So long HBO Max, hello… Max? This week, Cherlynn and Devindra discuss Warner Bros. pivot away from the beleaguered HBO Max service, and towards something that unifies HBO and Discovery’s content. Does Max help, or hurt the HBO brand? And does the name even matter when people will always line up for the next Game of Thrones spin-off? Also, we dive into the NVIDIA RTX 4070, a champ of a mid-range GPU, as well as the latest from Elon Musk’s disastrous Twitter reign.

Listen below or subscribe on your podcast app of choice. If you've got suggestions or topics you'd like covered on the show, be sure to email us or drop a note in the comments! And be sure to check out our other podcasts, the Morning After and Engadget News!

Subscribe!

• iTunes

• Spotify

• Pocket Casts

• Stitcher

• Google Podcasts

Topics

• Max (just Max) is replacing HBO Max – 1:34

• NVIDIA’s RTX 4070 review: excellent at 1440p gaming, still pricey at $499 – 21:15

• This week in Twitter mess: NPR and PBS quit Twitter over account labeling, AI project allegedly in the works – 23:03

• Worker morale is low at Meta after layoffs – 27:57

• Lo-fi girl is back, and she made a new synth wave friend – 30:40

• AI Update: Stable Diffusion is already taking illustrator jobs in China – 32:34

• Working on – 35:48

• Pop culture picks – 37:44

Livestream

Credits
Hosts: Cherlynn Low and Devindra Hardawar
Producer: Ben Ellman
Music: Dale North and Terrence O'Brien
Livestream producers: Julio Barrientos
Graphic artists: Luke Brooks

There are many things I think of when I hear the name "Max." There's Max Headroom, the '80s AI icon that's been on my mind a lot lately. Mad Max! Max Payne! Every friend I've ever had named Max (whose names I've always been jealous of). Even Homer Simpson's alternate persona, Max Power. But there's no universe where I associate "Max" with HBO, even though we've been living with "HBO Max" for years. "HBO" was always the dominant part of that name, whereas "Max" felt like a vestigial remnant from its sister network Cinemax.

Warner Bros.

So I'm sure that many viewers will be surprised to learn that HBO Max will be rebranded as "Max" on May 23rd. Warner Bros. CEO David Zaslav, who spearheaded the $43 billion merger between WB and his previous company Discovery, announced the new service during a media event this morning. It's been a year since Zaslav finalized that merger and announced his intentions to combine each network's content. And, given the increasingly volatile world of streaming media, he likely had to move quickly. But the rebranding seems like a missed opportunity to align the new service with something people already know and love.

Now, to be clear, Zaslav's desire to build something new makes sense. HBO Max's May 2020 launch was notoriously rocky, so much so that it led to a round of executive firings. HBO Max was a blatant attempt to catch up with Disney+, which hit 10 million subscribers just a day after its debut. But it couldn't compete with Disney's seemingly limitless library of content. A month after HBO Max arrived, AT&T (TimeWarner's owner at the time) said the service only had 4.1 million active users. The company tried to make it seem more popular by saying it had 23.6 million "wholesale" subscribers, but those were mostly existing HBO customers who had never touched the HBO Max app.

As a relatively new Warner Bros. leader, Zaslav likely wanted to make a mark with a service of his very own. (Media executives just can't help themselves, remember Jeffrey Katzenberg's Quibi?) So long HBO Max, hello something that combines HBO's prestigious content with Discovery's vast library of unscripted reality shows. During today's media event, Warner Bros. executives stressed that the company wanted to highlight HBO's world-renowned branding — "HBO is not TV, HBO is HBO!" someone proclaimed boldly. But they also hinted that the company didn't want to stuff too much into "HBO" as a concept.

I also bet that Zaslav and crew talked to plenty of advisors and focus groups who made it clear that HBO would never be considered as family-friendly as Disney. A cautious parent may not want to subscribe to an HBO service, even if it was the only way to watch a new Discovery series for kids. As one WB executive pointed out, the company used to see double-digit shares of kids programming across their many networks, but that's "virtually disappeared" in the streaming era.

With the Max refresh, Warner Bros. is trying to fix many of HBO Max's underlying problems. The company says it's aiming to increase engagement (having a ton of new content helps!), enhance retention, strengthen performance and optimize monetization. A carousel of personalized recommendations should help to surface content users may ignore, and WB says Max will also be able to alert people if their subscription payments fail. These are basic features for any modern subscription service, so it's shocking to learn that HBO Max couldn't manage them on its own.

