For one night only, Disney’s breakout Star Wars series is coming to cable TV. Ahead of the premiere of the third season of The Mandalorian on March 1st, Disney announced today it would air the show’s debut episode, “Chapter 1: The Mandalorian,” on February 24th. If you somehow haven’t seen the series before, you can catch the episode that started it all on ABC, Freeform or FX. All three stations will air the 41-minute debut at 8PM ET/PT.

If you’ve managed to avoid spoilers for The Mandalorian until now, first of all, great job; it couldn’t have been easy. Second, we won’t ruin the surprise, but the debut episode is a great taste of what made the first season of the series feel so special. It has a bit of everything that people came to love about The Mandalorian, including witty dialogue, fun action set pieces and, of course, a certain cute alien.

This isn’t the first time Disney has brought a Disney+ exclusive to TV. The company previously aired two episodes of Andor on ABC, Freeform and FX when it seemed that series was struggling to find an audience. Considering the company recently lost $1.5 billion on its streaming services, bringing The Mandalorian to broadcast TV makes a lot of sense as an effort to attract subscribers to Disney+.

Elon Musk may have to think of a lot more ways to make Twitter Blue appealing to potential subscribers if he wants the subscription service to be a major source of revenue. According to The Information, only 180,000 people in the US have been paying for a Twitter subscription by mid-January, and that's apparently around 0.2 percent of the website's monthly active users. The publication said it saw the information on a document, which also revealed that 62 percent of the company's paying users is from the US. That means Twitter has approximately 290,000 subscribers worldwide. 

Twitter Blue costs $8 a month for users who pay via web — or $7, if they pay for an annual subscription — and $11 for those who pay via Apple's or Google's app stores. Since the latter option gives the tech giants a cut of subscribers' payments, Twitter still only gets $8 a month from users overall. With the current number of paying users, the website is only set to earn $27.8 million a year from its subscription services. That said, Twitter has only just relaunched Blue in mid-December last year after a bumpy initial launch a month before that. It's bound to rack up more subscribers, though it remains to be seen if it can achieve the level of growth Musk wants to see. 

As The Information notes, Musk told Twitter employees last year that he wants half of the website's revenue to come from subscriptions. Since the company has to pay over $1 billion a year in interests alone from the loans Musk took out when he purchased the website, the executive is aiming to take in a revenue of $3 billion for 2023. Twitter has to have quite a lot of subscribers to earn half of that from Blue. One avenue the company is considering to earn more from its subscription services is to offer a higher-priced membership tier that allows users to browse the website with zero ads. Twitter is also reportedly planning to charge businesses $1,000 a month for their gold verification badges and an extra $50 a month for each account affiliated with them. 

Netflix is adding two more releases to its excellent library of games. The streaming giant announced Monday it recently secured exclusive mobile rights to Dust & Neon and Highwater, two upcoming titles from indie publisher Rogue Games. Of the two, the former will arrive first when it hits Android, iOS, PC and Nintendo Switch on February 16th. As with past Netflix releases, you can download and play Dust & Neon for free on mobile, provided you subscribe to the service. The same will go for Highwater when it arrives at a later date. Additionally, neither game will include ads or in-app microtransactions.

Rogue Games describes Dust & Neon as a rogue-lite twin-stick shooter. Stylistically, the game looks like a mix of Steamworld Dig and West of Dead. One interesting facet of gameplay is that you manually reload your firearms. Each weapon has its own reload animation, and there are almost 2,000 guns to find in the game, according to Rogue Games. Highwater, meanwhile, is an adventure strategy game set in a world ravaged by climate change. It’s a title with a fair amount of excitement around it, partly due to the fact that it was first shown off during Summer Game Fest last year.

Cloud gaming libraries normally get larger, but Amazon Luna's appears to be shrinking — for now, at least. 9to5Googlenotes that the paid Luna+ tier will lose 53 games in February. Many of these are older or niche titles you won't necessarily miss, but that does mean losing classics like No More Heroes (gone February 11th) as well as more recent titles like The Medium (February 9th).

We've asked Amazon for comment. In a statement to 9to5Google, a spokesperson said only that Amazon was "refreshing" its content as part of a goal to keep its collection "as fresh as possible."

The issue, as you might guess, is that this isn't an isolated situation. Amazon dropped another 46 games from Luna+ in December, and some of these were from well-known franchises like the Yakuza series. CloudDosagereports the February cull will leave Luna+ with 175 games. That could make it a tough sell if you're willing to pay for variety. Microsoft's Game Pass and Sony's PlayStation Plus Premium are more expensive, but promise access to hundreds of games (if frequently from the back catalog).

