It looks like it wasn't just GB who had the review copy of Battlefield 3 at the last minute and PC version not unlocking until the last minute, I just found this on th Eurogamer web site:

As some of you may know, the general embargo for publishing Battlefield 3 reviews online expired at 8.01am UK time this morning.
Eurogamer and many other websites only received finished console copies of the game yesterday morning. Our reviewer signed for his at 7am.
There were a few reviews online yesterday based on the PC version of the game. When it became apparent last week that there might be a distinction between timings for PC and console reviews, we asked for PC code but were told none was available. We still haven't been sent a PC copy of Battlefield 3 despite being told it is the leading version.
Throughout the last seven days we've also been told that a day-one patch would be released early this week that was essential to reviewing the game. In the event it turned out to be 167MB on Xbox 360.
Under the circumstances, our review is not ready for this morning's embargo.
However, our reviewer was able to play the game extensively at pre-release hands-on sessions and has been playing pretty much non-stop for 24 hours with the patch installed, so the review will hopefully be ready later today.
Meanwhile, disks are on their way to Digital Foundry so that Rich Leadbetter can put together our PC, PS3 and Xbox 360 face-off for the end of the week.
We don't know exactly why we've been put in a position where we can't review the game at the same time as other websites, but we have asked politely.
We're obviously disappointed by the circumstances, but we don't harbour any ill feeling towards DICE, for whom we have infinite respect and affection, and we won't let any of this nonsense cloud our analysis of a game we're really excited to finally play.

meh.

there plenty of other reviews out their the GT review is very good and tbh im sure a review is not going to sway many people on whether the game is for them or not.

Poor guy who had to play and review BF3 for 24 hours straight, that's a hella harsh job.

Also, who cares about all this nonsense - the game is clearly good, if you want it, you might as well get it. If your not interested, don't get it. End of story.

You know, I feel bad but at least I feel Jeff and GB has handled the situation well. Obviously upset but not out there and complaining about it. Compare that to the above and things said over at destructoid.

I think Eurogamer was either lied to or unintentionally misinformed. That or they pissed EA off somehow.

@mfpantst: I agree, they handled the whole thing really well and I am sure we will find out from Jeff how it went down on the next bombcast or jartime

Destructoid outright made up a story.

@poisonmonkey: Yo I love me some jartime. Yeah I agree. Also i will say for nobody's (?) part, it seems EA didn't need to do all this weird review mess. Not just the "super a+, full of awesome" outlets got to review the game (partially why I liked how Jeff handed it because some legit joints got to review the game early), and the core of what is this game seems pretty well done. I guess the notion that EA was super worried about this property is totally true, but I don't see that they needed to be.

Same issue with Gamespot UK. There's no denying this isn't an ideal way to go about things, to put it lightly, this kind of thing creates an air of uneasiness among the audience. But as I was saying to Gamespot's Guy Cocker the other day, as long as sites put out such statements informing their readership of the situation, they themselves can do no wrong.

I also spoke to EA's head Kevin Flynn on Friday, his excuse was that DICE are being super tight with this game. Now, if that's really the case, why is that so many people have been able to hack into various maps, and get to play nearly the full single-player on PS3 like myself. The official excuse is not consistent with events, and it smells a bit iffy.

Somehow I fear that the console versions of this game are going to be slaughtered. So far, we've only seen reviews of the PC version and it seems that EA was very reluctant to hand out review copies of the console versions to the press.

Making up a story is not cool but I'm all for calling out those kind of review copy shenanigans. And I'm glad the semi-shady PR work backfires at EA.

All that says to me is 'waaaaaaaaaaaah'

@JerichoBlyth said:

All that says to me is 'waaaaaaaaaaaah'

Same here. Every movie critic on the planet doesn't get invited out to the premier so that they can write an early review. Games are like that as well. If anything it should be a good sign that the industry is moving away from being completely spoonfed by publishers.

@JerichoBlyth said:

All that says to me is 'waaaaaaaaaaaah'

Same. Is there anything on the planet the internet won't blow out of proportion? Not everything's a big deal.

@SomeJerk said:

Destructoid outright made up a story.

Yeah, the screenshots of Jim Sterling having played only an hour and 47 min before reviewing the game validates my suspicion that he's not a pro.

There's also this.

I'm not totally sure why people feel it's the publishers responsibility to send out review copies to their favourite site.
 
I know we've all decided who we trust, who we think is professional and/or fair but what if the publisher in question doesn't feel the same way about that site or individual? Is it really "dishonest" for a publisher to decide that they're not going to send copies to people or sites that they don't agree with your opinion of professionalism or fairness?