Of course, WB is also trying to "optimize monetization" by raising the subscription cost for 4K viewers. If you want to see Game of Thrones or the upcoming Flash movie in 4K, you'll need to spend $4 more for Max's "Ultimate tier." That's similar to Netflix's 4K strategy, so it's not entirely surprising, but it's still annoying. 

Let me be truly cynical: It doesn't really matter what Max is called. We're awash in terribly-named streaming services, like Peacock and Paramount+. It would have been nice to see WB highlight one of its most prominent properties, but lopping off the first half of HBO Max probably makes more sense than trying to hype up another ridiculous media name (Hulu somehow made it work, but Quibi will forever sound dumb). 

No matter what it's called, we'll still rush to Max to catch the latest episode of Succession or The Last of Us. In this era of streaming networks dumping mountains of content on us, it's somewhat refreshing to have premium shows airing weekly. That gives us time to truly absorb major events (like the most recent Succession shocker), and space to anticipate what comes next. Ultimately, that's HBO's superpower, and Zaslav knows it. When combined with the onslaught of cheap and addictive content from Discovery, he might be able to turn Max into a true Disney+ competitor.

Slowly, but surely, NVIDIA is making its 40-series GPUs more affordable. Now it's down to $599 with the new RTX 4070, a mid-range card focused on 1440p gaming. While it's $100 more than its predecessor's launch price, the fabulous RTX 3070, that card typically sold for more than $1,000 due to the supply chain crunch, scalpers and insatiable crypto bros. Based on what we've seen from the 4070 Ti, NVIDIA's new cards are actually staying close to their retail price, which is great news for anyone itching for an upgrade.

Judging from Valve's Steam hardware statistics, I'd wager many gamers are waiting on the eventual RTX 4060 before giving up their old cards, especially if it ends up selling closer to $400. But based on my testing, the 4070 is still a solid choice for practical gamers who may wan to splurge a bit. It's fast enough to deliver excellent 1440p performance with ray tracing enabled, and it can even deliver solid 4K gaming in a pinch too. Even though it's noticeably slower than the $799 RTX 4070 Ti in most benchmarks, that may not matter much when you're actually in the heat of battle. (Just think of all you could do with that extra $200!)

The RTX 4070 features NVIDIA's new Ada Lovelace architecture, sporting 5,888 CUDA cores, a base clock speed of 1,920 MHz (boost to 2,475 MHz) and 16GB of GDDR6X RAM. The 3070, meanwhile, had the same amount of CUDA cores, but it was based on NVIDIA's older Ampere architecture. It could only reach up to 1,725 MHz and had 8GB of slower GDDR6 memory. Despite those differences, the 3070 still holds up well, so I wouldn't rush out to replace it anytime soon. But if you're still holding onto an RTX 20-series GPU or something older, the 4070 may be the GPU you've been waiting for.

Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget

We received the RTX 4070 Founder's Edition card from NVIDIA, which basically looks like a shrunken down version of the 4080 and 4090. It feels like a premium card, with a sleek metal case, a bevy of heatsink fins and two large fans to deal with heat. It's also a two-slot GPU, like the 4070 Ti, allowing it to fit inside of smaller cases far better than the enormous 4080 and 4090. Port-wise, there are three DisplayPort connections and a single HDMI. As with all of NVIDIA's recent cards, it also includes an adapter to connect two 8-pin PCIe power cables (a single PCIe Gen 5 cable will also work).

Once I started benching and playing games with the RTX 4070, it performed just as I expected: Somewhere between the RTX 3080 (which launched at $699) and the 3080 Ti ($1,119). The difference, though, is that it supports NVIDIA's DLSS 3 technology, which can help speed up ray tracing performance by inserting AI-generated frames. I was particularly impressed by how well it handled Cyberpunk 2077: in 1440p with maxed out graphics and "ultra" ray tracing settings, it delivered a smooth 120 fps. The RTX 3070, in comparison, struggled to hold 75 fps with the same settings using the older DLSS 2, which doesn't use frame generation.

