I’d like to think the second one isn’t likely but I really don’t see that we have any evidence to go on, one way or the other.

Oh, so that Elden Ring free update was a bit of a shock, right? As far as I understand this could mean two things: that the paid-for DLC has nothing to do with PvP and that there simply is no paid-for DLC. I love gaming and all but if it’s a choice between that and putting the heating on/eating well… that’s not a choice at all.

People are seeing their pay checks worth less and less and yet video game prices are going up and up. It doesn’t take an economics genius to realise that people haven’t got a lot of spare cash at the moment. Especially as it’s relatively easy to make endgame style content as filler, after you’ve beaten it. I can’t think of a single reason for them to be so long, assuming the price is lowered. There’s no story that can last 60+ hours and expect to be good and games have been proving that for decades. They’re also too long, so is it me but is there not an obvious solution here? Half the price and half the length and I think games would not only be more affordable but probably end up telling better stories too. It was obvious even before this $70 Microsoft announcement, but video games are just too damn expensive. To join in with the discussions yourself email So if you have an idea for an article, on any gaming related subject you like, now would be a great time to submit it, at the email address below. PLEASE NOTE: We’re currently preparing our content for over Christmas and the New Year, which will include several Reader’s Features. The Wednesday letters page considers the current state of video game side quests, as one reader wonders what the next Lego game will be. Has gaming jumped the shark in terms of prices? (pic: .uk)

Review of dead space 3 dlc