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.

22

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.

Editor-In-Chief
From The Chatty
  • reply
    February 11, 2013 7:30 AM

    Steve 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.

    • reply
      February 11, 2013 7:39 AM

      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.

    • reply
      February 11, 2013 8:24 AM

      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?

      • reply
        February 11, 2013 8:27 AM

        The sad fats/sperglords who will make the most out of this aren't a significant amount of the population and lazy rich people will always find a way?

      • reply
        February 11, 2013 8:44 AM

        Just playing the game you get more resources than you'll ever need anyway. The microtransaction system doesn't really seem like the focus.

        • reply
          February 11, 2013 9:01 AM

          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.

          • reply
            February 11, 2013 9:37 AM

            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.

      • reply
        February 11, 2013 8:58 AM

        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!").

        • reply
          February 11, 2013 9:38 AM

          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.

          • reply
            February 11, 2013 9:38 AM

            That's regardless of any exploit.

          • reply
            February 11, 2013 3:48 PM

            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.

            • reply
              February 11, 2013 4:18 PM

              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.

      • reply
        February 11, 2013 10:13 AM

        I feel that the people who would use their time to farm these items are not likely the people who would spend additional money on DS3 in the first place. The microtransactions in this game appear to be a time-money trade off.

      • reply
        February 11, 2013 3:34 PM

        it's about time. you want to save time or money, your choice

      • reply
        February 11, 2013 4:48 PM

        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.

    • reply
      February 11, 2013 8:36 AM

      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.

      • reply
        February 11, 2013 9:46 AM

        Tell that to Blizzard... they tend to ban anyone who exploits an 'obvious' glitch.

        • reply
          February 11, 2013 10:05 AM

          [deleted]

          • reply
            February 11, 2013 10:21 AM

            Warcraft III was the last Blizzard game I bought, it makes me really sad to admit that.

            • reply
              February 11, 2013 11:25 AM

              [deleted]

              • reply
                February 11, 2013 11:54 AM

                I dunno man, Vanilla WoW + TBC and Stacraft 2 are both pretty great games.

                • reply
                  February 11, 2013 12:09 PM

                  I'm holding out on SC2 till the protos campaign comes out since that's all I want to play of it anyways.

          • reply
            February 11, 2013 10:46 AM

            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.

            • reply
              February 11, 2013 12:13 PM

              Yeah, I gotta say, D3 wasn't the Rapturiffic 2nd Coming everyone wanted (YET. Wait for the Expansion!), but I bought it because I knew for a fact I'd still be playing it 2 years later.

              • reply
                February 11, 2013 12:26 PM

                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.

                • reply
                  February 12, 2013 9:19 AM

                  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.

                  • reply
                    February 12, 2013 10:44 AM

                    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.

            • reply
              February 11, 2013 3:16 PM

              consider who you're replying to though

          • reply
            February 11, 2013 4:01 PM

            weren't you the guy botting and making bank from the d3 ah? I am possibly mis-remembering.

        • reply
          February 11, 2013 10:55 AM

          No, that's ArenaNet.

    • reply
      February 11, 2013 9:42 AM

      [deleted]

      • reply
        February 11, 2013 10:37 AM

        PC gamers can probably hack the game. I suspect most console gamers would find whipping out their billfolds easier.

    • reply
      February 11, 2013 9:51 AM

      screw you EA, we want to pay for things!!

    • reply
      February 11, 2013 10:57 AM

      That's some pretty piss poor damage control for something that makes them look incredible stupid. "Yes, our game intentionally both lets you pay for credits and items, and features a room that infinitely spawns them". Sure.

    • reply
      February 11, 2013 12:10 PM

      I find it odd how different the Giant Bomb and Polygon reviews are. Usually Polygon is super negative about everything but they gave it a very high score and positive review that is vastly different from the review from rudds.

      • reply
        February 11, 2013 12:10 PM

        Who to believe!!!

      • reply
        February 11, 2013 3:40 PM

        Rudds is more on the money here..... 3 is worse than 2 which wasn't as good as 1.

    • reply
      February 11, 2013 4:36 PM

      The game is easy enough to never need to glitch, so really it's primarily just for trying out new weapons & stuff.

Hello, Meet Lola