Control, an older title that only supports DLSS 2, had a less dramatic performance bump with the 4070. While playing in 1440p with maxed graphics and all of its ray tracing settings flipped on, it reached 106 fps, compared to 90 fps with the 3070. Still, it's a bit of a shock to see a mid-range card scoring triple digit frame rates with all of the game's ray tracing features enabled (which includes reflections, shadows and debris). Not too long ago, Control used to humble the mightiest video cards.

NVIDIA is clearly positioning the 4070 as a 1440p-focused card, but it can still handle some 4K scenarios, so long as you're not too demanding. It hovered at 70 fps in Cyberpunk with maxed graphics and "ultra" ray tracing settings — that's certainly better than you'd see on any modern game console. Control, meanwhile, hit 56 fps on average. If you're only dabbling in 4K occasionally, perhaps for a lazy Sunday session on your TV, that's not too bad. 

As with all of NVIDIA's new hardware, the RTX 4070 is also a useful tool for streamers and media creators thanks to its hardware-based AV1 encoder. The company claims it's around 40 percent more efficient than the previous generation H.264 encoder — that means it'll take less bandwidth to deliver clear streams, a boon for anyone who wants to show off 1440p or 4K streams. The popular broadcast software OBS will soon be updated to support AV1 streaming to YouTube, which offers some dramatic clarity boons, according to PCWorld. When it comes to typical H.264 encoding, the 4070 converted 4K test clip to 1080p in 33 seconds, three seconds longer than the 4070 Ti.

Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget

Thanks to the 4070's excellent cooling setup and relatively modest power demands (it requires a 650W PSU), its temperature never climb above 70 Celsius during my testing. I could only hear its two fans when I spent more than 30 minutes in a game using ray tracing. But really, it's not anything that'll distract you during gameplay.

Now that we've seen NVIDIA's RTX 4070 in action, is it actually worth $599? For anyone with a GPU older than the RTX 30-series, I'd say so. (Though if you can spare an extra $200, the 4070 Ti is noticeably better.) A few years ago, we were hoping and praying for GPU prices to come back down to Earth. We've seen 4070 Ti cards stick close to its initial $799 launch price, so there's a good chance you'll actually be able to find a 4070 this year without overpaying too much. To be smart, it's worth waiting a few months for the 4060 to drop before you make any decisions. 

But if you've been hankering for better framerates and playable ray tracing, go with the gaming gods. The RTX 4070 is the new king of mid-range GPUs.

Super Mario Bros. is an almost perfect kids film. It's stunningly animated, it has enough momentum to keep youngins from being bored, and almost every character is unique and likable (even Bowser himself, thanks to the comedic stylings of Jack Black). It's clear that Nintendo didn't want to repeat the mistakes of that other Mario movie, the live-action 1993 film that's ironically beloved by some '90s kids (it's all we had!), but ultimately failed to capture the magic of the games. This film, meanwhile, is chock full of everything you'd remember from NIntendo's ouvre. It's a nostalgic romp for adults, and it's simply a fun time for children.

But boy is it safe. Maybe I'm a bit spoiled by the excellent non-Pixar animated films we've seen over the last decade, especially the ones that Phil Lord and Chris Miller have touched (The Lego Movie! Into the Spider-Verse!). But it's glaringly obvious Nintendo didn't want to take any major creative risks with this adaptation. The script from Matthew Fogel is filled with enough humor and references to keep us from feeling bored, and directors Aaron Horvath and Michael Jelenic deliver some inspired sequences. But it's almost like the film is trapped in a nostalgia castle thanks to the whims of an aging corporate dinosaur. (Bear with me.)

Nintendo/Illumination

That wasn't a problem for the kids in my matinee audience, but it's a bit disappointing if you've waited decades to see a truly great Mario adaptation. It's in line with the recent live-action Sonic the Hedgehog movie — Super Mario Bros. is "fine." There's no attempt to achieve anything deeper than the basics: Mario (voiced by Chris Pratt) and Luigi (Charlie Day) are two floundering Brooklyn plumbers who are inexplicably transported to the Mushroom Kingdom. Luigi, ever the scaredy-cat, is almost instantly captured by Bowser's minions, and it's up to Mario and Princess Peach (an effervescent Anya Taylor-Joy) to save him. Big bad Bowser, meanwhile, has plans to either marry Peach or, barring that, take over the kingdom.

