiders ultimately reflects the choices players bring with them onto the surface. The Rescue Raiders are simply one example of how those choices can reshape the experience, not by changing the rules, but by deciding how to play within them.
Recommended Products
Acer Nitro 60 (RTX 5070)
Buy Now
Predator Helios 18 AI (RTX 5080)
Buy Now
Predator Triton 14 AI (RTX 5070)
Buy Now
