Dead Space 3 Resource Exploit "Not a Glitch", Says EA

Timothy Chang

painkillers and whiskey
Jun 5, 2012
704
0
0
Dead Space 3 Resource Exploit "Not a Glitch", Says EA



An endlessly respawning resource was "deliberately designed" for harvesting all along.

One of the features in Dead Space 3 is crafting weapons using resources collected in-game, with the added option of infinitely gather resources [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/121640-EA-Brings-Microtransactions-to-Dead-Space-3] and build up a pile of materials in the process. In response, EA has insisted that the exploit was "deliberately designed" all along, and that players may continue to farm resources in this way.

EA representative Jino Talens stated that Dead Space 3's microtransactions were designed to be optional for players who want to craft their weapons straight away, and weren't intended to be a necessary part of game progression. As a result, the exploit will continue to work for now.

"The resource-earning mechanic in Dead Space 3 is not a glitch. We have no plans to issue a patch to change this aspect of the game. We encourage players to explore the game and discover the areas where resources respawn for free," Talens says.

"We've deliberately designed Dead Space 3 to allow players to harvest resources by playing through the game. For those that wish to accumulate upgrades instantly, we have enabled an optional system for them to buy the resources at a minimal cost ($1-$3)."

The exploit simply involves entering and leaving a shack that contains a random resource or item, which respawns every time you re-enter. If you're looking to save some time sifting through corpses for loot, it looks like EA is happy for you to do so.


Source: Gamefront [http://www.gamefront.com/ea-dead-space-3-item-farming-not-a-glitch-no-plans-to-patch/]

Permalink
 

Teoes

Poof, poof, sparkles!
Jun 1, 2010
5,174
0
0
I can't decide if this was the honest response, or if for once they took the gracious out and realised how bad they would look for penalising players that did this (or how impractical it would be to try) and just came up with a "uhh, yeah.. of course we meant it to be like that! *nervous laugh*" statement.
 

VanQ

Casual Plebeian
Oct 23, 2009
2,729
0
0
W-we never actually wanted your money, anyway! W-we totally put this in the game on purpose so you could circumvent our microtransactions. Really guys, believe us! We're the good guys!

Yeah, what a load of bullshit. An exploit was found by players and used by them because they were mad about your shitty DLC policies. And you won't ban the people that bought your game because you need them to say to other people that they thought the game was good so others can buy it so you can recoup your 5 million copy investment. Lying to us about it isn't going to save you any face.

Even if this is true, what kind of shitty design philosophy is it to build a game with resource management and then give the player infinite resources? That's fucking stupid and you know it.
 

an annoyed writer

Exalted Lady of The Meep :3
Jun 21, 2012
1,409
0
0
Yeah, they're lying through their teeth here, but at least they've taken a half-decent route in terms of PR. Someone on that team grew a brain, finally. Maybe some designer put that in because they saw the end was nigh for their job at Visceral.
 

Aeonknight

New member
Apr 8, 2011
751
0
0
VanQQisH said:
W-we never actually wanted your money, anyway! W-we totally put this in the game on purpose so you could circumvent our microtransactions. Really guys, believe us! We're the good guys!

Yeah, what a load of bullshit. An exploit was found by players and used by them because they were mad about your shitty DLC policies. And you won't ban the people that bought your game because you need them to say to other people that they thought the game was good so others can buy it so you can recoup your 5 million copy investment. Lying to us about it isn't going to save you any face.

Even if this is true, what kind of shitty design philosophy is it to build a game with resource management and then give the player infinite resources? That's fucking stupid and you know it.
Scavenger bots say hello.

If a player wanted to they could deploy scavenger bots regardless of whether or not you're at a resource cache, and still pull in some resources. It's usually something very minimal, like 5-15ish of each, but it's there.

It's incredibly inefficient compared to the shack, or just playing the game normally, but it's there. And it's presence as a game mechanic backs up EA's stance on the whole situation.

Sorry to burst your EVIL MANDATORY DLC PRACTICES bubble, but I'm kind of surprised that any developer that gives it's players options is suddenly treated as some super bad thing. If the player wants to pay for shortcuts to progress that can be acquired for free through other means, EA would be stupid for not wanting to take their money.

The funny part is how this is becoming a trend with other companies. Namco gave players the ability to purchase new game+ perks for the game Tales of Graces F, things like increased XP or increased ability points and such.
 

Kargathia

New member
Jul 16, 2009
1,657
0
0
an annoyed writer said:
Yeah, they're lying through their teeth here, but at least they've taken a half-decent route in terms of PR.
In itself nothing short of a miracle. Generally EA's PR department tries its very best to appear as incompetent corporate overlords.

