gshc2020.com

The baby crocodilian’s more free-roaming and go-kart laden sequel, which allegedly sported the ‘Kingdom of the Gobbos’ subtitle during development (it was subsequently dropped for the official release in June of 1999), is indeed getting a fresh, modern coat of paint. The revisited Croc 2 will hit every major platform, including Nintendo Switch, PS5, PS4, Xbox Series X|S, Steam and GOG, with the majority of accompanying wishlists going live today. I’m a tad disappointed by the lack of N-Gage compatibility, but you can’t win them all.

The upcoming remaster is due for release in Q4 2026, so not that long of a wait, all things considered. I wouldn’t be shocked if work on Croc 2: Kingdom of the Gobbos began alongside the retooled Croc: Legend of the Gobbos, but that’s pure speculation. I have to think Argonaut predicted at least some level of genuine nostalgic success with the reissue of its classic 3D platformer, and good for them if it’s doing better than anticipated.

Play Puzzles & Games on Forbes

If the Croc 2 project is anything like its predecessor, it will probably include plenty of graphical, on-the-fly toggles and CRT filters, alongside a remastered soundtrack and revamped controls. By 1999, a lot of PlayStation games fully supported the DualShock controller, and luckily, Croc 2 was part of that wave. So, gone were the first Croc’s tank controls, and what replaced them were proper analog inputs, thank God. The original Croc did support the short-lived and now quite rare Dual Analog controller, my personal favorite Sony gamepad, but it was more or less shoehorned in at the last minute.

In a 2016 Retro Gamer interview, lead designer Nic Cusworth told me that Croc 2 was a ‘flawed favorite’ of his. He said there was a lot of ambition going into the sequel, and plenty of obvious Diddy Kong Racing influence, especially in regard to the central hub world and all the new vehicle segments. Regardless, he wished he could have ultimately fixed the wily camera in Croc 2, and maybe Argonaut will finally grant him that redo later this year.

Croc 2: Kingdom of the Gobbos will also bring back the extensive Crocipedia, a sprawling digital museum of art assets, design documents and lengthy developer interviews. Now it’s called the Croc2pedia, because hey, why not. Full disclosure: I was interviewed for the original Crocipedia, so you can check out my chat in the first Croc remaster, if you’re so inclined.

I still remember seeing the advert for Croc 2 on the back of the Croc: Legend of the Gobbos instruction manual, emblazoned with a shiny Christmas 1998 release date, then having to wait until the year 1999 to finally play it. Development delays, I’m assuming. Once I eventually picked up a copy for $20 at Walmart (on clearance!) I definitely had some good fun, although admittedly, it didn’t make as much of an impact on me as Legend of the Gobbos. Reviews reflect this, and maybe it’s because expectations had changed by 1999. 3D gaming had evolved, and gamers had a higher bar.

Regardless, I’m still very much looking forward to re-exploring this arguably underrated PS1/Windows game, which will hopefully prove much more enjoyable this time around, outfitted with better visuals, better controls and most importantly, a refined camera. Maybe it will make up for the cancelled Dreamcast port. I’m still salty about that one. Salty like the Bering Sea. %!s()

Last week, I played a few hours of Gears of War: E-Day multiplayer split between Horde Siege—this game's expanded take on its long-running PvE co-op—and standard Versus PvP. Both modes were unexpected, but not because Gears is venturing into uncharted territory. It's actually the opposite: There is no surprise battle royale, no extraction elements, not even Call of Duty loadouts.

E-Day is The Coalition saying loudly, and proudly, that multiplayer as it was 20 years ago was good for its own reasons, and I'm inclined to agree.

Versus

Take the sampling of E-Day Versus I had access to, which could've been plucked out of 2007: We've got 4v4, classic modes, and Locust v. COGs. My first round of team deathmatch couldn't have had a more perfect beginning: four meaty grunts sprinting toward the center of the map, immediately equipping the gnasher shotgun, and hipfiring wildly for an instagib. E-Day is appropriately gorey, though I noticed sustained damage doesn't produce the volume of blood it used to—perhaps an allowance to readability, or a consequence of hitmarkers now serving as the primary damage feedback.