The shrinking selection doesn't come at a great time, either. Google shut down Stadia just last month, and that service didn't bleed games. Amazon's platform won't necessarily suffer the same fate, but it's not entering a thriving market — and those rivals that are left sometimes offer perks you won't find with Luna, such as GeForce Now's 240Hz mode.

Fans of HBO's The Last of Us who are also into football were facing a bit of a quandary this weekend: catch the latest episode live and avoid the risk of spoilers, or tune into the Super Bowl? Thankfully, HBO Max is making that decision much easier. The fifth episode of the excellent adaptation of Naughty Dog's game will hit the streaming service and HBO On Demand two days early.

You'll be able to stream the episode starting at 9PM ET this Friday. It will still air in its usual 9PM ET timeslot on HBO's cable channel on Sunday, but many fans may opt to watch the titanic tussle between the Kansas City Chiefs and the Philadelphia Eagles instead.

This is a smart, one-off move from HBO as The Last of Us is already a massive hit, with viewership figures that have grown from week to week. The linear airing of the next episode is likely to get hammered in the ratings by the Super Bowl, but this could help HBO maintain the show's momentum and distance the TLOU discourse from football this weekend. 

Five days ago, a review code for Hogwarts Legacy landed in my inbox. I’ve been thinking about this moment for more than a year, ever since the backlash against the game started gaining traction online. The author of the Harry Potter novels is transphobic and she’s targeted transgender women in particular. For this reason, some people in the LGBT+ community, and allies beyond, have decided to boycott Hogwarts Legacy and admonish anyone who chooses to play or stream it themselves, sparking explosive arguments across social media, Twitch and YouTube. Those in favor of the boycott argue that playing the game benefits the author financially and indicates support for her beliefs. On the flipside, potential players point out that the author wasn’t involved in the creation of Hogwarts Legacy and her status as the world’s richest author won’t change regardless of the game’s success. Also, they really want to play it.

I fall into the second category. I’m currently about 15 hours into Hogwarts Legacy and I’m just barely scratching the surface; I’m having an incredible time. This feels like the RPG that Harry Potter fans have been waiting for, rich and alive and absolutely packed with magic.

It’s slightly frightening to write that down, knowing the condemnation I could receive. It’s an extra-light version of the dread I felt while publishing literally anything during Gamergate, but this time it’s more personal: The hate would be coming from people I actually care about.

I’ve been a video game journalist for the past 13 years, I’m a bisexual woman and I have a big ol’ Harry Potter tattoo next to an anti-TERF tattoo. I feel uniquely positioned to care about this particular topic, and to that end, I have a quick story to tell. It involves literary internet culture in the early 2000s, and I hope it illuminates factors that entwine the Wizarding World with the LGBT+ community, while demonstrating the vast divide that’s existed for decades between the fantasy and its creator.

As a pre-teen and throughout high school, I found solace in Harry Potter fanfiction, a bustling online ecosystem powered by Livejournal, FF.net, AO3 and other community-run sites. I cannot overstate how popular Harry Potter fanfiction was and still is, nor how queer it’s always been. Most stories in Harry Potter fanfiction center on LGBT+ characters, and for good reason – in the early aughts, media for and by gay people was ridiculously hard to come by, and then when you did find something, it was often campy, trashy, or both. It was a pre-streaming, pre-YouTube, pre-TikTok way of life. So we wrote our own stories as fanfiction. Long before the release of the final Harry Potter book, we infused the halls of Hogwarts with magically amplified, non-heterosexual and non-cisgender characters, and we wrote millions of words about them living full, fantastic lives. We made Dumbledore gay long before the canon did.

In those early days, an important part of the Harry Potter fanfiction process was critiquing the world and recognizing the limits of the author’s imagination. With each new book release, the forums would light up with praise and criticism, and our own stories would continue to evolve outside of the pages of the novels. These fics are more real to me than the source material; when I traverse the hallways of the Slytherin dungeons in Hogwarts Legacy, my mind accesses memories from my favorite fanfics – not the books – and I’m infused with warmth. The halls of Hogwarts are my safe space, still.

