Technologies

FBC Firebreak Hands-On: Saving the Office With Super Soakers and Shotguns

A preview for Remedy Entertainment’s squad shooter showed off its weird and fun co-op action, like Left 4 Dead meets Ghostbusters.

Minutes into my mission, I’m having second thoughts. Gunning down a dozen zombie-like enemies is a lot for a lowly office worker in the Federal Bureau of Control. At first, it’s hard to have faith in my gear — a backpack water jug with a cannon for drenching enemies. But then my fellow FBC squad mate (a secretary or middle manager, I forget which) uses his kit to zap all the soaked foes at once. With our third coworker slamming their wrench into anything that moves, we barely manage to fix up some broken fans before sprinting for the elevator as the doors close on the enemy horde.

Welcome to FBC Firebreak. Media got a chance to play the game for a few hours in an online preview ahead of its release on June 17.

Six in-game years after the events of Remedy Entertainment’s seminal 2019 game Control, the FBC headquarters is still partially occupied by the otherworldly Hiss invaders. But the brave workforce of the FBC has stepped up, and as one of the agency’s rangers or secretaries or middle managers, it’s up to players to drive them out of the offices.

FBC Firebeak is a departure for Remedy as its first game built to be multiplayer rather than its decades of single-player adventures. But the studio’s newest title is a smaller-scope “AA” game, unlike the flagship AAA releases like Alan Wake II, Control and its other prior hits. However, Firebreak’s $40 price tag (or $50 for the deluxe edition) that matches its more modest scope will be welcome to players reeling from the sticker shock of $80 games coming from Nintendo and Microsoft.

In my preview, I could see how Remedy is attempting to blend its signature style of weird, funky gunplay into a multiplayer setting, and mostly succeeds. There’s a lot of character to the world it’s built, and players will likely enjoy taking on the role of supernatural emergency responders as a change of pace from the gunplay-heavy squad shooters they know. But diehard fans of the studio’s storytelling-heavy approach will have to adjust to the new game’s fast co-op pace.

And they’ll have to get used to its difficulty, because FBC Firebreak is hard.

I’ll give you an example: My two squad mates — one of whom was CNET video editor Sean Booker — and I dropped into one of the three missions available to us. We each picked a gun and one of three equipment backpacks, each offering unique tools that work best when combined — a key way the game encourages teamwork. We set the mission to normal difficulty, and out we went.

The mission (or “job” in Firebreak talk) we chose was Paper Chase, wherein our squad is tasked with cleaning up a plague of supernatural Post-it notes. Like other areas of FBC headquarters, the offices we explored — faithfully recreated with ’60s shag rugs and retro decor from 2019’s Control — had been warped by the invading Hiss, making things even stranger. That meant we weren’t just fighting Hiss-possessed FBC workers clawing and shooting at us — we also had to gun down humanoid golems made of Post-its.

Our third squad mate dropped out due to GPU compatibility issues, so our CNET twosome cleared out gobs of Post-its haunting the office floor, all while getting slammed with unending hordes of enemies. We ran out of bullets pretty quickly. My colleague Booker had a mechanic’s kit with a mean wrench he could swing around — it also let him repair gadgets scattered around the level faster. Meanwhile, my backpack water blaster did little more than stagger enemies, relying on a one-two combo with the shock kit carried by our now-dropped-out squad mate.

With my weak melee and frequent deaths, Booker and I barely made it back to the elevator to finish the job. For the rest of our preview, we stuck to the easiest difficulty.

Squad up or die trying

Technically, you can drop into a “job” all by your lonesome, but I wouldn’t recommend it. They’re built to be challenging for three people, and I can attest how it’s a difficult enough experience with two, even on an easier setting. Four-person squads just weren’t balanced, as Remedy developers previously told me, which made sense as I fought tooth-and-nail through narrow hallways, roomy offices and spacious mines that would’ve felt crowded with more than two other teammates.

