The developers of Battlefield: Bad Company have heard the outcry regarding the premium weaponry, both from Sarcastic Gamer and other outlets. Speaking to IGN, DICE Senior Producer Karl-Magnus Troedsson said there would be no charge for the five guns. Here's how you can get the guns:

• Pay $10 for the Gold Edition of the game, have the guns on the disc
  
• Buy the Standard Edition, hit the max rank level of 25
• In both cases, "You have to do the marketing programs that we're going to announce further ahead" (huh?) before you can get the guns.

The last bullet point up there confuses us. What are the marketing programs? Troedsson told IGN there would be five marketing programs from EA that are free and will reportedly be "as easy as signing up for a newsletter." In other words, don't expect the Gold Edition guns on launch day, but know that you can be at rank level 4 and still get access to them at some point.

[Via X3F]

We've gotten tips from a lot of you about the Sarcastic Gamer-fronted effort to boycott Battlefield: Bad Company, and we haven't posted about it until now for one simple reason: We don't get it. If you want to boycott a retail product, if you think that Battlefield: Bad Company isn't worth your $60 because content has been removed, there's a very easy way of dealing with that problem. Don't buy it. They're called market forces, and they work. If you need proof: How many times have you seen horse armor for sale since Oblivion tried it?

Do we like EA's idea of charging for individual weapons in an FPS, creating a gap (and it does despite what EA says) between the haves and have-nots? Of course not. But if you think the game is worth your money regardless, you should buy it and play it. If you don't want the extra guns, don't buy them. If that makes it less fun for you, don't buy their next game. It's as simple as that.

Sarcastic Gamer asked, "How, in good conscience, can EA take more money out of fan's pockets, who have already spent 60 bucks on the game?" Here's the answer: They don't have a conscience, they're a multibillion-dollar corporation that cares nothing for you. And it's not their job to care, it's their job to make money. It's your job to decide how to spend yours.

GameSpot user 'Subrosian' has called for a boycott of all CNET-operated sites today in response to the controversy surrounding the firing of GameSpot executive editor Jeff Gerstmann, GamePolitics.com reports. Dubbed "Black Monday," the virtual boycott is to last 24 hours and instructs participants to avoid viewing, Googling, or clicking external links to the sites, particularly GameSpot. "Rather than live in a world where the media is controlled entirely by those with the most money, I want to live in a world where gamers who are living for their hobby ... can say what they truly feel about a game. So let's do the right thing and show solidarity with Jeff Gerstmann -- if he can't go to work on Monday at GameSpot then neither will we," declares Subrosian's manifesto.

Posted at 9:31pm ET last night, the call to action likely went unnoticed by many potential protesters before the blackout's midnight start time. Further discouraging any chance of effectiveness is the lack of a prominent external page for the boycott (try Googling "black monday gamespot" or other relevant search terms) -- um, the original post is a GameSpot.com link! If anything, Blackout Monday may serve as a seed for birthing a better-organized boycott before the Gerstmann story becomes "old news." Hardcore game forum posters-turned-activists need to appeal to the mainstream technology consumer to really stick it to the CNET network. But for anyone to get behind the issue, organizers must first wait for the swirl of rumors to settle and the truth to be made public. What's less legitimate than a rumor? The boycott of a rumor. (Reminder: the details of Gerstmann's firing are still unconfirmed.)

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in!]