The film bombards you with an endless series of references from the start – just look at all those Punch-Out! characters on the wall! – something that will either delight longtime Nintendo fans or make your eyes roll. Personally, though, I mostly enjoyed seeing how all of the nostalgia fodder was deployed (the adorably fatalistic Lumalee from Mario Galaxy practically steals the film). The filmmakers also show off plenty of visual flair, like an early scene in Brooklyn that rotates into a 2D chase sequence. If only some of the musical choices were more creative. (A Kill Bill reference? Bonnie Tyler's "Holding Out for a Hero" during Mario's training montage? Come on.)

It's always nice to see kids movies reach far beyond our expectations — The Lego Movie wrestled with the prison of capitalism, the importance of pushing against restrictive social expectations and how fandom can ruin the thing you actually love, all in addition to being a fun adventure for kids and injecting a dose of smart humor for adults. In Super Marios Bros., Mario learns to eat mushrooms because they literally make him big and strong. What subtext!

At the same time, I can still respect a movie that simply accomplishes its goal of entertaining children. Over the years, I've been subjected to plenty of truly awful kid's films with ugly animation and production design, lazy writing, and zero creative vision. I wish I could reclaim the time I spent watching Space Jam: A New Legacy or the 2011 Smurfs movie. The Super Mario Bros. may be a bit basic and safe, but it's not a waste of time.

For one, we've never seen Mario and the Mushroom Kingdom look this good. Illumination may not have the stellar track record of Pixar, but this movie is filled with gorgeously detailed characters, vibrant worlds jam-packed with detail and some of the most fluid animation I've seen in years. It's a visual feast, and it makes me long for the day when a Mario game can look so lush (as much as I loved Super Mario Odyssey, it's visuals are held back by the Switch's aging hardware).

And for the most part, the voice acting kept me invested. Jack Black is inspired as Bowser, a hopeless romantic who can only express his feelings through song and world domination. Charlie Day basically plays his usual harried persona, but it fits Luigi, a character who mainly exists to support his little bigger brother. And Anya Taylor-Joy makes for a perfect Princess Peach, a leader who has to feign bravery to protect her adorable Mushroom Kingdom people.

Nintendo/Illumination

For all of Chris Pratt's hype about his Mario voice, though, it's merely serviceable. The movie jokes about Charles Martinet's original problematic accent (Martinet also voices two characters in the film), but Pratt's spin on it just feels like someone pretending to be a schlubby Brooklynite. That's particularly surprising since Pratt injected so much life into his Lego Movie lead.

What's most disappointing about The Super Mario Bros. Movie is that it's so close to being genuinely great. If the film had more time to build up its characters, or if it made room for Jack Black unleash his full Tenacious D talents as Bowser, it would easily be stronger. Why not go a bit harder on that Mario Kart sequence? (Even Moana managed to fit in a Mad Max: Fury Road reference!) Why not spend a bit more time on the rivalry/budding bromance between Donkey Kong (Seth Rogen) and Mario?

With a projected opening weekend of $150 million or more, it's clear that Nintendo has a hit on its hands. A sequel is inevitable. I just hope that the company loosens up the next time around. After all, what fun is a Mario adventure without taking a few creative leaps over chasms of uncertainty?

Drew Carey isn't afraid of AI. Instead, The Price is Right host and longtime improv comedian is embracing the technology. During a recent episode of his SiriusXM radio show, "Friday Night Freakout," Carey used an artificially generated version of his voice to handle most of his DJ work, reading a script written by ChatGPT. His AI voice kicked off the show, introduced upcoming songs and recapped what listeners were hearing. As an experiment to see just how far AI could go on the radio, the episode was mostly a success. But Carey's fans weren't happy about it.

"I violated a rule from Radio 101," Carey told me. His Twitter fans complained that the voice sounded soulless, and that they missed the "real Drew." "The reason FM stations and treasured radio stations still make money is because people like the personality of the DJs," he said. "You don't have to be like a big boss radio guy and be phony. You can just talk... that's what listeners like."

While his fans were ultimately forgiving of the experiment, Carey says he got the message: "Don't do it again."

For many entertainers, AI could be viewed as yet another threat in an increasingly precarious industry. Soon after ElevenLabs introduced a beta version of its AI voice tool — the same software Carey used for his radio show — online trolls used it to impersonate Emma Watson, Joe Rogan and other celebrities. Watsons' simulated voice read portions of the Mein Kampf aloud, while other deepfaked voices made openly racist and transphobic statements, according to Vice.