But hey, it's a good thing, regardless whom it's coming from.
 

thethird0611

New member
Feb 19, 2011
411
0
0
Surprisingly, im going to say the thing that many people here wont say because of the EA hate... I feel this is totally true.

The chances of both missing this while both coding the game, and also in Q&A, is low. As well, im pretty sure there would be MAJOR repercussions if the developers actually slipped this in under EA's noses, since that would mean it would severely hurt EA's profits. Im pretty sure the developers want their jobs more than trying to fight against EA's business model. To add to that point, if EA really wanted to, they could of kept their mouths shut, fixed the 'exploit', and it wouldn't of been news. So there is quite a lot going for EA in this.

Honestly, I feel EA starting to change their business model some, melding both their want for profits (they are a corporation after all), with gamer ideals (at least I hope). Both that and their PR seems to be changing more to consumer friendly ideals from a profit profit profit ideal(not saying profit is out of the question). Good on ya EA, I hope to see more of this in the future.

And how about, instead of coming in here and spewing EA IS EVIL BURN WITH FIRE, we actually use some damn operant conditioning and REWARD EA when they do something good. Praise is a damn good reward to, especially for a corporation. Criticism only works if you acknowledge progress. Believe it or not, EA -can- improve, but quite a few consumers have to be actually stop being stupid (Yes, stupid, because you hate EA, but cant acknowledge their many good traits, just because it is popular to hate EA).
 

VanQ

Casual Plebeian
Oct 23, 2009
2,729
0
0
Aeonknight said:
Sorry to burst your EVIL MANDATORY DLC PRACTICES bubble, but I'm kind of surprised that any developer that gives it's players options is suddenly treated as some super bad thing. If the player wants to pay for shortcuts to progress that can be acquired for free through other means, EA would be stupid for not wanting to take their money.

The funny part is how this is becoming a trend with other companies. Namco gave players the ability to purchase new game+ perks for the game Tales of Graces F, things like increased XP or increased ability points and such.
I'm sorry, if you're trying to convince me this is a good thing, you just failed spectacularly. All of those NG+ perks were available in every installment of Tales before that game for free. And suddenly it's okay that they want to charge for them?

It's official guys. We're totally supposed to be thankful that EA and Namco are willing to allow us to pay them to bend us over and give us a pummeling. Glad you cleared that up for me!
 

Frostbite3789

New member
Jul 12, 2010
1,778
0
0
Aeonknight said:
Save your time and don't even bother responding to the other dude's second post. I mean, his name has QQ in it. And he's living up to that.

"THEY MADE A GOOD PR MOVE?! I BETTER RAGE ABOUT IT!"

EA could solve world hunger and some people would still come on here and ***** about it.
 

Aeonknight

New member
Apr 8, 2011
751
0
0
VanQQisH said:
Aeonknight said:
Sorry to burst your EVIL MANDATORY DLC PRACTICES bubble, but I'm kind of surprised that any developer that gives it's players options is suddenly treated as some super bad thing. If the player wants to pay for shortcuts to progress that can be acquired for free through other means, EA would be stupid for not wanting to take their money.

The funny part is how this is becoming a trend with other companies. Namco gave players the ability to purchase new game+ perks for the game Tales of Graces F, things like increased XP or increased ability points and such.
I'm sorry, if you're trying to convince me this is a good thing, you just failed spectacularly. All of those NG+ perks were available in every installment of Tales before that game for free. And suddenly it's okay that they want to charge for them?

It's official guys. We're totally supposed to be thankful that EA and Namco are willing to allow us to pay them to bend us over and give us a pummeling. Glad you cleared that up for me!
Oh I never said it was a good thing, but it's not the bending over session you claim it to be. It's OPTIONAL. Something you seem to overlook when going on your little tirade. I'm relatively close to the end of Dead Space 3, and I can promise you (for what it's worth on the lolinternet) that I haven't spent an additional dime on the game besides what I paid when I bought it.

For the record, those same NG+ perks you mentioned? They were also free in Tales of Graces F. You just had to beat the game first, as the name implies.

But again, if you want to cough up a whole 3 dollars you can buy a short cut and get them now rather than later. Your choice. But again, OPTIONAL. as in, NOT MANDATORY.

What part of having more choices in the way I play my game is bad again? Actually don't answer that, I already know what direction this thread is going.
 

