Google has begun offering its Stadia streaming technology as a white label product – effectively letting other companies use the tech without becoming a part of the Stadia ecosystem. The first notable example of this comes from AT&T, which is offering customers the chance to play Batman: Arkham Knight as a streamed game, for free.

As reported by 9to5Google, AT&T is allowing customers to stream Arkham Knight for free. AT&T's website makes no mention of Stadia tech being used to stream the game, but both AT&T and Google subsequently confirmed to IGN that the technology being used is the Stadia architecture, but outside of the Stadia platform itself. It's worth noting that Arkham Knight isn't even available as part of the Stadia service.

The game is seemingly only available to stream for a limited time (AT&T hasn't made clear what the end date for the service is), but can be streamed at 1080p from Google Chrome or Microsoft Edge desktop browsers.

In a statement to IGN, an AT&T spokesperson said, "This is being powered by the Stadia technology. For this demo AT&T created a front end experience to enable gamers to play Batman: Arkham Knight directly from their own website and the game is playable on virtually any computer or laptop."

When Google shut down its internal Stadia developers, it hinted that it may use its technology in this new way, effectively allowing partners to sidestep being part of Stadia as a whole, but still use its game streaming capabilities.

"We see an important opportunity to work with partners seeking a gaming solution all built on Stadia’s advanced technical infrastructure and platform tools," wrote Stadia GM Phil Harrison in a February blog post. "We believe this is the best path to building Stadia into a long-term, sustainable business that helps grow the industry."

It's unclear what the wider take-up has been, or will be, but it's an interesting first step in a new direction for Google. That step has been necessitated by the rocky road Stadia has had since launch. Reports have said that Google spent tens of millions of dollars on securing AAA third-party games for its streaming service, not to mention the costs of setting up internal studios.

However, the launch was lacklustre and Stadia reportedly missed multiple targets, leading to a far more scaled-down vision of the service. Stadia is still adding third-party games, but its future may well be looking more like a tech solution than a platform in and of itself.

Joe Skrebels is IGN's Executive Editor of News. Follow him on Twitter. Have a tip for us? Want to discuss a possible story? Please send an email to newstips@ign.com.

Google has begun offering its Stadia streaming technology as a white label product – effectively letting other companies use the tech without becoming a part of the Stadia ecosystem. The first notable example of this comes from AT&T, which is offering customers the chance to play Batman: Arkham Knight as a streamed game, for free.

As reported by 9to5Google, AT&T is allowing customers to stream Arkham Knight for free. AT&T's website makes no mention of Stadia tech being used to stream the game, but both AT&T and Google subsequently confirmed to IGN that the technology being used is the Stadia architecture, but outside of the Stadia platform itself. It's worth noting that Arkham Knight isn't even available as part of the Stadia service.

The game is seemingly only available to stream for a limited time (AT&T hasn't made clear what the end date for the service is), but can be streamed at 1080p from Google Chrome or Microsoft Edge desktop browsers.

In a statement to IGN, an AT&T spokesperson said, "This is being powered by the Stadia technology. For this demo AT&T created a front end experience to enable gamers to play Batman: Arkham Knight directly from their own website and the game is playable on virtually any computer or laptop."

When Google shut down its internal Stadia developers, it hinted that it may use its technology in this new way, effectively allowing partners to sidestep being part of Stadia as a whole, but still use its game streaming capabilities.

"We see an important opportunity to work with partners seeking a gaming solution all built on Stadia’s advanced technical infrastructure and platform tools," wrote Stadia GM Phil Harrison in a February blog post. "We believe this is the best path to building Stadia into a long-term, sustainable business that helps grow the industry."

It's unclear what the wider take-up has been, or will be, but it's an interesting first step in a new direction for Google. That step has been necessitated by the rocky road Stadia has had since launch. Reports have said that Google spent tens of millions of dollars on securing AAA third-party games for its streaming service, not to mention the costs of setting up internal studios.

However, the launch was lacklustre and Stadia reportedly missed multiple targets, leading to a far more scaled-down vision of the service. Stadia is still adding third-party games, but its future may well be looking more like a tech solution than a platform in and of itself.

Joe Skrebels is IGN's Executive Editor of News. Follow him on Twitter. Have a tip for us? Want to discuss a possible story? Please send an email to newstips@ign.com.

Daredevil star Charlie Cox knows that Marvel fans want to see him back as the Man Without Fear – but he warns it might not be for the best.

During an interview with The Pop Culture Spotlight on SiriusXM, the 38-year-old Daredevil actor explained why suiting up as the Marvel hero again might not be such a good idea.

“You’ve got to be careful what you wish for,” he said. “You come back and it’s not as good or it doesn’t quite work or… too much time has passed, it doesn’t quite come together in the same way.”