Carey's AI voice wasn't perfect: It sounded a tad robotic, it didn't have the inflections his fans have grown to love over the years, and the ChatGPT-written script was noticeably simplistic. But if you were driving down the highway late at night, and you just wanted a bit of company alongside some classic rock, it's possible you wouldn't notice the DJ wasn't human. In fact, ElevenLabs recently partnered with Super HI-Fi to create "fully customized and personalized" AI driven radio stations.

"I was just playing with it, and I wanted to show what it was capable of," he said. "Plus, I thought, oh, I don't want to show everybody how to make an exact copy of my voice right now. I thought it might screw me over somehow. So I had that little fear in the back of my head."

It took a weekend for Carey and a friend, who already had experience training ChatGPT and other AI tools, to create his AI voice. ChatGPT wrote 99 percent of his radio show's script, though Carey made a few tweaks of his own. Funny enough, when he asked the chatbot to write a joke about how easy it was to use, it wrote the line "even Drew Carey can use it." (Perhaps ChatGPT is just trying to snag a spot on the inevitable Whose Line Is It Anyway? revival.)

Carey envisions AI being used in the future for the grunt work of radio and other production. Perhaps it could read a script late at night, or churn out some ad copy. When I asked if that's a potential problem for newcomers, he noted, "There are no blacksmiths anymore... If you're a mechanic that works on internal combustion engine cars, if you don't make the switch to electric soon, you're out of a job."

According to a recent Goldman Sachs report, up to 300 million jobs around the world could be automated thanks to recent advancements in AI. But the bank's economists also point out that major innovations that replace some jobs typically lead to the creation of new roles. And for those who are only partially impacted by AI, they'll likely be able to complement their work with generative intelligence.

For celebrities like Carey, AI could also be a way for them to continue working indefinitely, long after they've retired or passed on. James Earl Jones's voice has already been reconstructed for the Disney+ series Obi-Wan Kenobi, and he's approved future work to "keep Vader alive." Eventually, actors (and their estates) could sign off on AI clones that entertain us for generations to come.

Carey isn't afraid of such an outcome. "You know what, if the price is right, anything can happen," he said when I asked if he'd ever sell his digital likeness. "I'm not worried about CGI Drew Carey taking over, because people want to see me, they want some kind of host. They want that interaction."

With the Tetris movie hitting Apple TV+ this week, we chat with the game’s creator, Alexey Pajitnov, and Henk Rogers, the man who helped bring it out of the Soviet Union. We discuss just how realistic the film is (it definitely takes plenty of liberties), the impact of Tetris on gaming and where it could be headed in the future. Also, Cherlynn and Devindra dive into the recent letter from the Future of Life Institute, which was signed by Elon Musk and other tech leaders, and called for a pause on AI development beyond GPT4. It turns out that wasn’t entirely altruistic.

Listen below or subscribe on your podcast app of choice. If you've got suggestions or topics you'd like covered on the show, be sure to email us or drop a note in the comments! And be sure to check out our other podcasts, the Morning After and Engadget News!

Subscribe!

• iTunes

• Spotify

• Pocket Casts

• Stitcher

• Google Podcasts

Topics

• Interview with Tetris designer Alexey Pajitnov and Tetris publisher Henk Rogers – 1:17

• The open letter asking for a 6-month pause of AI development is more suspicious than you think – 16:57

• Do the proposed U.S. DATA and RESTRICT acts reach too far in trying to ban TikTok? – 26:48

• Pres. Biden bans the use of commercial spyware – 36:20

• Microsoft is focused on security, AI and a light processor friendly version in Windows 12 – 39:11

• Google unveils AI planning tool to help beat extreme heat due to climate change – 43:21

• Apple’s WWDC dates announced: June 5 to 9 – 45:12

• Working on – 57:39

• Pop culture picks – 1:02:16

Livestream

Credits
Hosts: Cherlynn Low and Devindra Hardawar
Guests (Audio): Alexey Pajitnov and Henk Rogers
Producer: Ben Ellman
Music: Dale North and Terrence O'Brien
Livestream producers: Julio Barrientos
Graphic artists: Luke Brooks

No, the origins of Tetris didn't involve a high-speed car chase, but the true story behind the game still reads like a spy novel. There's corporate intrigue, nefarious government agencies and an envious amount of globe-trotting. But the reality wasn't enough for the creative minds behind Apple's Tetris film, which premieres on March 31st. Director Jon S. Baird and writer Noah Pink couldn't help but spice up the story with hyperactive pixel art, cartoonishly evil villains and wildly discordant tonal shifts. The result is a film that may entertain general audiences – or critics who have somehow never heard of Tetris before – but will probably leave true aficionados of the game cold.

