Dead Space 3 infinite mining 'not a glitch'
EA has issued a statement that a seeming glitch in Dead Space 3 allowing for infinite resource-farming isn't actually a glitch at all, but rather a deliberate design decision.
If you've been following Dead Space 3, you might have heard about a resource-mining glitch. By reentering and exiting a particular room, you can grab all the resources you want, thus circumventing any possible need for microtransactions. And you may have felt uneasy about exploiting the game, but don't worry. You have EA's blessing to farm till your heart's content.
"The resource-earning mechanic in Dead Space 3 is not a glitch," EA's Jino Talens told GameFront. "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. 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)."
So there you have it. The purported glitch is not only not a glitch, it's an intentional design decision for players clever enough to find it and patient enough to use it. With that off your conscience, feel free to check out how to pull off the glitch, err, "feature" below.
-
Shacknews
replySteve Watts posted a new article, Dead Space 3 infinite mining 'not a glitch'.
EA has issued a statement that a seeming glitch in Dead Space 3 allowing for infinite resource-farming isn't actually a glitch at all, but rather a deliberate design decision.-
Huh. I don't know how I feel about this. My knee-jerk reaction is to yell and scream about how EA sucks, but I can't seem to manage it here.
Maybe I need more coffee. -
That doesn't make sense. EA implements a microtransaction system for anyone who wants to spend real money on resources. But they also implement a not-glitch that spawns a resource every time you enter a certain room.
Wouldn't the knowledge that you can exploit this not-glitch discourage purchasing microtransactions? Sure, you could just open your wallet for some instant gratification instead of running in and out of the room for hours on end, but, well, we're gamers. We farm in every game we play because JRPG designers convinced us that grinding is fun or something.
This just smells wrong. Why would EA cripple its chance to make more money by leaving a not-glitch that looks like a glitch, smells like a glitch, talks like a glitch?-
Just playing the game you get more resources than you'll ever need anyway. The microtransaction system doesn't really seem like the focus.
-
I just think this not-glitch is... kind of dumb for both the MT path and the traditional "by the sweat of the brow" path. Part of the appeal of survival horror and its mutations, such as action-survival horror games like Dead Space, is coming by supplies on your own and managing them to your advantage. MTs discourage that, although they're optional; but a room where resources spawn infinitely also discourages fair playthroughs.
And yes, you can just skip going back into the room, forcing yourself to play fairly. But why add an infinitely respawning resource into the game, anyway? It hurts both types of play styles. To me, this IS a glitch. Balance your game so players can find everything they need by playing ORGANICALLY--no going back into rooms to keep picking up a regenerating item.
I'm also just discouraged. Dead Space didn't just take up Resident Evil's torch. It bludgeoned the abomination that was RE5 (fun co-op action game, terrible RE game) and pried it from RE's cold, dead corpse. EA really got action-survival horror. The first two Dead Space games are masterpieces in the genre.
With 3, I feel like they dropped the ball. That they forgot everything they learned from making 2 amazing horror games.-
I don't think 3 qualifies as survival-horror and I don't think they intended it to, to be quite honest. I enjoyed it but it was an action game through and through. At no point was I starved for anything at all.
-
-
-
Maybe it's a misguided attempt at charity, completely missing the point that quasi-MMO-ifying your game's single-player campaign adds additional responsibility. They're insulting everyone who bought resources via microtransactions, but if they close this loophole, it's greedy protectionism. To have a completely offline campaign would be ignoring the very very loud trend-following program managers at EA, even if gamers are getting sick of their favorite franchises getting corrupted by microtransactions and "gamer globalization" (i.e., "every game must have action elements, RPG elements, and MMO elements!").
-
How is it insulting to leave it in? If you bought microtransactions in this game it's because you were too lazy or too impatient to just play the game a little longer and collect what you needed.
-
That's regardless of any exploit.
-
It basically devalues what was bought with microtransactions, prior to knowledge of this glitch. Maybe that's a case of caveat emptor, but with DLC and microtransactions being such a young concept, the inherent market forces are immature, and there's almost no regulation, aside from the marketplace itself.
-
Who cares? Just playing the fucking game devalues what was bought with microtransactions since by the end of the game you're positively loaded with resources. If you bought shit with real money, it's because you were too impatient to simply wait until you'd acquired the resources through playing. The value isn't in the actual item, it's in not having sunk time into earning that item.
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
I'd never grind or farm in a game so if I were to pick one, I'd spend the money. But really, I'd pick neither and just play the game.
-
This issue aside. You pay for a game. You should be able to exploit any glitch tell the developer patches it, without feeling self-conscious about it at all. Damn! This isn't Russia. Is this Russia, Danny? This isn't Russia.
-
-
[deleted]
-
Warcraft III was the last Blizzard game I bought, it makes me really sad to admit that.
-
[deleted]
-
-
I'm holding out on SC2 till the protos campaign comes out since that's all I want to play of it anyways.
-
-
-
-
I paid $60 and then spent a bunch of time enjoying the game both solo and with my brother. I'm not sure I'm seeing why I shouldn't have bought it.
-
-
I'm not even playing it anymore but I got at least as much enjoyment out of it as I get from most games. In fact I'd say I got quite a bit more than that out of it.
-
I just don't know how that is.. I think there are still alot of people playing it.. myself I played it for maybe 6 hours and then never felt like going back to it. Maybe that's because I grew up with the original.. I never really even played D2 as much as original Diablo. As for WCIII, I played it a couple days with friends at LAN parties, but it was terrible compared to WCII, teeny-weensy maps.. just wasn't as much fun. Lame.
-
Different people like different things? I had fun with it and got more than my money's worth. It was far from the abject failure that some on the shack want to pretend it was.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
PC gamers can probably hack the game. I suspect most console gamers would find whipping out their billfolds easier.
-
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
-
[deleted]
-
