EA is facing court action after unhappy fans accused the publisher of reneging on a promise to include a free copy of Battlefield 1943 with the PlayStation 3 version of Battlefield 3. US law firm Edelson McGuire has filed a class action suit against EA on behalf of unhappy PlayStation gamers in a bid to get them the free copy of …
the game that never was
What a surprise, another group get bitten with the false promise of BF1943.
I was one of the PC gamers who bought and paid for BF1943 nearly two years ago for the PC, before they finally backed out of delivering it. EA then refused to refund the money for it, as "no money was taken on credit cards for this game" which conveniently ignored the fact that those of us who paid using debit cards did have the money deducted from our accounts at the time.
After several days of wasted time arguuing with EA CS people I was eventually issued a £10 voucher code, which of course failed to work. My problem now is that chasing the b'stards up for this is costing me far more of my time than it's worth.
...Battlefield 1943 about 2 years ago on Xbox Live. For a fiver (ish). It is one of the most fun and entertaining multiplayer experiences I've had. Certainly one of my most played games in that timeframe.
However, I really don't get why PS3 owners are so het up about not getting a free copy of BF1943 with their BF3 discs. Isn't a whole new full-sized Battelfield game enough to quell their insatiable lust for slaughter? BF1943 was only 3 maps for god's sake (4 if you include the Air Superiority game).
Let it go people. It's not the end of the world.
"Wahhh. I didn't get my freebie."
Company offers product *including 1943* - customer buys product only to find it doesn't contain what was promised.
Erm... so you're saying that the company who broke their promise/contract should be able to get away with it?
Probably the principle...
I agree, this seems like a pointless exercise when BF3 is so much fun. I wouldn't play it if they give it to me as I spend all my limited PS3 gaming time on BF3.
I guess it is the principle of the thing, that or another way to try to extract money for nothing.
I agree it's probably a principal-based motive (that, and the possible opportunity of smashing a big corporate piñata in the face and having a couple of grand fall out), but that doesn't make it any less silly.
Besides, EA have got where they are today by being utter bastards. I'd be very surprised if they didn't have 'we reserve the right to change the contents of the advertised package at any time' clauses (or something like that) written into the T's and C's.
You believed a salesman?
EA Have offered more than just early access...
iirc the "Free 1943" offer applied only to the "Limited Edition" of BF3. Whilst PS Network gets BF3 DLC earlier than PC or XBox, irrespective of LE or "regular" edition, those with the Limited Edition gain the additional advantage of not having to PAY for that DLC.
At least, not the first batch.
As someone who already bought 1943 way back when, this deal is far more valuable, and I imagine that was a significant factor in the thinking behind the decision. Many BF3-LE purchasers would derive no value from a bundled 1943, where-as everyone would benefit from a free DLC deal.
Velv, sometimes you have to believe something. When I take a box to the checkout, I expect something to be in the box. Or would you say, "what, you believed the writing on the box?"?
- Product round-up Ten excellent FREE PC apps to brighten your Windows
- Hi-torque tank engines: EXTREME car hacking with The Register
- Review What's MISSING on Amazon Fire Phone... and why it WON'T set the world alight
- Product round-up Trousers down for six of the best affordable Androids
- Why did it take antivirus giants YEARS to drill into super-scary Regin? Symantec responds...