From its opening scenes, in which a young Henk Rogers (The Kingsman's Taron Egerton) recounts the magical moment he encountered Tetris at CES, the film aims for the snappy dialog of Aaron Sorkin's scripts for The Social Network and Steve Jobs. But it never reaches those heights. Rogers is the entrepreneur responsible for working together with Alexey Pajitnov (Nikita Efremov), the Soviet programmer who created Tetris, to bring the game to the rest of the world. He makes for a compelling main character on paper, and yet the film doesn't delve too deeply into why he'd risk his life and business (he was the founder of Japan's Bullet-Proof Software) for a single game.

Apple

Call that a failure of storytelling, or perhaps it's just dramatic shorthand. Rogers is one of the first people to become truly obsessed with Tetris, and that alone defines his actions. Throughout the movie he and others experience the "Tetris effect" – hallucinating falling blocks after playing the game. That's a practically universal response to playing Tetris for an extended period. The world quickly fades out of view while you're focusing on those shapes, and its effect on you lingers for days.

In this film, that's shown in the most basic way possible: A hallucinatory display of shapes right in front of someone's eyes. But I couldn't help but imagine how a more artful take would have looked. Think Tetris by way of Darren Aronofsky's Pi, a movie where the lead character starts to see evidence of math in every corner of the natural world.

That being said, there's still plenty to enjoy in Tetris. Rogers’ early glimpse at a Game Boy prototype, the system that would make Tetris a global phenomenon, is treated like he's encountering the Holy Grail. He immediately sees the potential for appealing not just to kids with NES consoles but even adults. You could easily call it the first casual video game. Ben Miles and Togo Igawa also do a fine job of embodying Nintendo royalty, former Nintendo of America chairman Howard Lincoln and the company's third president, Hiroshi Yamauchi.

“The very important role of Tetris of that time was that it started to break down the barrier between people and computers,” Pajitnov told me in an interview. Early on, he said people were embarrassed to admit they were hooked on Tetris, and others were quick to say they don’t play games, “just Tetris.” Now gaming, especially those of the casual mobile variety, can reach just about anyone.

At the very least, Tetris the film understands the power of games. But it would be stronger if it embraced the reality of the story, rather than try to position itself as a cheap spy movie. British billionaires Robert and Kevin Maxwell are more James Bond villains than actual humans (admittedly, that may not be far from the truth), as they wrangle with Soviet leaders and Rogers over distribution rights to the game. Soviet intelligence officers, who repeatedly threaten Rogers and Pajitnov, are even more cartoonish. By the time we reached an obligatory car chase that, for some reason, also turns into pixelated graphics, I was almost completely checked out.

Apple

It’s doubly disappointing since the movie didn’t need to do much of this. The real-world licensing dilemma, which kicked off after the British software seller Robert Stein sold rights to the game before the Soviet Union’s approval, could be compelling enough. Prior to Rogers’ discovery of the game, Stein had sold rights to the Maxwell’s Mirrorsoft for European distribution, and to Spectrum Holobyte in the US. Rogers’ snagged Spectrum’s rights, but quickly realized that Steins’ contracts were likely illegitimate. To the movie’s credit, it also covers this licensing drama, but it’s almost always overshadowed by the more fantastical elements added by the filmmakers.

While the pieces don’t entirely fit into place (sorry), if Tetris pushes more people to explore the actual history of the game through other media, like the BBC's documentary Tetris: From Russia with Love, Dan Ackerman's The Tetris Effect and the graphic novel The Games People Play, it may have been worth it. Still, its existence also means we won’t get to see any other adaptations, like a Halt and Catch Fire-esque limited series, anytime soon.