Speaking of sprint, yes, the iconic roadie run is gone. The thick combatants of prequel Gears now run upright like normal people, which makes sense for E-Day's new emphasis on mobility, but is sad nonetheless.

Instead of pulling the camera in, sprinting now zooms out so you can survey surroundings and improvise where to go next. It's pretty much the inverse of the roadie run—which scrunched you down so you wouldn't get shot running in a straight line to the next piece of cover.

The Y button (on controller) is a dedicated jump (more of a heavy hop) that will also vault up or over cover, and you can also slide out of a sprint. It speaks to the consistency of Gears that the ability to hop on top of a waist-high planter is a newsworthy change. I'm not sure that's a big deal for combat, as cover is still the place to be in Gears, but it will let you easily take shortcuts across maps.

Keep up to date with the most important stories and the best deals, as picked by the PC Gamer team.

Movement struck me as the single biggest mechanical shift of E-Day, and it'll take more time than I had to fully judge it, but first impressions? Gears feels a little faster now, but still hefty. I like it.

I also like Gears' classic modes: Scatter power weapons with learnable locations around a map in 2026 and I will howl at the moon. Finding the torque bow or longshot was like leaping to the top of the food chain, and the predictability of starter weapons (lancers, gnashers, pistols) means 1v1s are decided by the little things like headshots, positioning, and map control. I can't speak to these changes myself as a lifelong casual, but it's also encouraging that The Coalition wants to clamp down on annoying "wall bouncing" techniques that turned past iterations of Gears Versus into inscrutable bumper cars with shotguns.

Image 1 of 3

Horde Siege

It should be no surprise to report that the co-op PvE that helped popularize "horde" modes in general is still good, though E-Day's take on it is pretty different. Horde Siege is an 12-player variant that divides two squads up between missions on a large map.

The format almost seems inspired by Helldivers 2, or recent Black Ops Zombies: you drop in, complete objectives, and maybe hit up side missions along the way before extracting. There wasn't much to do or see on the city streets between mission zones—I spent a surprising amount of time sprinting down empty roads to where the action was, but the missions themselves are great little instances of wave-based survival. The preview build included a shorter beginner playlist with just one survival mission—took about 10 minutes total—but the full format is more like 30 to 45 minutes, depending on how many times your squad wipes.

I mostly played with randoms, but was able to squad up with US editor-in-chief Tyler Wilde for a full length match. I'm no Horde expert, so forgive me if this is old news for The Coalition's run of games, but I love how enemy aggression and health ramps up throughout the match.

Our first two defense missions were chill enough that we could comfortably banter about non-Gears things while sawing Locust in half, but that eventually changed when three-story mantis monsters and flying eyeball wraiths started showing up in numbers. The last mission—a king of the hill thing that had us "calibrating" zones in a park—gave us a lot of trouble. We wiped three times before wising up enough to prioritize targets and conserve power weapons. This was all on the lowest overall difficulty, mind you. I can't imagine the higher tiers will be feasible without a particularly lucky set of randoms or some mic'ed up friends who are decent at Gears.

Horde Siege also has permanent progression. You level up its four classes independently—Assault, Medic, Sniper, and Breacher—and each has a class ability. I mostly played Medic, whose area-of-effect heal bot that also revives downed allies seems essential. Guns can take attachments that upgrade core stats or add new functionality, like the bayonet I affixed to my gnasher for a gnarly one-two-punch. There's also armor mods and squad perks purchased mid-round with the same energy currency you use to build turret stations or resupply ammo.

Not a "forever" game

All fairly simple stuff for those who've kept up with co-op shooters since the advent of Horde—I don't foresee these customizations rising to the rank of "build crafting"—but maybe approachability is the point. The Coalition clearly doesn't want gear score or random chance to upstage good coordination, resource management, or finding the perfect camping spot where you can mow down Locust in relative safety. It's not mindless work, especially if you pick your difficulty accordingly, but it is more about endurance than grinding.