Marvel’s Daredevil, which ran for three seasons on Netflix, received critical acclaim for its punchy fight scenes and the occasionally brutal tale of Matt Murdock’s story. Now, Charlie Cox is worried about letting fans of the show down.

“You don’t want to taint what you’ve already got,” he explained. “If we never come back, you’ve got these three great seasons — and our third season was our best-reviewed. So, the trajectory was up. I am tremendously proud and grateful for what we have.”

Despite this, Cox admits that he would consider returning as Daredevil – as long as it’s under the right circumstances. “If there was an opportunity for me to come back as Daredevil, whatever that would look like, I imagine it would be a reimagining of the character and the show,” he said. “If they choose me to do it, there are going to be some elements that are, of course, the same. Or they might choose someone else and reboot it all over again.”

Interestingly, the rights to Daredevil recently reverted to Marvel studios, making a return far more likely. But while there have been rumours that Charlie Cox would be back in the upcoming Spider-Man: No Way Home, the actor has previously stated that he won’t back: “It's certainly not with my Daredevil,” he said. “I'm not involved in it."

Whether or not Daredevil will return to the MCU remains to be seen – but it looks as though Charlie Cox’s time as the Man Without Fear may be over.

Ryan Leston is an entertainment journalist and film critic for IGN. You can follow him on Twitter.

Daredevil star Charlie Cox knows that Marvel fans want to see him back as the Man Without Fear – but he warns it might not be for the best.

During an interview with The Pop Culture Spotlight on SiriusXM, the 38-year-old Daredevil actor explained why suiting up as the Marvel hero again might not be such a good idea.

“You’ve got to be careful what you wish for,” he said. “You come back and it’s not as good or it doesn’t quite work or… too much time has passed, it doesn’t quite come together in the same way.”

Marvel’s Daredevil, which ran for three seasons on Netflix, received critical acclaim for its punchy fight scenes and the occasionally brutal tale of Matt Murdock’s story. Now, Charlie Cox is worried about letting fans of the show down.

“You don’t want to taint what you’ve already got,” he explained. “If we never come back, you’ve got these three great seasons — and our third season was our best-reviewed. So, the trajectory was up. I am tremendously proud and grateful for what we have.”

Despite this, Cox admits that he would consider returning as Daredevil – as long as it’s under the right circumstances. “If there was an opportunity for me to come back as Daredevil, whatever that would look like, I imagine it would be a reimagining of the character and the show,” he said. “If they choose me to do it, there are going to be some elements that are, of course, the same. Or they might choose someone else and reboot it all over again.”

Interestingly, the rights to Daredevil recently reverted to Marvel studios, making a return far more likely. But while there have been rumours that Charlie Cox would be back in the upcoming Spider-Man: No Way Home, the actor has previously stated that he won’t back: “It's certainly not with my Daredevil,” he said. “I'm not involved in it."

Whether or not Daredevil will return to the MCU remains to be seen – but it looks as though Charlie Cox’s time as the Man Without Fear may be over.

Ryan Leston is an entertainment journalist and film critic for IGN. You can follow him on Twitter.

Back in June, a report indicated that Everwild, Rare's newest game IP, was being completely rebooted. In a recent interview with Kinda Funny, Xbox Game Studios head Matt Booty said that that report was "more definite and a little more extreme" than the truth.

In his Kinda Funny interview (via GamesRadar), Booty elaborated on how game development, particularly the narratively rich and distinct flavor that Rare creates, is a difficult process consisting of thousands of little decisions.

"What is Rare known for?" Booty said. "They're known for creating new IP and creating worlds. I'll say when you look at it from the outside, when you hear words like 'reset' and maybe 'restructure,' those are probably a little more definite and a little more extreme than what really happens as a game comes to life."

Booty also referenced his time working alongside NBA Jam developer Mark Trammell.

"He used to say that a game gets made a thousand small decisions at a time," Booty said. "Every day you're making hundreds of small decisions and at the end of however long you work on the game, they all add up. I think that's where the Everwild team is right now. They're just trying to make sure that they've got something special."

Booty also touched on how, even with how long a game can take to make and release, the state of a game can dramatically change (or improve) with each new build.

"There's some days where you're just terrified," Booty said. "'What are they making? How is this ever going to come together?' Then you balance that out with a day later, this build comes together and you're like 'this is magic.'"

Worries about a reboot of Everwild's development started when the game was absent from Microsoft's game showcase events during 2019. Everwild's creative director Simon Woodroffe also left Rare in 2020. Rare filled the director's chair with veteran designer Gregg Mayles, who previously worked on Donkey Kong Country, Banjo-Kazooie, Viva Pinata, and Sea of Thieves.