I recognize my circumstances are incredibly specific, but I also know mine isn’t a unique experience. Fantasy worlds offer an escape for queer and non-queer people alike, and coming-of-age fiction can be powerful, formulative stuff. This particular fantasy universe was a place of belonging for me, and I think its latest iteration, Hogwarts Legacy, could offer a similar slice of peace to young players today.

I understand the anger and protective energy from people who don’t want to play the game. It’s a terrifying time to be transgender: Ultra-conservative lawmakers are writing discrimination and blind hate into law, while neo-nazi rhetoric has found new life on mainstream social media platforms. Deadly violence against trans people, particularly Black transgender women, remains a pervasive epidemic in the United States. Among these real-world threats, we’re clashing over the virtues of playing or not playing Hogwarts Legacy. It’s been depressing to observe as this conversation sows division and sucks attention away from our shared goals, limiting our ability to celebrate new successes.

Harry Potter will outlive its author. She is not the future of the franchise. Avalanche, Portkey Games and Warner Bros. have been well aware of the pervasive disgust for the author’s ideology for years, and I believe it encouraged them to include more representation in the game than the series has ever seen. Hogwarts Legacy allows for various expressions of gender identity in the character creator and casually drops “they” pronouns in conversation; all around, the cast is diverse and Avalanche writes non-white characters better than the original author did. There’s still room for improvement, and that’s why the conversation needs to be ongoing: Positive progress is our shared goal.

As someone who searched desperately for an example of my own identity in the pages of Harry Potter novels, I deeply appreciate the evolution and inclusion in Hogwarts Legacy. This level of representation didn’t exist in AAA games 15 years ago, and it’s the result of all the progress made, through protest and education, since the books were published. Long before the in-fighting over a choice to play a video game.

If you don’t want to engage with Hogwarts Legacy, please, boycott the game – just don’t boycott the players. It’s us against the transphobic people in the world, not us against each other. Some of us will choose to play, some of us won’t. Even more will wonder why anyone even cares about this fictional kid and his heteronormative, whitewashed, multibillion-dollar franchise. These are all valid options. Playing Hogwarts Legacy doesn’t automatically make you transphobic. Boycotting it doesn’t automatically make you an ally – supporting our community members does.

We’ll have a full review of Hogwarts Legacy later in the week, once I’ve had enough time with this enormous game to fully form an opinion on it. Even if I catch hell for this perspective, I’ll be here, supporting local inclusion efforts, protesting discrimination, calling my lawmakers, loving my community and playing the gayest version of Hogwarts Legacy possible.

There was a time when HQ Trivia was on everyone's lips, and millions of people were playing it in hopes of winning some money from its prize pot. Then the trivia show app was beset by one problem after another until it fell off the radar, lost its audience and shut down. CNN announced last year that it ordered a documentary that'll tell the game show's story, with the promise of launching it in 2023. Now CNN Films, the news channel's motion picture division, has released a trailer for the documentary entitled Glitch: The Rise & Fall of HQ Trivia, which is scheduled to premiere on CNN on March 5th at 9PM ET/PT.

During the height of its popularity, HQ Trivia ran two games a day, and users could win part of the prize pot by answering several questions correctly in a row. It was hosted by Scott Rogowsky, though celebrities like The Rock and Kelly Clarkson would sometimes serve as guest hosts. In 2018, however, its controversial co-founder Colin Kroll passed away, and then Rogowsky left reportedly after having a disagreement with management over another hosting job he took. 

According to TechCrunch, more than half of HQ Trivia's staff also signed a petition to remove CEO Rus Yusupov, accusing him of mismanaging the startup. Yusupov then reportedly fired some of the people who led the petition before the company shut down following a failed acquisition in 2020. The trivia app quickly came back thanks to a new investor, but it only ran games once a week with a prize pot of $1,500. Today, the app is suspended in limbo and hasn't had a game since November 2022. 

The CNN documentary will be told through the point of view of Rogowsky, along with other insiders from the company. Based on what Salima Koroma, the docu's director said, we're in for an entertaining ride: "HQ Trivia was supposed to ‘revolutionize television’. But what happens when the people who are running it—'the smartest guys in the room’— don’t actually know what they’re doing? The CEOs who make the Vines and the WeWorks and the Twitters are hailed as the rockstars of our age. But a lot of them are simply emperors with no clothes on. It’s kind of absurd. And I wanted that absurdity to be felt all throughout the film."

Pay TV subscribers can stream the documentary when it premieres through CNN's website, its mobile apps and CNNgo. It will also be available for on demand streaming starting on March 6th.