I wonder, though, if Horde Siege will be the only version of Horde in E-Day. There is a 10-wave version of the mode I didn't have time to try, so there's that box checked, but I wrapped up the playtest wanting a more focused, classic option with less empty space. Maybe that'll be a thing in the full version, or an eventual milestone on a yet-to-be-seen roadmap.

But I also suspect The Coalition isn't approaching this Gears like a live service forever game. It sounds like cosmetics will be a thing and seasons are in the works, but with those classic Versus modes especially, E-Day multiplayer is taking the shape of something meant to be enjoyed for dozens of hours, not thousands.

That's a good thing, in my book: it shows an awareness on The Coalition's part that Gears wouldn't really be Gears anymore if it padded everything out with Call of Duty-level loadouts or roguelike deckbuilding. It's those older qualities that make E-Day refreshing in 2026, and could help it stand out come October.

Morgan has been writing for PC Gamer since 2018, first as a freelancer and currently as a staff writer. He has also appeared on Polygon, Kotaku, Fanbyte, and PCGamesN. Before freelancing, he spent most of high school and all of college writing at small gaming sites that didn't pay him. He's very happy to have a real job now. Morgan is a beat writer following the latest and greatest shooters and the communities that play them. He also writes general news, reviews, features, the occasional guide, and bad jokes in Slack. Twist his arm, and he'll even write about a boring strategy game. Please don't, though. %!s()

British audio brand Q Acoustics has come up with a solution with the launch of its new 3040c floorstanding loudspeakers. Q Acoustic says that music fans searching for a sonic step-up from a bookshelf speaker can rediscover their favorite tracks and albums on a larger scale thanks to more room-filling sound, while not sacrificing valuable living space or interior style.

Q Acoustics has a strong and loyal following but customers were asking for a more compact and agile floorstanding speaker with a sensible price. So, as the final piece to slot into the Q Acoustic 3000c series of loudspeakers, the 3040c offers a combination of performance, design and technological advances in a floorstanding design for more intimate surroundings.

Driver Platform

The 3040c uses Q Acoustics’ core driver platform — the C3 (pronounced ‘C-cubed’) — a Continuous Curved Cone with a mid/bass profile. The C3 driver is touted as a rare breakthrough in loudspeaker driver design because it combines the powerful bass response of a traditional straight conic cone with the midrange clarity and high-frequency control of a flared design. The result is twin 4.75-inch C3 mid/bass drivers in the 3040c for a controlled bass performance, midrange and a smoother integration with the high-frequency driver.

MORE FOR YOU

The new speakers were inspired by Q Acoustic’s flagship Concept series; the 3040c has a tweeter with a floating design that’s hermetically sealed and mechanically isolated from the cabinet’s baffle. By reducing internal pressure and mid/bass vibrations from coloring the high frequencies, Q Acoustics claims the design, combined with a vented inner chamber, offers ultra-low distortion. This allows for a lower crossover point and seamless transition between drivers.

Internally, the 3040c has Point-to-Point bracing fitted to internal areas of the cabinet that are prone to low-end frequency vibrations. This reinforcement is designed to deliver a more focused stereo image for a wider and better-controlled soundstage.

Lowering The Pressure

Like all floorstanding loudspeakers, the 3040c is vulnerable to internal build-up of pressure that can cause unwanted standing waves and coloration. To prevent this happening, specially designed Helmholtz Pressure Equalizers tubes are fitted inside the cabinet so that internal pressures are nullified and frequency response is improved.

Attention to industrial design also plays a key role in the 3040c ‘s design. Clean lines, Q Acoustics’ signature curved profile, premium finishes and understated detailing all help the speaker to integrate naturally into modern interiors. Rather than competing with a living space, Q Acoustics says the 3040c complements it.

With no visible joints or bolts, the 3040c has a minimalist aesthetic, fronted by a one-piece satin nickel and satin chrome driver trim. Four finishes — Satin Black, Satin White, Pink Oak and Claro Walnut — are available for matching interior styles.