The initial report of the supposed reboot also stated that Everwild may have changed the game's original concept of third-person adventuring with "god game elements," but didn't confirm if any changes actually happened.

Booty said Xbox will have more to share about Everwild when Rare has more to show and that they "don't want to keep things hidden for too long."

Joseph Knoop is a writer/producer/nature wizard for IGN.

Back in June, a report indicated that Everwild, Rare's newest game IP, was being completely rebooted. In a recent interview with Kinda Funny, Xbox Game Studios head Matt Booty said that that report was "more definite and a little more extreme" than the truth.

In his Kinda Funny interview (via GamesRadar), Booty elaborated on how game development, particularly the narratively rich and distinct flavor that Rare creates, is a difficult process consisting of thousands of little decisions.

"What is Rare known for?" Booty said. "They're known for creating new IP and creating worlds. I'll say when you look at it from the outside, when you hear words like 'reset' and maybe 'restructure,' those are probably a little more definite and a little more extreme than what really happens as a game comes to life."

Booty also referenced his time working alongside NBA Jam developer Mark Trammell.

"He used to say that a game gets made a thousand small decisions at a time," Booty said. "Every day you're making hundreds of small decisions and at the end of however long you work on the game, they all add up. I think that's where the Everwild team is right now. They're just trying to make sure that they've got something special."

Booty also touched on how, even with how long a game can take to make and release, the state of a game can dramatically change (or improve) with each new build.

"There's some days where you're just terrified," Booty said. "'What are they making? How is this ever going to come together?' Then you balance that out with a day later, this build comes together and you're like 'this is magic.'"

Worries about a reboot of Everwild's development started when the game was absent from Microsoft's game showcase events during 2019. Everwild's creative director Simon Woodroffe also left Rare in 2020. Rare filled the director's chair with veteran designer Gregg Mayles, who previously worked on Donkey Kong Country, Banjo-Kazooie, Viva Pinata, and Sea of Thieves.

The initial report of the supposed reboot also stated that Everwild may have changed the game's original concept of third-person adventuring with "god game elements," but didn't confirm if any changes actually happened.

Booty said Xbox will have more to share about Everwild when Rare has more to show and that they "don't want to keep things hidden for too long."

Joseph Knoop is a writer/producer/nature wizard for IGN.

EA has temporarily banned over 30,000 players in FIFA 22 for seven days. These bans were the results of the players taking advantage of a "no loss" glitch in the game's Ultimate Team mode last week.

As reported by Eurogamer an exploit appeared where, if abused, players could obtain a 20-0 perfect win record. All players had to do is click on the "home" button on their PlayStation or Xbox controllers to go back to the console's home screen. Then simply wait for the match to time out.

If players were losing a match, they could use this exploit and the game wouldn't register it as a loss.

We have identified over 30K active accounts that exploited this issue consistently and have suspended them from FIFA 22 online for 7 days, preventing them from participating in this week’s FUT Champions Finals.

Read about our Positive Play Charter here - https://t.co/KR5ZrE9X5O https://t.co/c5wih0bkGR

— FIFA Direct Communication (@EAFIFADirect) October 20, 2021

Now, these same players will not be able to participate in the FIFA Ultimate Team Champions Finals this weekend. However, they will still be able to keep the rewards they earned through exploiting the glitch. Some players say they received an in-game message noting they were banned for 1000 days rather than the seven that EA had stated. EA responded by stating that it is a visual bug and the correct time, seven days, is listed in the email that was sent to the affected players.

EA backed up its decision to issue bans by referencing its Positive Play charter, which specifically says, "Don’t: Use exploits, cheats, undocumented features, design errors, bugs or problems to get a leg up on others. This includes using unsupported mods, unauthorized hardware or accessories, or specialized software to gain an unfair advantage, such as 'aimbots' or 'triggerbots,' intentionally 'boosting” or 'teamkilling,' or using exploits to gain in-game items. Seriously, cheaters never prosper."

It certainly seems like this "no loss" glitch falls into that category.

George Yang is a freelance writer for IGN. Follow him on Twitter at @yinyangfooey.

EA has temporarily banned over 30,000 players in FIFA 22 for seven days. These bans were the results of the players taking advantage of a "no loss" glitch in the game's Ultimate Team mode last week.

As reported by Eurogamer an exploit appeared where, if abused, players could obtain a 20-0 perfect win record. All players had to do is click on the "home" button on their PlayStation or Xbox controllers to go back to the console's home screen. Then simply wait for the match to time out.

If players were losing a match, they could use this exploit and the game wouldn't register it as a loss.

We have identified over 30K active accounts that exploited this issue consistently and have suspended them from FIFA 22 online for 7 days, preventing them from participating in this week’s FUT Champions Finals.