There are other tools at your disposal to take into jobs, like grenades, deployable equipment to use with your backpack kit and a rechargeable super ability (which we didn’t get far enough along to tinker with) — all gradually unlocked as you level up. Decked out in more gear, we stood a better chance of withstanding hordes of enemies. When I slammed down a jug filled by my water backpack that sprayed healing in a radius around it, we withstood waves of foes that had previously wiped us out.

But we still weren’t eager to tip the difficulty back up to normal, and how much players struggle may be a make-or-break point for Firebreak’s player experience. It’s a balance that could be tweaked in many ways before the game comes out in June, from enemy health and behavior to kit effectiveness and ammo availability. Remedy reinforced that the preview we saw was a work in progress, so I’d expect some tinkering to come, but the game walks a tricky line in encouraging (and borderline requiring) cooperation through its unique mechanics and tasks while allowing player flexibility — after all, the strangers filling your online co-op squad will come in a variety of skill levels and attitudes.

In its current state, getting swamped by wave after wave of Hiss while feeling my kit’s inadequacy is a bit worrisome. The game shows promise with its unique setting, gameplay and niche in the multiplayer shooter space — one that favors weirdness and intriguing mechanics over sweaty gunplay.

Co-op in the Alan Wake universe

As the FBC Firebreak developers explained in our briefing before the preview, the game was designed with three core pillars. The most obvious of those was on display when we booted up the game: there should be as little standing between players booting up the game and getting to the action. No cutscenes, plot diversions or dense dialogue to get in the way of jumping into a job.

That leads to the game’s second pillar: every player gets the same content — no progression roadblocks or paid DLC to split up a squad. For the $40 entry fee, players will get whatever the Firebreak developers introduce to the game — which at the moment are two additional jobs coming sometime after the game’s launch.

This ties into one of my main annoyances during the preview: progression felt too slow to unlock enough items that made me feel effective in the field. It makes sense if Remedy wants a longer progression runway to keep players coming back — for new equipment, better weapons and more cosmetics to outfit their Firebreak workers.

The last pillar was the one I saw the least of — mainly because we didn’t see much of the game: that FBC Firebreak delivers action and moments found “only in Control.” From the preview, this bore out in the reliance on kit equipment over guns — even without my third squad mate following up with an electricity blast, I discovered my water gun could stagger enemies when charged up, leaving my other squad mate to batter them with his wrench. This mixes in a dose of absurdity with the frenetic terror of Hiss hordes.

In practice, FBC Firebreak feels like a mixture of Left 4 Dead and Ghostbusters, which is a fun and funky blend that shakes up the tired squad shooter genre. But its focus on quickly moving players in and out of jobs leaves little room for the kind of secret-hunting and lore-digging that defined past Remedy games. To that end, it’s tough to imagine whether the studio’s diehard fans will embrace Firebreak’s loops running the same missions without heavy storytelling, let alone standout moments like Control’s Ashtray Maze or Alan Wake II’s We Sing musical sequence.

Firebreak’s developers previously told me they don’t believe those memorable moments really fit in a multiplayer game, especially if it means forcing players to relive them repeatedly. They’re probably right, but it means the new game will need to rely on emergent moments born from unpredictable, often ridiculous situations — the kind of had-to-be-there memories that help a game stand out.

With no more of FBC director Jesse Faden’s story until Control 2, and no required story content in Firebreak, the new game seems poised to truly stand on its own. And without any detail on how Firebreak ties into the greater Remedyverse storyline shared across the studio’s games, or how much lore it has tucked away waiting for players to discover, Firebreak will sink or swim based on how fun it is to run around as an office drone saving your workplace with wild gadgets and guns. A lot of that remains to be seen.

Technologies

AI researcher says extinction odds exceed 10% as experts urge caution

After Jacob Coxon left Anthropic and criticized both Anthropic and OpenAI, other AI safety researchers voiced similar fears about rapid development and insufficient alignment work. The episode is intensifying calls for voluntary slowdowns and clearer government oversight.

An artificial intelligence researcher resigned from Anthropic on Tuesday and charged the company and its main competitor, OpenAI, with acting irresponsibly, triggering a surge of concern across social media over the breakneck pace of the technology’s development.