Like its larger brother, the 3050c, the 3040c speakers feature a solid aluminum stabilizer design, with top-adjustable spikes for easy levelling. Additionally, the entire range inherits the 5000 series’ low-profile terminal panel, complete with recessed binding posts that enable a neater placement closer to the wall.

Pricing and Availability:

The Q Acoustics 3040c floorstanding speakers are available now in Satin Black, Satin White, Pin Oak and Claro Walnut. The price per pair is $1,099 / £599 / €899.

Tech Specs:

• Woofer: 2 x 120mm (4.75in).
• Tweeter: 1 x 22mm (0.9in).
• Frequency response (-6 dB): 43Hz – 30kHz.
• Nominal impedance: 6Ω.
• Minimum impedance: 4Ω.
• Sensitivity (1 m, 2.83 Vrms @ 1kHz): 88dB.
• Recommended amplifier power: 25 – 120W.
• Crossover frequency: 2.4kHz.
• Effective volume: 26.8 Liters
• Dimensions (HxWxD): 942 x 285 x 281mm / (37.1 x 11.2 x 11.1 inches) (inc spikes and stabilizer).
• Weight (per loudspeaker): 14.6 Kg (32.1 Ibs).

Dishoom’s most famous dishes have become almost as recognizable as the restaurant itself, and soon, New Yorkers can taste what helped turn Dishoom into one of London’s most beloved restaurant brands.

After more than a decade of building a devoted following across the U.K., Dishoom is finally expanding internationally in 2027 with its New York City debut. Founded in 2010 by Kavi and Shamil Thakrar, Dishoom was inspired by the Irani cafés that once shaped Bombay’s landscape. These cafés, originally opened in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, became hubs where communities gathered over tea, food and conversation. Many of those cafés have since dwindled, but Dishoom has built its identity around preserving their spirit, evident through their nostalgic interiors and vintage design.

For Dishoom, entering New York is not simply about opening another restaurant. It is about bringing a carefully curated dining experience to one of the world’s most competitive culinary markets. Since opening their first location in Covent Garden, the restaurant brand has expanded across the U.K., but has remained selective about growth, prioritizing consistency and experience over aggressive scaling. That combination has helped Dishoom develop something many restaurant groups spend years trying to achieve: a devoted fan base.

MORE FOR YOU

In London, queues outside Dishoom locations have become part of the brand’s mythology, with guests willing to wait hours for its all-day dining menu and signature cocktails. Over the years, its restaurants have become fixtures of the city’s culinary landscape, attracting everyone from early-morning commuters stopping in for chai to international visitors seeking out one of London’s most recognizable dining destinations.

Now, after years of building this loyal following at home, Dishoom is preparing for the exciting challenge of introducing the brand to American diners. And the anticipation for its stateside arrival has long been building. In 2024, Dishoom tested the market with a breakfast pop-up at Pastis, selling out thousands of reservation slots within minutes.

This first U.S. location will open at 11 East 26th Street in Manhattan’s NoMad neighborhood. Located near Madison Square Park, the New York outpost will place Dishoom in one of Manhattan’s busiest dining corridors, where it will compete alongside some of the city’s most established restaurants and fellow new arrivals.

The New York opening also raises a larger question: can a beloved regional restaurant brand become an international one? Restaurant expansion is notoriously difficult—what works in one city does not always translate elsewhere. Successful growth requires maintaining quality, preserving culture and adapting to new audiences without losing the identity that made the brand successful in the first place.

For New York diners, the opening offers the opportunity to experience a restaurant that has become a culinary institution in London. For Dishoom, it represents a chance to test whether its distinctive blend of nostalgia, hospitality and Indian cuisine can resonate across the Atlantic. %!s()

That is understandable. Modernization, cybersecurity, data, automation and infrastructure all require investment. But before leaders assume the answer is more funding, they should ask a harder question: Is the current technology spend optimized well enough?

