2026 marks the 40th anniversary of Transformers: The Movie. Which, on one hand, is terribly depressing for us olds. But on the other hand, it means there are new collectibles in the works designed to capitalize on that milestone. Hasbro is banking big on the 40th anniversary with a new pair of Leader Class figures depicting the iconic final battle between Optimus Prime and Megatron.

IGN can exclusively reveal the first promo images of these two figures. Get a closer look in the slideshow gallery below:

The Optimus Prime figure features battle damage inspired by the movie and includes accessories like a blaster, Matrix of Leadership, and a stake. The figure measures 7.25 inches tall and transforms from robot to vehicle mode in 40 steps.

The Megatron figure similarly has battle damage deco and includes accessories like a fusion cannon, back barrel, beam saber, and blasters. The figure measures 8.5 inches tall and transforms from robot to tank mode in 54 steps.

Both figures are priced at $59.99 and are available for preorder on Target's website, with limited quantities being made available on Hasbro Pulse later. Optimus Prime will be released in Spring 2026, followed by Megatron in Fall 2026. You can find preorder links for both figures below:

For more Transformers fun, check out the Stranger Things-themed Freakwency and 8-Trax set.

Jesse is a mild-mannered staff writer for IGN. Allow him to lend a machete to your intellectual thicket by following @jschedeen on BlueSky.

Worldbreaker will be released in select theaters on January 30.

Ah, January. The first month of the year tends to be a dumping ground for bad movie releases, but Worldbreaker, which stars Luke Evans, is a wreck even by those standards. The latest entry from director Brad Anderson, known for films like Session 9, The Machinist, and the hilarious but terrible Shutter Island knock-off Stonehearst Asylum (wait, you didn’t see that one?), Worldbreaker is allegedly a post-apocalyptic sci-fi action film. I say “allegedly” because the movie doesn’t deliver on the action, the sci-fi, or even really much of the post-apocalypse, largely because it’s too bereft of budget or ambition to deliver much of anything.

For the record, Worldbreaker is set in a world where a dimensional rift called “The Stitch” ripped open in the ground years earlier, from which monsters known as “Breakers” have emerged. Breakers are basically alien zombies with spider legs, and want to kill anything that moves and also sometimes do evil laughs while stalking their prey (really). They shrug off bullets, but can be killed by cutting their heads off with medieval swords or axes because, well, I guess it’s cooler that way. The Breakers can also infect human beings through bites or scratches, turning them into “hybrids” that become alien zombies, but without the spider legs. But women sometimes don’t become hybrids for some reason. Men always do. Don’t ask me to explain it.

While the monsters of Worldbreaker are generic and have too many weird rules, they could have at least done the job of being half-decent antagonists in a movie like this… except they’re barely in it. What Worldbreaker is really about is the father-daughter relationship between Willa (Billie Boullet) and, uh, her father (Luke Evans), who doesn’t get a name (?). Dear old dad takes on the role of narrator, combat trainer, and obligatory Joel from The Last of Us stand-in, because you’re legally not allowed to make a post-apocalyptic story now without a Joel-alike. Willa’s mother (Milla Jovovich) is apparently some kind of mighty warrior leading the army into battle against the Breakers, but she is also barely in the movie (and also doesn’t get a name).

If all of that sounds a bit confounding, welcome to my world. Worldbreaker is a bizarre experience, setting up plenty of expectations and delivering on precisely none of them. Milla Jovovich killing monsters with a big sword? Maybe for 30 seconds of screen time. A family drama about barely surviving in a dying world of zombie-like creatures? Not really, since most of the movie is about Willa and her dad living on an island away from the Breakers. Preparing Willa to be a young hero who has to take up the battle in place of her parents? Nope, because the movie ends before that arc can come to any real culmination. What we get is essentially a dull, 90-minute prologue for the hypothetical version of this you’d actually want to see.

For his part, Evans tries to imbue some gravitas into the proceedings through his speeches and stories about great warriors who have battled the Breakers in the past, but it all amounts to descriptions of scenes the audience would rather watch for themselves. Boullet is fine but she is being asked to play yet another rendition of the stock YA heroine that you’ve seen a million times in better movies. And if you were thinking of checking this out because you’re a Jovovich fan, then prepare for disappointment. While she’s made a career out of headlining B-actioners of this exact flavor, the actress is completely sidelined after the first 20 minutes or so, leaving her family to go fight a war with the Breakers that we don’t get the privilege to see. How much room she takes on the poster versus how much she’s in the final product is practically begging for a false advertising lawsuit like the one about Ana de Armas being cut out of Yesterday.

A UK tribunal has given the go-ahead to a £656 million ($901 million) collective action lawsuit targeting Valve over alleged anti-competitive practices on PC storefront Steam.

The legal action, originally filed in 2024 by digital rights campaigner Vicki Shotbolt, has now been given the green light to proceed following a ruling by the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal, BBC News has reported.

In short, Valve is accused of wielding its status as the dominant digital game storefront to lock game developers and publishers into release parity restrictions, and keep game owners spending on Steam when buying add-ons.

Shotbolt's lawsuit is a collective action claim, effectively a class-action suit, which she is attempting to take forward on behalf of the 14 million UK citizens who have bought games or add-on content through Steam since 2018.

The tribunal's new ruling, published this week, takes into account Shotbolt's claims and an initial response by Valve designed to halt the legal action from progressing further.