After teasing it last year, YouTube has rolled out a new feature called Go Live Together that lets creators co-host livestreams. Anyone with over 50 subscribers can invite a guest to host a livestream with them from iOS and Android mobile devices. Only one guest is allowed at any time, but the host can swap in new guests during the same livestream. 

You can schedule co-streams through YouTube's desktop app, but both the host and guest must use mobile devices during the livestream. To do so, open the YouTube app, tap "Create" then "Go Live Together." After entering stream details, select "Invite a co-streamer" and send an invite link to the co-streamer. They'll then be sent to the waiting room until you click "Go Live."

There's no minimum number of followers for guests, but the host will be held responsible for guests violating any community guidelines. Hosts can earn revenue for ads, which can appear in pre-, mid- and post-roll form. 

YouTube offered a similar feature that lets creators co-host shopping livestreams, which allows both co-hosting and redirects to a brand's channel. Twitch recently introduced a feature in beta called Guest Star which allows creators to bring up to five guests onto streams. That system is a bit simpler, as any viewer can raise a virtual hand and the host can invite them on, much like Clubhouse or Twitter Spaces. Unlike YouTube's mobile limitation, Twitch's version is only available on desktop. 

Paramount+ has reportedly joined the trend of streaming platforms removing original shows to cut costs. The Real World: Homecoming, which reunites casts of the original 1990s MTV reality series, got the boot along with six other shows.

Jordan Peele’s The Twilight Zone reboot, which ran from 2019 to 2020, was also a casualty. In addition, the streamer axed true-crime drama Interrogation, the animated series The Harper House, the comedy No Activity, the crime drama Coyote and the dark comedy Guilty Party. Parent company Paramount Global hasn’t announced whether they will land somewhere else after their removal.

The cuts follow similar removals from sister company Showtime, which Paramount will fold into Paramount+ later this year. (It will then take on the unfortunate rebranding, “Paramount+ With Showtime.”) Rival streamer HBO Max recently pulledWestworld, Raised by Wolves, The Time Traveler’s Wife and The Nevers. They will begin appearing this month with ads on a Roku and Tubi channel creatively titled “WB TV Series.”

A new Twitch livestream tries to answer the question: What if AI made never-ending Seinfeld? “Nothing, Forever” is an experiment using OpenAI’s GPT-3 natural language model to produce (occasionally coherent) dialog between pixelated counterparts of Jerry, George, Elaine and Kramer. Although it’s closer to surreal performance art than the beloved 90s sitcom, it conjures images of a strange, dystopian future where we entertain ourselves with endless content generated by robots.

“Nothing, Forever” immediately hits you with well-known aesthetics. Scene transitions show the exterior of a line of New York City brownstones over the sound of a quirky jazz bassline. It frequently cuts to “Larry” (the Jerry equivalent) performing what AI passes as standup comedy. Scenes inside Larry’s apartment show him chatting with George, Elaine and Kramer's counterparts about appropriately mundane topics. Their conversations, while mostly unintelligible and lacking structure or narrative, make their inspiration clear.

On the other hand, the stiff and rudimentary character models look like they walked out of a 1980s Sierra adventure game. Their voices are robotic too, and Jerry and George sound less like their real-world counterparts and more like Mr. Van Driessen, the hippie social studies teacher from Beavis & Butthead. Finally, it’s a stretch to say the generated dialog is coherent — much less funny. (If not for its laugh track, you wouldn’t notice the laugh lines.) Generative AI’s current limits are as much on display as the show’s influence.

Twitch

“Aside from the artwork and the laugh track you’ll hear,” one of the show’s creators posted to Reddit, “everything else is generative, including: dialogue, speech, direction (camera cuts, character focus, shot length, scene length, etc), character movement, and music.” The stream has little human involvement and changes based on viewer feedback from the Twitch stream. “The show can effectively change, and the narrative actually evolves based on the audience,” said Hartle in an interview with Vice. “One of the major factors that we’re thinking about is how do we get people involved in crafting the narrative so it becomes their own.”

That goal may be far away, as any narrative — much less a personalized one — seems beyond its current capabilities. Still, with a sizable budget and several years of technological advancement, it’s easy to imagine someone producing more watchable generative programming, an endless stream of personalized, assembly-line digital media. “Our grounding principle was, can we create a show that can generate entertaining content forever? Because that’s truly where we see the future emerging towards. Our goal with the next iterations or next shows that we release is to actually trade a show that is like Netflix-level quality.”