In many organizations, budget pressure is not caused by one large initiative. It builds slowly through overlapping systems, underused licenses, stale contracts, technical debt and tools that continue to be funded because no one has revisited their value. Each decision may have made sense at the time. Together, they can limit the company’s ability to fund what comes next.

Technology budget optimization is not about cutting for the sake of cutting. It is about making sure every dollar still supports business value, risk reduction, scalability or operational performance. The goal is not to reduce ambition. The goal is to create more capacity for the right investment.

Know what the ecosystem is carrying.

A budget review should not start with a spreadsheet alone. It should start with the technology ecosystem.

Companies need to understand what systems they own, what capabilities those systems provide and where those capabilities overlap. They need to know which platforms are business-critical, underused, no longer meeting expectations or still funded because they are familiar.

An application inventory is helpful, but it is not enough. Leaders need a capability view. Frameworks such as the Technology Business Management have helped companies think more clearly about the relationship between technology cost, business capability and value. The principle matters even if a company does not formally adopt the framework: Technology spend should be connected to what the business is actually trying to achieve.

In technology portfolios I have managed, the hardest part is often separating what is essential from what is simply familiar.

This is where sunk cost thinking becomes dangerous. Companies often continue investing in tools, platforms or custom work because they already spent money, time and political capital to put them in place. Prior investment is not a reason to keep funding something that no longer fits the business or creates more friction than value.

Technical debt adds another layer. Old integrations, manual workarounds, aging platforms and one-off customizations may not appear as obvious budget issues, but they consume time, support capacity and future flexibility.

Contracts and vendors deserve more discipline.

Technology spend also leaks through weak contract management.

Renewal dates get missed. Auto-renewals happen without a usage review. Discounts expire. Vendors expand into overlapping capabilities. Licenses remain active even when adoption is low.

This is not only a procurement issue. It is a leadership issue.

Companies cannot optimize technology spend if they do not have a reliable view of what they own, what they use, what they are obligated to pay for and where contracts no longer match business needs. A contract management system or disciplined renewal process can help, but the tool is less important than the visibility it creates.

Before a renewal, leaders should know whether the platform is still needed, whether usage supports the cost, whether another system already provides the same capability and whether the vendor relationship still delivers the expected value.

The same applies to managed service providers and external partners. Outsourcing can be the right decision for specialized or scalable support needs. But companies still need to know which capabilities must remain internal and where outside support makes more sense. The goal is balance, not dependency.

Optimization should create capacity for change.

The strongest reason to optimize technology spend is not savings. It is capacity.

Every dollar tied up in duplicate tools, unused licenses, weak contracts or avoidable technical debt is a dollar unavailable for higher-value work such as security, data quality, automation, infrastructure resilience, customer experience or business process improvement.

This is why optimization should be connected to reinvestment. If savings disappear into a general cost exercise, teams may view optimization as a cut. If savings help fund modernization, risk reduction or growth, the conversation changes.

Cloud financial management practices such as FinOps have reinforced this broader idea: visibility, accountability and business value matter before spend scales. That same discipline should apply beyond cloud. Technology leaders need to understand where money is going, who is consuming the capability and whether the spend is producing the right outcome.

Technology budgets should make the difference between run, grow and transform more visible. Some spend keeps the business operating. Some reduces risk. Some supports growth. Some enables transformation. Without that view, companies may approve new investments while old decisions continue consuming capacity in the background.

The hard part is that optimization is not just financial. It is also change management.

Teams get attached to tools. Departments build habits around specific platforms. Consolidating, renegotiating or retiring technology can create friction before it creates value.

Budget discipline cannot be treated as a spreadsheet exercise. It requires communication, business sponsorship and a practical transition plan. If a tool is being consolidated, users need to understand the replacement path. If licenses are being reduced, usage data should support the decision. If a legacy system is being addressed, the business needs clarity on why the change matters.

More funding will always be needed for the right priorities. But more funding without optimization can hide poor discipline.

The better question is not only how much more technology investment the business needs. It is whether the current investment is being used well enough to justify the next one.

Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?