Read about our Positive Play Charter here - https://t.co/KR5ZrE9X5O https://t.co/c5wih0bkGR

— FIFA Direct Communication (@EAFIFADirect) October 20, 2021

Now, these same players will not be able to participate in the FIFA Ultimate Team Champions Finals this weekend. However, they will still be able to keep the rewards they earned through exploiting the glitch. Some players say they received an in-game message noting they were banned for 1000 days rather than the seven that EA had stated. EA responded by stating that it is a visual bug and the correct time, seven days, is listed in the email that was sent to the affected players.

EA backed up its decision to issue bans by referencing its Positive Play charter, which specifically says, "Don’t: Use exploits, cheats, undocumented features, design errors, bugs or problems to get a leg up on others. This includes using unsupported mods, unauthorized hardware or accessories, or specialized software to gain an unfair advantage, such as 'aimbots' or 'triggerbots,' intentionally 'boosting” or 'teamkilling,' or using exploits to gain in-game items. Seriously, cheaters never prosper."

It certainly seems like this "no loss" glitch falls into that category.

George Yang is a freelance writer for IGN. Follow him on Twitter at @yinyangfooey.

Does Robert Pattinson as Batman make you think it'd be awesome to see him square off against his old Twilight co-star Kristen Stewart as the Joker? Well, don't get your hopes up. In an interview with Variety, Stewart briefly entertained the idea but squashed hopes for her to ever inhabit the oversized shoes of the clown prince of crime.

The idea started with a social media campaign to cast Stewart alongside her old Twilight counterpart Pattinson, who stars as the titular dark knight in the upcoming The Batman film directed by Matt Reeves (Cloverfield, War for the Planet of the Apes).

“I love the energy behind that,” Stewart told Variety. “It’s really been done so well. I feel like, maybe, we don’t traipse over, but I love that gusto. Let’s figure something else out. I’m totally down to play a freaky, scary person.”

Stewart reiterated her opinion when asked again if that was a hard "no."

“Not ‘no,’ but not the most stoked I’ve ever been. Let’s do something new," Stewart said.

Stewart and Pattinson are certainly plenty far removed from their roots as Twilight's breakout stars 13 years ago. Stewart's most recent film, "Spencer," casts her as the late Princess Diana during the crumbling of her marriage to Prince Charles. Her next project is David Cronenberg's "Crimes of the Future," which follows a performance artist in a world where humanity has evolved to develop new types of organs.

Meanwhile, Pattinson's star has risen even further, landing him starring roles in Christopher Nolan's Tenet, Netflix's The King, and Robert Eggers' The Lighthouse alongside Willem Dafoe.

As for The Batman, we'll be seeing Pattinson square off against the Riddler and Colin Farrel's Penguin, two of his oldest nemeses. We got a huge new look at the film during DC FanDome, including a new trailer.

Joseph Knoop is a writer/producer/caped brew-sader for IGN. Brood with him on Twitter.

Does Robert Pattinson as Batman make you think it'd be awesome to see him square off against his old Twilight co-star Kristen Stewart as the Joker? Well, don't get your hopes up. In an interview with Variety, Stewart briefly entertained the idea but squashed hopes for her to ever inhabit the oversized shoes of the clown prince of crime.

The idea started with a social media campaign to cast Stewart alongside her old Twilight counterpart Pattinson, who stars as the titular dark knight in the upcoming The Batman film directed by Matt Reeves (Cloverfield, War for the Planet of the Apes).

“I love the energy behind that,” Stewart told Variety. “It’s really been done so well. I feel like, maybe, we don’t traipse over, but I love that gusto. Let’s figure something else out. I’m totally down to play a freaky, scary person.”

Stewart reiterated her opinion when asked again if that was a hard "no."

“Not ‘no,’ but not the most stoked I’ve ever been. Let’s do something new," Stewart said.

Stewart and Pattinson are certainly plenty far removed from their roots as Twilight's breakout stars 13 years ago. Stewart's most recent film, "Spencer," casts her as the late Princess Diana during the crumbling of her marriage to Prince Charles. Her next project is David Cronenberg's "Crimes of the Future," which follows a performance artist in a world where humanity has evolved to develop new types of organs.

Meanwhile, Pattinson's star has risen even further, landing him starring roles in Christopher Nolan's Tenet, Netflix's The King, and Robert Eggers' The Lighthouse alongside Willem Dafoe.

As for The Batman, we'll be seeing Pattinson square off against the Riddler and Colin Farrel's Penguin, two of his oldest nemeses. We got a huge new look at the film during DC FanDome, including a new trailer.

Joseph Knoop is a writer/producer/caped brew-sader for IGN. Brood with him on Twitter.