fabricated backlash
Member
Nothing so far, EA might be overcompensating for the last few years though.Chinner said:what has activision actually done this year thats so bad compared to EA? not been paying attention.
Nothing so far, EA might be overcompensating for the last few years though.Chinner said:what has activision actually done this year thats so bad compared to EA? not been paying attention.
Meanwhile on PCD4Danger said:Battlefield 3 customers
I didn't have any problem finding a game when I played it on a whim a week or so ago.sajj316 said:Not too banged up since I have 1943 anyway. Sucks that they are doing this though. The 1943 community is still alive and kicking on the PS3??
please tell me thats not your native size.LiquidMetal14 said:Meanwhile on PC
It's BS but I can't say I'm upset too much since I already have 1943 on PS3 and went with PC anyways.
Same here. Always run into packed games no matter when.provo57 said:I didn't have any problem finding a game when I played it on a whim a week or so ago.
Chinner said:please tell me thats not your native size.
provo57 said:I didn't have any problem finding a game when I played it on a whim a week or so ago.
Never knew that. I would have wanted it on PC fore sure since well.....it's PC.TheExodu5 said:PC was supposed to get 1943 and we never got it either.
LiquidMetal14 said:Never knew that. I would have wanted it on PC fore sure since well.....it's PC.
Now that's just funny.Nirolak said:They mentioned on Twitter that the 1 week PS3 DLC exclusivity was given in lieu of this.
Edit:
In case people are confused, I'm not endorsing decision.
I don't know why people would be excited to have 1943, to be honest. With BC2 and BF3 out, it means the player base will be even smaller than it already is. The game doesn't control well at all compared to BC2 or BF3, so most people would probably play it for a few rounds and then never touch it again.BigJiantRobut said:At least PS3 owners won't have to suffer through rounds of BF1943 now. I'm sure 3 is superior in every way. even on consoles.
That said, it's still sort of bullshit to promise one thing and deliver another.
Metalmurphy said:What the fuck!? So EA screws up, and then decides to screw up PC/360 players even further?
Woo-Fu said:As somebody who plays on PC I don't give a shit when PS3 gets DLC, I don't know why you feel screwed? There isn't cross-platform play, it isn't like the PS3 players are going to get a head start and then dominate your noobness a week later.
TheExodu5 said:PC was supposed to get 1943 and we never got it either.
Metalmurphy said:I am getting it a week later. That's a problem.
jling84 said:Hahaha a week early. At least CoD gives the 360 what seems like 6 months exclusivity, it's so damn long.
snap0212 said:Hm. So they can't keep their promise (giving PS3 players Battlefield 1943 for free), don't want to give a reason and then lie to their customers? The exclusivity is nothing new, it was announced a long while ago. Saying everyone gets it instead of BF1943 is just a lie.
Jaffaboy said:Does anyone really care about 1943 anymore? Really? Come on now.
StuBurns said:Out of interest, is that because you wanted '43, or as a punishment for the takesy backsies?
Decarb said:Wait wait, if EA is giving DLC one week early because there's no 1943, then what the hell is this?
http://m.ign.com/articles/1195983
Yeah! How dare they cut a free game you have already played, the cutting of which does nothing to diminish the new game you are purchasing! If you feel that strongly you should do exactly what you are doing, voting with your wallet. Good for you.thehypocrite said:That I'm not going to buy this game at all. Thanks for the beta, but I cannot endorse this behavior as a gaming consumer. Respect your customers EA, we don't owe you nothing.
cRIPticon said:Wow. So much outrage about cutting a freebie, a game which we all already played to death. Is a nice to have, but it being cut does not mean I no longer want to play BF3.
Not overlooking, but stuff happens. They did not diminish the game you were buying in any way, removed something you were not paying for, and replaced it with, at least, something. Too much fervor over this, IMO.Lupin the Wolf said:Thank you for completely overlooking the principle of the thing.
Yes, everyone's already played it.
Yes, BF3's just as good with or without the bonus.
However, they promised something and replaced it with virtually nothing. I fail to see how--in principle--this is not even a little upsetting.
I frankly couldn't even care less about this game, but this upsets me as someone who both works in and enjoys the industry. It sets a bad precedent that breaking promises (ones promoted at major events, no less) to consumers is "acceptable."
What would happen if Nintendo suddenly decided the regular edition of Zelda: Skyward Sword would no longer come with the soundtrack CD, even though they promised it would? And not even say anything about it until after the game was out. Is that just "okay?" It doesn't affect the quality of game itself, but it was promised and advertised as included.
cRIPticon said:Yeah! How dare they cut a free game you have already played, the cutting of which does nothing to diminish the new game you are purchasing! If you feel that strongly you should do exactly what you are doing, voting with your wallet. Good for you.
Battlefield 1943 is, in this case, not simply a free game that you get on top of your purchase. Electronic Arts & Sony used Battlefield 1943 to advertise their upcoming game (Battlefield 3). They made you think the product (Battlefield 3) is a better deal/worth more than it actually is because it's not what they advertised. It's a fact that Electronic Arts is not selling the product in the form they've advertised it.cRIPticon said:Wow. So much outrage about cutting a freebie, a game which we all already played to death. Is a nice to have, but it being cut does not mean I no longer want to play BF3.