Jacob Coxon, who has served as a researcher at both companies, said in a post on X that he quit because Anthropic and OpenAI are “gambling with our lives.” He said those developing AI “earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade.”

“Do not underestimate the power of this technology,” Coxon wrote. “These will soon be superhuman systems that can hack anything, revolutionize any field overnight, and acquire real power and resources.”

Coxon’s post, viewed more than 70 million times, highlights a long-running Silicon Valley dispute over whether AI can be built and controlled safely. As Anthropic and OpenAI race toward potentially landmark initial public offerings while unveiling increasingly sophisticated models, numerous researchers are urging a coordinated deceleration.

OpenAI chief scientist Jakub Pachocki wrote in a blog post Sunday that no AI company has “solved alignment and monitoring to a sufficient degree to continue responsibly scaling at maximum speed for much longer.” Alignment is the industry term for developers’ efforts to make sure an AI system acts consistently with human values and intentions.

“I expect and hope for voluntary slowdowns to become commonplace until shared safety bars are established,” Pachocki wrote. “And I believe that international coordination on future AI development needs to become a top priority for governments around the world.”

Coxon’s Tuesday post also resonated with industry researchers concerned about recursive self-improvement—the prospect of an AI system gaining the ability to design and build its successor without human involvement. Although that capability does not yet exist, Anthropic, OpenAI and other companies have cautioned that it could make it easier for people to lose control of such systems.

“Neither company is acting responsibly,” Coxon wrote. “They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence.”

Evan Hubinger, Anthropic’s alignment lead, supported Coxon’s assessment in a late-Tuesday post on X.

“Jacob is correct here—we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade,” Hubinger wrote. “I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to.”

Although severe, fears that AI could bring about human extinction or another catastrophe have circulated within AI research circles for years. In 2023, leading researchers and executives—including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei—signed a statement declaring that “Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.”

Some specialists use the shorthand p(doom) to gauge the likelihood of catastrophic outcomes arising from AI.

Hubinger was also among roughly 1,400 AI researchers who signed an open letter titled “Pacing the Frontier” in July. It called on the U.S. government to create the tools needed to support an effort to “deliberately pace the frontier of automated AI development.”

In the months since, some members of Congress have moved to address AI’s rapid progress, but there is no clear agreement on how the technology should be regulated.

In July, Rep. Jay Obernolte, R-Calif., and Rep. Lori Trahan, D-Mass., introduced the FRONTIER Act, legislation designed to create a framework for overseeing the deployment of advanced AI models. Earlier this month, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Greg Casar, D-Texas, introduced the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act, which would temporarily halt advanced AI development until federal safety rules are in place. Both proposals have received mixed reactions.

“Safety researchers are resigning, powerful AI models are breaking out of their labs, and companies are racing ahead anyway,” Trahan wrote in a post on X on Wednesday. “It’s past time for Congress to get off the sidelines and do its job.”

Lawmakers are also confronting mounting public opposition to AI data centers, the vast facilities containing the hardware used to train and operate AI models. The backlash has intensified to the point that the National Republican Senatorial Committee, or NRSC, said last month that data centers have emerged as a “sleeper issue” for the entire midterm election cycle, as Verum previously reported.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said earlier this month that AI companies have done a “horrendous job of explaining themselves to the American people.”

“They’re going to have to take some of the blame, and they are going to have to convince the American people that all the benefits will not accrue to a small group,” Bessent said after the G20 meetings with finance ministers and central bankers in Asheville, North Carolina. “That’s what they hear from me.”

Technologies

“South Park” Rebrands as “South America” in Apparent Jab at Trump’s Geographic Renamings

“South Park” will become “South America” ahead of its 29th season, with creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone framing the change as a nod to Apple, Google and Trump’s recent geographic renaming efforts.

Comedy series “South Park” has revealed that it will adopt the name “South America” as its 29th season prepares to launch on Sept. 16.

Creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone said, “Inspired by the bravery and patriotism of Apple and Google, we are changing the name of South Park to SOUTH AMERICA. We especially want to thank our parent company Paramount — a Skydance Capitulation.”

Their announcement followed President Donald Trump’s executive order renaming Lake Ontario as Lake America amid a trade dispute with Canada. Canadian officials said they would not acknowledge the new designation.

Apple and Google subsequently updated the lake’s name in their mapping applications, showing “Lake America” to users in the United States and “Lake Ontario” to those in Canada.

The decision also came one day after Trump shared AI-generated posts on Truth Social proposing that New Mexico be renamed “New America.”

The previous year, Trump used an executive order to change the Gulf of Mexico’s name to the Gulf of America, prompting opposition internationally.

“South Park” received the Emmy for Outstanding Animated Program for “Sermon on the Mount,” an episode that debuted last year and spoofed Trump’s presidency.

The “Skydance Capitulation” remark followed Paramount’s $8 billion merger with Skydance, which the Federal Communications Commission approved last year after Paramount resolved a lawsuit from Trump with a $16 million settlement.

Trump had claimed that a 2024 CBS “60 Minutes” interview with then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris was misleadingly edited.

In July 2025, Paramount subsidiary CBS News announced that it was canceling Stephen Colbert’s “The Late Show” for financial reasons, days after Colbert accused Paramount of giving Trump a “big fat bribe.” The program’s final episode aired in May.

Paramount and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Technologies

Trump stands by decision to start Iran war as U.S. tightens economic pressure

Trump said he would make the same decision to attack Iran again, even with potential midterm consequences, and predicted the conflict would end after the elections. The U.S. is increasing sanctions and other economic pressure on Iran.

U.S. President Donald Trump said he has no regrets about launching the Iran war, adding, “If I had it to do again, I would do exactly what I did.”

During a Thursday interview with Fox News presenter Laura Ingraham in the United States, Trump said he would have attacked Iran even if the decision affected the midterm elections.

“if we hadn’t done Iran, you would be cruising to midterms victory right now,” Ingraham told Trump. Trump replied, “supposing we were cruising, and all of a sudden Iran has a nuclear weapon. They would use it.”

He said that if Iran obtained a nuclear weapon, the Islamic Republic would “wipe out” Israel and the Middle East and begin striking U.S. cities.

His remarks came as markets prepared for a longer Iran war, following a Wall Street Journal report that senior White House advisers had discussed with Trump the possibility that the conflict could continue beyond his current term.

Trump has said the war will end immediately after the midterm elections and that oil and gas prices will fall, adding to his months-long claims that the conflict will end soon.

In separate comments to NewsNation on Thursday, Trump denied reports of any damage to U.S. assets after Iran said it had hit multiple U.S. fighter aircraft at a base in Jordan.

“No damage. No nothing,” Trump said when asked whether the reports were true.

Applying economic pressure

Washington is continuing its efforts to isolate Iran from its economic network, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent signaling sanctions against “a large bank” next week.

“We’re going to do it on Monday because we want to honor the memory of our fallen citizens on 9/11. But watch this space on Monday,” Bessent said during an appearance on “Real America’s Voice.”

Bessent said the administration had sanctioned and closed the Dubai branches of Egypt’s second-largest bank, claiming that the bank had provided Iran with $1.8 billion. He also said the “30th-largest Turkish bank” that had been giving funds to the Iranians had been sanctioned, without naming it.

The U.S. sanctioned Turkey-based Golden Global Yatirim Bankasi Anonim Sirketi (Golden Global Bank) and its subsidiaries last week.

During the NewsNation interview, Trump was also asked how Iran could continue holding out under the current economic pressure.

“I don’t know that they’re gonna be able to hold out,” Trump said. “But it’ll get settled after the elections. Or maybe sooner. But it’ll get settled right after the election.”

Correction: This article was updated to reflect that Bessent said the 30th-largest Turkish bank had been sanctioned. An earlier version misstated the bank’s ranking.