Latest news with #devteam
Digital Trends
10-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Digital Trends
Invincible Vs is like Mortal Kombat mixed with Killer Instinct
When I heard rumblings that a game based on Invincible was in the works, I had a fairly clear vision of what they would look like. I figure it would be some kind of superhero action-adventure game set somewhere in the comic book universe. I was absolutely not expecting a tag team brawler, but that's what we're getting with Invincible Vs. I'm very much okay with that after playing a few rounds for myself following the Xbox Games Showcase this past weekend. Invincible Vs aims to be a very approachable fighting game that can be as casual or hardcore as you want. Recommended Videos The idea here is simple: It's your basic 2D fighting game where players choose teams of three heroes that they can tag between on the fly. If Marvel vs. Capcom comes to mind when I say that, that's partially accurate, but there's a lot more to it than that. In fact, everything I'm about to describe will probably make a lot more sense to you when I tell you that the new studio developing it is largely made up of the devs who made Killer Instinct. The core combat has me juggling attacks and special on my four face buttons. I can perform grabs and counters by pressing different buttons together, keeping all the basics centralized to one place. I could pick up the basics of fighting very quickly, as the team built its combo system to be fairly approachable. For instance, if I just hammer my light attack, I'll perform an instant special of sorts. You don't have to memorize long combo strings to pull off something that looks cool. The complexity builds from there. On the right side of my controller, I can dash with the bumper. If I hop into the air and hold the right trigger, I can perform an even longer dash that more or less lets me fly for a moment. That movement system adds some superheroic action to the mix, as there's huge potential for sky high aerial combos and dodging here. The left side of the controller is all about weapons in partners. Holding the left trigger will tag a friend in, but pressing the bumper will send someone in for a mid-combo attack, not dissimilar to the way Mortal Kombat 1 and its Kameos work. Switching characters is important, because a fighter will essentially crash out if their combo meter gets too high. Tagging in a friend resets it, allowing them to create much longer chains. That might leave you worried that Invincible Vs is the kind of fighting game where you can get stuck in a never-ending juggle, but that's not the case. That's where the studio's Killer Instinct experience really shows. Blocking and countering are very important, as a big attack can be canceled out with the right timing. There's still some skill involved there, though, as players can get tricky with their attack timings, even hitting intentional fake outs that can cause an opponent to block too early and leave them vulnerable. There's a delicate balance between offense and defense here that leads to a lot of momentum shifts in fast-paced fights. And those brawls are brutal as hell too. Keeping in the spirit of the comic, Invincible Vs approaches Mortal Kombat levels of hyper violence. When a player hits a character that's at low health with a special attack that would kill them, it essentially turns into a fatality. I watched characters like Bulletproof get straight up beheaded by the likes of Atom Eve. Even the level I was playing on didn't make it out unscathed, as it deteriorated more and more with each round. This isn't a fighting game about friendly sparing between competitive friends; it's about people who really want to kill one another. After playing a few rounds and getting the hang of its tricks, I'm eager to get back in and see how much deeper it goes. It still feels a little more on the casual side to me, and I wonder how high its competitive ceiling will be in the long run, but I get the sense that there's more to the project. For instance, it seems like it will feature some form of story mode that features an original narrative set in the comic universe. If it can deliver that on top of strong brawling that calls both Mortal Kombat and Killer Instinct to mind, Skybound Games may just have a blood-soaked hit on its hands. Invincible Vs launches in 2026 for Xbox Series X/S and PC.