There's a vast gulf between the dreamy notion of glasses-free 3D – extra visual depth without any clunky eye-wear! – and the reality: fuzzy imagery, buggy execution, and headaches. Oh, the headaches. So it goes with Acer's Predator Helios 300 SpatialLabs Edition, equipped with the company's glasses-free 3D screen. It's meant to unlock an entirely new dimension of gameplay in titles like God of War and Forza Horizon 5 – and it does, to a degree. But it's also obscenely expensive, starting at $3,499, and its 3D functionality isn't worth losing the higher refresh rates and better quality screens you find on most other gaming laptops.

When I've demoed glasses-free 3D in the past, it's always seemed like a potentially useful feature for deep-pocketed professionals, people who may want to check out their 3D models without slapping on a VR headset. That could very well be true, but the Helios 300 SpatialLabs Edition convinced me that it serves practically no purpose in the gaming world, where players are often aiming to inject as many frames in their eyeballs as possible.

That's just not possible with this computer, since it's limited to a 15.6-inch 4K panel (which scales down to 1080p per eye in 3D mode) running at 60Hz. So at best, this gaming laptop is restricted to 60fps at a time when even budget machines can deliver enough power to fill 120Hz and 144Hz screens. The tradeoff for glasses-free 3D, ultimately, is responsiveness while gaming. The higher the refresh rate, the more silky smooth a game can appear. And when it comes to fast-paced shooters, it could make all the difference between a clutch headshot and digital oblivion.

Now if Acer's 3D technology was truly groundbreaking, perhaps that wouldn't matter so much. But while it can look good, it's a mere curiosity. Acer's TrueGame app lets you play a select handful of games in two different modes: 3D+, which shifts depth buffer pixels to deliver a vague depth effect, and 3D Ultra, which uses a virtual second camera to create a far more immersive sense of space. Eye tracking sensors above the screen help to direct two different sets of images to your eyes, a technique that's typical for glasses-free 3D displays, but that also means only one person can actually use the 3D feature. As for game support, there are only 9 games using 3D Ultra at the moment, including God of War, Psychonauts 2 and A Plague Tale: Innocence. Acer says around 65 titles, mostly older games, work with 3D+.

Competitive online shooters aren't supported at all – Acer claims their anti-cheat software prevents its 3D technology from being applied. That's a shame if you were hoping a bit of depth would make your Warzone or Apex Legends matches more rewarding. Honestly, you wouldn't want to play those in 3D either, as the technology generally makes games look less sharp. You can blame the slightly lower resolution for that, as well as the inherent haziness from having your eyes adjust to a 3D screen on the fly.

Playing Forza Horizon 5 in 3D+ was almost like looking at a Magic Eye puzzle – I had to be in just the right spot to detect any depth. And if my eyes shifted a bit, I would sometimes lose the effect entirely. God of War fared better in 3D Ultra Mode, with a convincing sense of immersion similar to what you'd expect from a 3D film. Throwing Kratos's axe had the uncanny effect of going beyond the screen in my office, and at times the Helios 300 SL felt like a portal into another world.

Still, playing God of War in 3D almost instantly made my eyes tired. 3D Ultra relies on your brain constantly making sense of two different camera views. I sometimes felt motion sick while I was walking around the game, especially if I glanced over to my unmoving, clutter-filled desk. It was almost like playing the game in VR, sans the bulky headset. I found myself resting my eyes every 30 minutes or so, just like I do with VR headsets.

You could, of course, play any PC title in 2D on the Helios 300 SL, but why would you buy a $3,500 glass-free 3D laptop for that? Our review unit was equipped with an RTX 3080 and Intel Core i9-12900H CPU (an updated model with a 40-series GPU is coming in a few months). It was certainly beefy enough for any game I threw at it, especially since the display is limited to 60Hz. But playing Halo Infinite or Overwatch 2 just didn't feel nearly as smooth as it did on the Acer Predator Triton 500 SE I reviewed last year. That $2,300 machine featured a gorgeous 240Hz 1,440p screen, which helped me line up sniper shots with ease.

Beyond its unique screen, the Predator Helios 300 SL looks like a typical Acer gaming laptop. Its matte metal case feels sturdy, and aside from a small lightbar up front, and per-key RGB lighting, there's none of the obnoxious bling we've seen on some high-end gaming PC. There's almost every port imaginable spread around the machine: Two USB 3.2 Type-A connections on the right side; with another Type A USB-port on the left side, beside a gigabit Ethernet and a headphone jack. On the rear, there's a USB-C Thunderbolt 4 connection, MiniDisplayport, HDMI and a DC power port.

