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

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

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

image

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 purchasing additional resources with real world dollars. It wasn't long before an exploit was discovered to infinitely gather resources 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

Permalink

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.

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.

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.

VanQQisH:
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.

an annoyed writer:
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.

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).

Aeonknight:

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!

Aeonknight:
Snip

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 bitch about it.

VanQQisH:

Aeonknight:

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.

Frostbite3789:

Aeonknight:
Snip

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 bitch 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.

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.

My bullshit detector is going off here.
image
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 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. :)

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?

Revolutionary:
My bullshit detector is going off here.
image
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.

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:
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.

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.

Teoes:
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.

Heheheh, sure I believe you EA, it was supposed to be there all along.

Bwahahaha! It was suppost....hahahaha!

Suspicious as hell...
but I'll buy that...
for now.

... why are so many people assuming they're lying?

Unless these farmable resources give you a ridiculous amount, it's perfectly reasonable that they would not have cared about such a boring, grindy inefficient 'exploit' was left in there for any who could be bothered to use it. Especially since from what I hear playing the game normally actually gets you resources faster.
((it's also a common feature in games to have items, enemies, etc. spawn in places, and re-spawn when you reload the level... it's been around for decades in fact))

They're targeting the micro-transactions at the lazy crowd and the loose-walleted crowd. Similar to how Team Fortress 2 has the item store and get a lot of purchases, despite there being many other options that don't require any money at all(random drops, crafting, and trading).

So it's not 'suspicious', it's... well, common sense really. The micro-transactions are just a side-income, not a primary model, they're making their real cash from the retail side.

wow, they're actually handling this pretty well. sure they arnt being honest but heck any company saying this wouldnt be honest so ... well done EA

btw off topic, do we have any sales figures on DS 3 yet?

im surprised they havent drowned in their own bullshit yet.

good thing i keep my hands of this game. they got my last money for BF3.

thethird0611:
The chances of both missing this while both coding the game, and also in Q&A, is low.

This in full agreement. EA aren't trying to stop players getting resources, or making it incredibly difficult - their whole economy when it comes to these transactions is aimed at the impatient, those who are more than happy to drop a few more bucks to give them a quicker/easier experience.

"It's not a bug. It's a feature!"

The oldest excuse in the book. And one that I have of course never used when speaking to a client. <_< >_>

Having played through the game, I actually believe this line. Micro-transactions towards crafting are really for those who want to either get stuff up front or don't want to (or forget to) regularly use scavenger bots or look for exploits--of which there are a few. I went into the game fearing I'd be spending as much on non-replayable/one-use item DLC (the bane of DLC in my book) and haven't had to through the course of game-play.

...That said, I do wish I hadn't gotten (or could turn off) the scavenger bot personality DLC, now that I've heard all its lines repeated ad infinitum.

Damn, people are never happy. Lets just shit all over EA for leaving a bug or intentionally leaving it in. Either way, you have a free way to gather resources now as opposed to paying money for it (if you really wanted to do that, this isn't going to change your mind). I buy shit all the time from games I really enjoy or support. I do it for DotA2 all the time and I know damn well they don't need the money. It's stuff I can also acquire for free but I can also purchase it for a set price and get it now. I really don't see a problem in any of this...especially in the single player portion of a game.

Anthony Wells:
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?

Maybe peeps have different definitions of nice, but nice applies on the basis of intention in my book rather then deed which might in itself look superficially nice.

To use a crappy example, lets say im a billionaire being sent to prison for tax evasion UNLESS i donate 10k to a homeless shelter.
Doing the donation won't make me a nice guy as it's for purely self interested reasons, despite what the grateful homeless might think.

That example is really crappy but hopefully you understand that intent is kinda a factor, accidentally being nice isnt in itself nice.

This is how cynical you've made us, EA. When something good happens in one of your games, everyone immedatly thinks you're lying about it being put in there on purpose. This is ussualy a cue that you should just kill yourself.

OT: I think they're lying about it, but even if they are, so what? This is a sign they're trying to get good PR, clean up their act and be liked again. I think they're finally realising they need to adapt or die.

Frankster:

Anthony Wells:
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?

Maybe peeps have different definitions of nice, but nice applies on the basis of intention in my book rather then deed which might in itself look superficially nice.

To use a crappy example, lets say im a billionaire being sent to prison for tax evasion UNLESS i donate 10k to a homeless shelter.
Doing the donation won't make me a nice guy as it's for purely self interested reasons, despite what the grateful homeless might think.

That example is really crappy but hopefully you understand that intent is kinda a factor, accidentally being nice isnt in itself nice.

I do see your point. But the analogy is kinda wrong, because the difference is EA had no legal obligation to get themselves out of a shitstorm, they could have whipped out the ban hammer, accused the people who used the exploit as robbing them of money, and then proceeded on there merry way to churn out more dlc's for mass effect 3 and more battlefield games, making tons of profits and losing nothing but bad press and consumer respect over this. The fact that they didn't is in and of itself "nice". You tell me straight faced that if they whipped out the ban hammer and stuff they would go out of business and i will demonize this response like the rest... but thats besides the point. I do understand what you were putting across and i don't deny they probably made the move just for some good PR. But...honestly I'm ok with that. Pseudo niceness is better then none at all.

Anthony Wells:
snip

The metaphor/analogy was advertised as crappy, but you understood the point so no need for me to scratch my head thinking of a more fitting one ^^

Otherwise you seem to be projecting others views onto me in the last part, i don't attach notions of morality to this, for me EA just did a "smart" business move, in my eyes "nice" and "not nice" doesn't even apply but i felt the need to challenge your assertion that this was a "nice" action as by intent, it really wasn't, it was just salvaging the situation.

Lets say they did go the banhammer route... Could you imagine the negative PR due to so many people exploiting the glitch as soon as it was discovered? They certainly wouldnt go out of business but it would have been seen as a disastrous business move, the kind they use in case studies in marketing classes.

So they (this is my assumption of course, i aint any better informed then anyone else when it comes to EAs inner workings) cut their losses and accepted to let this one go, it was the "smartest" business move.

Now if you don't agree with me about the importance of intent when qualifying an action as "nice" or "not nice", especially in the realm of business where truly selfless actions are very unusual, fairplay. I prefer brute honesty (being frank) to pseudo niceness but this is an individual preference thing. Either way we both consider EA to have done a positive thing even if not for the same reasons xP

Glitch, please delete!

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here