OCZ Expands Far Cry 3 Vector SSD Offer

By Kevin Parrish
published

OCZ's Far Cry 3 offer now includes the 128GB Vector SSD.

In February, SSD maker OCZ Technology began running a promotion that offers a free copy of Far Cry 3 to new and existing owners of the 256 GB and/or 512 GB Vector SSDs. Now that promotion has extended to the 128 GB Vector model as well.

As before, OCZ's Far Cry 3 promotion is available in North America, South America, EMEA and Asia regions (excluding Africa and China) for a limited time only. Customers who purchase up to two Vector SSDs will receive up to two codes for the PC version of Far Cry 3. These codes will expire on July 14, 2013.

To get your free copy of Far Cry 3, you'll need to head here and provide the SSD's serial number and Acronis key(s). OCZ also requires that customers provide info about where the SSD was purchased. Newegg is among a handful that's currently selling the Vector series, costing $549.99 for the 512 GB model (opens in new tab), $229.99 for the 256 GB model (opens in new tab) and $159.99 for the 128 GB model (opens in new tab)(Newegg's prices).

Far Cry 3, developed by Ubisoft Montreal and published by Ubisoft, launched in North America on December 4, 2012. It currently has a Metacritic score of 88 out of 100, and a user score of 8.1 out of 10. The highest scores stem from Atomic Gamer, Game Informer, GameSpot, GameSpy, IGN, IncGamers, Polygon, The Escapist, WorthPlaying and more.

To run Far Cry 3, PC gamers need a minimum system configuration of an Intel Core2 Duo E6700 or an AMD Athlon64 X2 6000+ CPU, 2 GB of RAM, and a GPU equivalent to the Nvidia GTX 8800 or AMD Radeon HD 2900 (512 MB DirectX 9c). Ubisoft recommends a quad-core CPU or something equivalent to the Intel Core i3-530 or the AMD Phenom II X2 565, 4 GB of RAM, and a 1,024 MB DirectX 11 GPU such as the Nvidia GTX 480 or the AMD Radeon HD 5770.

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

Kevin Parrish
Topics
OCZ
PC gaming
SSD
11 Comments Comment from the forums
  • $549 for the 512GB model when the Samsung 840 Pro that outperforms it is $499 and was on sale a few days ago for $376! So you are still really paying $50 for the game. The 512GB version of the Vector seems to have a pretty high failure rate based on those newegg reviews as well. Come on OCZ you did well with the performance of this drive. Now get the reliability fixed and price down.
    Reply
  • ssd_pro
    I grabbed a couple 256ers and made some use of FC3. Decent game, meant for single player. I have a 256GB Samsung Pro that is a good drive, but the Vector outperforms it. I have owned 4 Vertex, a Vertex 2, Vertex LE, 2 Vertex 3 Max IOPS, 4 Vertex 4 drives, 2 Vector and a Revodrive. Only one time did I experience a drive failure and it was the Vertex 2 and died a year after I got it. I sent for a replacement and received it 6 days later. The service at OCZ was wonderful.

    On the other hand, I have had 3 Samsung drives - 2 830 and 1 840. My 830 failed 2 months after installation and I had to RMA. This is where the difference was - it took 5 weeks to get my Samsung replacement and the support was corporate who knows what is happening style.

    I don't mind failures, electronics fail. I keep my systems overclocked and I know problems can arise from it. The difference is OCZ supports you with USA-based support that is competent.
    Reply
  • excella1221
    Glad to see OCZ giving these really neat promotions.

    I'm currently on a Vertex 4, and it's working really great. Zero problems for 4 months now.
    Reply
  • janetonly42
    "fully embraced the use of always-connected DRM " Always on for a single player, F off Ubisoft and take your game and shove it up your arse.
    Reply
  • Novuake
    Damn why not do this for Vertex 4s...
    Reply
  • blazorthon
    NovuakeDamn why not do this for Vertex 4s...
    Price and profit differences are likely. Vertex 4 is a much cheaper line and profits are probably much smaller per sale. Profits per sale may be low enough for including an expensive game for free would make sales not profitable or at least not profitable enough to be worthwhile.
    Reply
  • RobAC
    I could not justify the cost for the 512 GB drive so I opted for a Seagate Momentus XT 750 GB. Yes I know it's slooow compared to an SSD but I await the day when costs are less than .50 cents a gig plus terabyte capacities.

    Til then I will chug along on my puny 79mb/s transfer rates ... yes SSD owners pity me ! :)
    Reply
  • Novuake
    10586224 said:
    I could not justify the cost for the 512 GB drive so I opted for a Seagate Momentus XY 750 GB. Yes I know it's slooow compared to an SSD but I await the day when costs are less than .50 cents a gig plus terabyte capacities.

    Til then I will chug along on my puny 79mb/s transfer rates ... yes SSD owners pity me ! :)

    I do pity you, the responsiveness of an SSD system is just soooo much better. An old build can feel lightning fast by adding an SSD.

    I find it hard to use PCs without SSDs these days.
    Reply
  • bennie101
    I can see the mans point with staying with a old drive that's a small 750 gig can remember drives less then 400 megabytes I can and wow was they expensive back in the day like all things it takes time for items products to come down with terms of supply and demand. I am sure he would love to buy a ssd drive but mot all of us can afford one at this time I have mine due to the full time job I had at one time in the past now I work part time due to our economy but I guess I m blessed and lucky to be working at all!
    Reply
  • RobAC
    Aye, I hear ya. It's a right crap shoot out there economy wise. I still have a huge 40mb external SCSI HD kicking around in the old junk tech pile I need to take to the recyclers. Yep the good ole days- spent good money on that thing too.

    My biggest thing is I look at value to performance vs wants and what I actually need- not to mention the fact I am a cheap sob at times.. heh
    If something passes all those factors then it's worth it for me. If not then I wait until it is- especially when it comes to technology.
    Reply