Aeonknight

New member
Apr 8, 2011
751
0
0
Frostbite3789 said:
Aeonknight said:
Save your time and don't even bother responding to the other dude's second post. I mean, his name has QQ in it. And he's living up to that.

"THEY MADE A GOOD PR MOVE?! I BETTER RAGE ABOUT IT!"

EA could solve world hunger and some people would still come on here and ***** about it.
Now you tell me... Either way I'm off to do something more productive besides argue on the internet: Play a game or 2.
 

TheProfessor234

New member
Aug 20, 2010
168
0
0
I like to think that this was secretly intended by someone in Visceral. I mean, if you think about it, getting one random resource every minute isn't that crazy and I have a feeling you'd have to do it for an hour to get everything you want.(I haven't played the game so I don't know how it really is.)

What I do know is that there was something like this in Dead Space 2 and that allegedly there was something like it in the original as well. What I do know for a fact is that some people are still lazy and buying items is still the quickest way to get them, but not the easiest depending on how you make your money.


As for EA, I don't explicitly hate them, but in my mind, they seem to be attaching themselves to anything they can to seem less like a company and more like your best friend.
 

Revolutionary

Pub Club Am Broken
May 30, 2009
1,833
0
0
My bullshit detector is going off here.

They wouldn't have put in a micro-transactions system and then add a deliberate work around that completely negates the point of the micro-transactions. I bet they're just hiding the fact that the glitch for some reason is too costly too patch, and they think in the long run they'll make more money by not patching it.
 

VitusPrime

New member
Sep 26, 2008
438
0
0
I like it how people are instantly lunging towards the 'This is clearly a lie' route of thinking. We all know EA want as much money as they can drain from our wallets, so here is what I'm thinking...

...What if it -was- intentional?

If EA weren't idiots, they could very well be doing this to see what lengths people are willing to go to get around having to make further purchases. I bet it cost them maybe half a day's work to implement the micro-transactions and this little 'exploit' they just so happened to put in.

TLDR - If this was intentional, your now EA's lab rat. Have fun with that. :)
 

Anthony Wells

New member
May 28, 2011
363
0
0
WHO. THE. HELL. CARES. if they were lying? The point is...they arent planning to patch it nor punish people for using it... THAT in and of itself...is a newsworth story. Why must people demonize them when they are actually being nice for once?
 

Frostbite3789

New member
Jul 12, 2010
1,778
0
0
Revolutionary said:
My bullshit detector is going off here.

They wouldn't have put in a micro-transactions system and then add a deliberate work around that completely negates the point of the micro-transactions. I bet they're just hiding the fact that the glitch for some reason is too costly too patch, and they think in the long run they'll make more money by not patching it.
]

I guess being able to buy champs in LoL with IP is a glitch. Why would they allow you a way to get champs with free currency but also include a method to pay for them with real money?

Dat logic.
 

Adam Jensen_v1legacy

I never asked for this
Sep 8, 2011
6,651
0
0
I don't for a second believe that they aren't butthurt by this. It took them a while to respond for a reason. But I'm glad this is the response they decided to go with. Mostly because I predicted that they would, and I like being right. But also because it means that they aren't completely detached from reality. Which is good.

We'll see how honest they were with this response in their next shooter with micro transactions.

Aeonknight said:
It's OPTIONAL.
For now. Seriously, were you living under a rock for the past several years? Companies add those "optional" things in order to gain more money. When that fails they make optional into something you have to buy if you want to have it. It happened with cheats in some games. It happened with alternate outfits, skins and weapons that were once unlockables for completing challenges. It even happened with characters in fighting games.
 

Dragoon

New member
Jan 19, 2010
889
0
0
Ahh the old it's not a glitch it's a feature excuse. I am completely fine with this though, EA are actually being nice about something for once so good for them.
 

Doclector

New member
Aug 22, 2009
5,010
0
0
Teoes said:
I can't decide if this was the honest response, or if for once they took the gracious out and realised how bad they would look for penalising players that did this (or how impractical it would be to try) and just came up with a "uhh, yeah.. of course we meant it to be like that! *nervous laugh*" statement.
Hit the nail on the head here. What, an item mysteriously re-appearing every time you exit an area is a feature? It's intended that players should do this? Yeah right.

I'm glad they aren't going to penalise people for it and all, but this is undoubtedly one of the most transparant lies EA has ever told in order to cover its ass.
 

Ed130 The Vanguard

(Insert witty quote here)
Sep 10, 2008
3,782
0
0
Heheheh, sure I believe you EA, it was supposed to be there all along.

Bwahahaha! It was suppost....hahahaha!