Entrepreneur
19-05-2025
- Business
- Entrepreneur
The Costliest Startup Mistakes Are Made Before You Launch
Your startup might be built to break — and you won't see it coming. Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own. Behind every digital product — whether it's a mobile app, a web platform or a SaaS tool — lies a foundation of tools and technologies that determine how it's built, how it scales and how it survives. This combination is known as the technology stack: programming languages, frameworks, infrastructure, databases and more. It's not an exaggeration to say that the choice of tech stack is just as critical as the product idea itself. No matter how innovative the concept, poor technical implementation can quietly — and quickly — destroy it. For non-technical founders, the tech stack can feel like a black box — something the dev team just "handles." But here's the trap: early choices often seem fine. Then months later, you realize you've built something fragile — a product that's hard to scale, expensive to maintain and nearly impossible to upgrade without breaking everything. Founders often make early tech decisions based on what feels most practical — what's fast, affordable, or easy to build with. And in the short term, that works. But the real danger shows up later: when the product can't scale, breaks under pressure or becomes too costly to maintain. Here are four common traps I see founders fall into — and how to avoid them before they slow you down. The clock is ticking Roughly one-third of the product rescues we've handled stemmed from stack-related issues, and the next case of a proptech startup is not an exception This startup had chosen Rust for its core logic and Xamarin for its mobile app. Rust, while powerful and high-performing, isn't well-suited for products that require fast iteration and flexibility. Xamarin, meanwhile, was discontinued in 2023, meaning the app was essentially outdated before launch. Worse still, the architecture relied on heavy client-side processing instead of server-side logic, leading to major bottlenecks as usage grew. Performance dropped, data became fragmented across devices and the system started to fall apart. Their options? Rebuild the system entirely — or replatform with a different stack. Both costly. Both painful. How bad stack choices show up By the time stack-related issues become visible, the damage has often already spread to other parts of the business. Here's what that looks like: It's difficult to attract and retain talent. There are very few developers using this outdated/rare language or framework. Another option — they are either incompetent or overprice the services due to the shortage of skilled specialists in the market. There are very few developers using this outdated/rare language or framework. Another option — they are either incompetent or overprice the services due to the shortage of skilled specialists in the market. There's no room for future startup scaling. One day, you find that the tech stack you used to build the minimal viable product (MVP) or prototype suddenly becomes unsuitable for adding new functionalities, increasing users or handling server load. One day, you find that the tech stack you used to build the minimal viable product (MVP) or prototype suddenly becomes unsuitable for adding new functionalities, increasing users or handling server load. You're patching holes instead of building. While you're constantly fixing bugs and makeshift solutions due to poor documentation or lack of community support, you're not investing in new features. This directly impacts your time-to-market and gives competitors a head start. Related: You Can Unleash Maximum Efficiency and Streamline Your Processes By Doing This One Thing 4 stack traps to avoid Too often, stack decisions are made for short-term reasons — cost, speed and convenience. But the real threat is long-term: lack of scalability, maintainability and flexibility. These are the four most common patterns I see founders fall into: 1. Choosing familiarity over expertise Many founders default to working with friends, former colleagues or the most "comfortable" dev team — even if they're not experts in the tech their product really needs. The result? Outdated or inappropriate tools get used because "that's what we know." When things start to break, personal relationships make it harder to course-correct. Loyalty shouldn't outweigh good judgment. 2. Chasing trends without understanding Just because a language or framework is trendy doesn't mean it's right for your product. Some technologies surge in popularity but lack mature ecosystems or long-term support. When hype-driven choices meet real-world complexity, things fall apart. And if your core developers leave, finding replacements becomes a scramble — or worse, impossible. 3. Overengineering or cutting too many corners Founders usually fear one extreme but ignore the other. On one end: slap-together MVPs that don't scale. On the other hand: overly complex architectures (like microservices for a simple app) that waste time and money. Either way, you end up with tech debt that drains resources or forces a total rebuild — both of which are avoidable with better planning. 4. Letting budget dictate your stack Early-stage startups naturally watch every dollar. But choosing the "cheapest" path — low-code tools, no-code platforms, or underqualified vendors — often costs more down the line. Some dev shops push specific technologies not because they're right for your product, but because they've got idle teams waiting to use them. That misalignment leads to slow progress, mounting technical debt, and brittle systems. Related: Why Your Business Should Simplify and Consolidate Its Tech Stack Final words If your startup has high stakes — whether it's investor commitments, aggressive scaling plans or a complex product roadmap — don't gamble on guesswork. I always recommend consulting an experienced chief technical officer (CTO) or technical advisors before making irreversible decisions. In technology, as in business, making informed choices from the start is what separates success from failure.