The lawsuit alleges that Steam unfairly imposes platform parity obligations which prohibit publishers from selling games on rival stores with better terms, causing a restriction of competition. The legal action has also taken aim at the need to continue buying add-ons for games bought through Steam via Valve's own marketplace, leading to a further reduction in competition. Finally, it alleges that Valve imposes unnecessarily high commission charges — essentially, the typical 30% cut it takes when you spend money on Steam — which results in higher prices for consumers.

Valve had initially contested the claim on the grounds that it lacked accurate detail both on Valve's commission structure and the actual impact of its platform parity clauses. The company also said the claim lacked a workable methodology for Steam users, including minors, to identify themselves as part of the claim.

Ultimately, however, the tribunal has decided legal action can continue. Valve also faces similar action in the US surrounding Steam's 30% cut, initially brought by developers Wolfire Studios and Dark Catt Studios. That lawsuit has been ongoing since 2021.

Last week, Remedy Entertainment spoke out to defend its Epic Game Store publishing deal for Alan Wake 2, following discussion over its store exclusivity deal. Epic boss Tim Sweeney also chimed in, saying that "on some transactions, Epic wins. On more, Steam wins. But one thing is constant on every transaction: gamers and developers win by having more options and better deals."

Image credit: Pavlo Gonchar/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

Tom Phillips is IGN's News Editor. You can reach Tom at tom_phillips@ign.com or find him on Bluesky @tomphillipseg.bsky.social

A UK court has ruled that the unauthorized stealing of in-game currency can be legally classified as criminal theft.

Former Jagex developer Andrew Lakeman was charged with allegedly stealing 705 billion Gold from almost 70 RuneScape players, with a real-world value of over half a million pounds, equivalent to around $750,000. He then sold this currency online for Bitcoin.

Although Lakeman had no access to player accounts in his position at Jagex as a content developer, he allegedly accessed them by "hacking and/or using credentials of members of the account recovery team." In all, 68 players allegedly lost gold to Lakeman, starting around 2018.

Here comes the science bit: the defendant's defence claimed that the in-game currency could not be classed as property under the definition of the UK's Theft Act, and initially, the court agreed, concluding that as RuneScape gold is not real — or "pure information" or "knowledge" as it's legally defined — it could not technically be stealable.

The judge at the time also deemed RuneScape's supply of Gold as being infinite, and it wasn't "rivalrous" given that having a piece of Gold doesn't deprive another player of getting Gold, too. The Court of Appeal, however, disagreed and last week handed down a judgment while explaining its reasoning.

"We differ from the Judge in his reasoning for reaching the contrary conclusion on rivalrousness. The two reasons which the Judge gave in his ruling do not, with respect, bear analysis," Judge Popplewell wrote. "The first was that 'one gold piece is like any other, and their supply is infinite.' This does not, however, distinguish them from many other forms of rivalrous property. One paper clip from a given manufacturer is like any other; and the manufacture and supply of them infinite, in the sense that is not capped at any finite number. Yet each paper clip constitutes property. The same is equally true of gold pieces."

"[RuneScape's gold is] properly described as something which can be stolen as a matter of normal use of language," the judgment added. "They do not fall within any of the established exceptions. They are not 'pure knowledge:' functionally, they exist as identifiable assets distinct from the code which gives rise to them and outside the minds of people. There is no good policy reason for excepting them from the category of property which can be stolen."

The judgment concluded: "On the contrary, they are assets which have an ascertainable monetary value and which may be traded for that value both in the game and outside the game. Within the rules of the game they represent money’s worth as the product of purchase of a bond. Outside the game they are regularly traded for money’s worth. They are capable of being subject to dishonest dealing which deprives their possessor of their use and value. It would be surprising and unsatisfactory if such dishonest dealing did not amount to the offence of theft."

It's a judgment that could have profound implications for the games industry, as up until now, vendors that sell (or re-sell) in-game currency have existed in a grey market wherein technically, no theft has occurred if the digital asset stolen did not meet the definition of an intangible item under the definitions of theft in that country. The dubious line of when ownership of any such in-game currency transfers from the developer to the player — if at all — further compounds an already complex issue, too.

With the issue of whether removing gold from player accounts constituted theft now settled, the case against Lakeman can proceed.

Vikki Blake is a reporter for IGN, as well as a critic, columnist, and consultant with 15+ years experience working with some of the world's biggest gaming sites and publications. She's also a Guardian, Spartan, Silent Hillian, Legend, and perpetually High Chaos. Find her at BlueSky.

The developer of Highguard has confirmed streamer Dr Disrespect did not attend a preview event after he created a fake badge and pretended to have been invited to play the game early.

On January 24, Dr Disrespect (real name Guy Beahm), tweeted to say: “Last week we took the Lambo to LA to check out #Highguard. Monday, January 26th at 10am PST, we enter another dimension! Yayayaya.”

Last week we took the Lambo to LA to check out #Highguard.

Monday, January 26th at 10am PST, we enter another dimension!

Yayayaya pic.twitter.com/kQ56GEfonB

— Dr Disrespect (@DrDisrespect) January 24, 2026

That comment, which pointed to Highguard’s confirmed release date, came alongside an image of a supposed Highguard event badge, which some have speculated may have been generated by AI.

Following Highguard’s launch, questions were raised about the validity of Dr Disrespect’s post. Then, Wildlight Entertainment creator manager Chin Pua took to X / Twitter to confirm Dr Disrespect had not attended the event, and that the badge was not official. "I can confirm DDR was not invited to any Highguard event past or present," Pua said, "and the badge was not an official badge."

So why did Dr Disrespect post the tweet and its image? In a stream playing Highguard yesterday, he laughed the post off as a joke, and expressed disbelief at the social media controversy it had generated.