Acer probably just wanted to keep the Helios 300 SL low-key, but with a unique feature like glasses-free 3D, it would have been nice to set its design apart from the sea of other black gaming laptops out there. It's also clear that the screen was the major priority: Its keyboard feels a bit too mushy for extended typing (though I appreciated the wide layout), and the trackpad isn't very responsive. I often had to click on icons several times before the trackpad responded.

If it had a better keyboard and trackpad, as well as a higher refresh rate screen, the Helios 300 SL could have been a potential option for professionals working with 3D models. Unfortunately, it's focused on gamers, and it's not nearly compelling enough for that crowd. Its mediocre battery life – 6 hours and 15 minutes, according to PCMark 10's office productivity benchmark – didn't help matters much either.

Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget

If, for some reason, glasses-free 3D is still compelling to you, there are few other options. Acer also sells a standalone 15.6-inch SpatialLabs screen for $1,100 – but I don't need to tell you that's a bad idea. The company's ConceptD 7 laptop also had that screen, but it’s no longer available. There's also ASUS's upcoming spin on glasses-free 3D with its ProArt StudioBook 16, which looked compelling during our CES preview.

Barring a miraculous advancement in holographics sometime soon, I'm ready to give up on the entire notion of glasses-free 3D. It just doesn’t make sense to spend $3,500 on the Helios 300 SpatialLabs Edition. While there's a chance the technology could eventually help a certain subsection of professionals, those folks would likely be served better with VR headsets, and potentially AR devices like the Magic Leap 2 in the future. Either option would deliver a better dose of 3D without the headaches of glasses-free tech.

Google finally opened up its Bard AI for testing, and it turns out it’s a little loopy. This week, Cherlynn and Devindra dive into their experience with Bard, as well as how it compares with Microsoft’s BingAI (and GPT4, consequently). Also, we discuss even more AI news from NVIDIA, Microsoft and Midjourney, as well as TikTok CEO Shou Chew’s date with Congress.

Listen below or subscribe on your podcast app of choice. If you've got suggestions or topics you'd like covered on the show, be sure to email us or drop a note in the comments! And be sure to check out our other podcasts, the Morning After and Engadget News!

Subscribe!

• iTunes

• Spotify

• Pocket Casts

• Stitcher

• Google Podcasts

Topics

• Google opened its Bard AI chatbot to the masses, it seems a little drunk – 1:22

• So many other AI updates from Microsoft, NVIDIA, Adobe and more – 23:14

• Other news: TikTok’s CEO goes to Congress – 36:25

• Cherlynn’s experience with Tesla’s wireless charging platform – 42:05

• Acer announces production on…an e-bike?? – 48:20

• Around Engadget: Tripod desk, Konnected Kamada Joe grill, history of game controllers – 49:43

• Working on – 51:57

• Pop culture picks – 54:56

Livestream

Credits
Hosts: Cherlynn Low and Devindra Hardawar
Producer: Ben Ellman
Music: Dale North and Terrence O'Brien
Livestream producers: Julio Barrientos
Graphic artists: Luke Brooks

Even if you're not plugging an Ethernet cable into the wall, somewhere along the chain you're still relying on that technology to get online. You've got Bob Metcalfe and the late David Boggs to thank for that. Together at Xerox's renowned Palo Alto Research Institute (better known as Xerox PARC), the pair developed Ethernet and set the stage for a networking revolution. Yesterday, Metcalfe received the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) A.M. Turing Award, which is often pegged the "Nobel Prize of computing."

Thanks to funding from Google, that prize is now worth $1 million, and it's yet another highlight for Metcalfe's storied career. After leaving Xerox PARC, he founded 3com, a networking equipment company that brought Ethernet to the mainstream. “It is dangerous to accept an award for developing Ethernet, which turns 50 on May 22, 2023,” Metcalfe told the University of Texas, where he now serves as a professor emeritus. “Over Ethernet’s 50 years, hundreds of people have earned some claim of inventorship. Join me in saying to these folks, ‘Thank you.’”

Despite its notoriety as a cable technology, Metcalfe told the New York Times that he originally envisioned it to be more like the Wi-Fi we know today. “We wanted to make it wireless,” he said. “But we couldn’t have zero wires. It would have been too slow and too expensive.”