Molyneux: 'Fable 2 co-op only possible because of LIVE'

beavis4play - 446 days 17 hours ago

and why ask him if he ever wanted to do a ps3 game? he works for MS. what is he supposed to say?

Agree(7) | Disagree(0) | Report

ToastMan018 - 446 days 17 hours ago

i agree i wish he explained more...but hey it balances out...the co-op in fable 2 is only possible because of the 360's online structure and the 60 players online/8 player online co-op is only possible because of the ps3's online structure

Agree(12) | Disagree(5) | Report

Xelai - 446 days 16 hours ago

60 player is possible because of dedicated servers,not the way PSN is structured.

Agree(13) | Disagree(3) | Report

SL1M DADDY - 446 days 16 hours ago

It's an Xbox 360 exclusive. If it were not, then this would be a moot point. Sorry, but this sounds more like PR than anything else. I am looking forward to it for certain but people please, don't fall prey to the Kool-aid speach.

Agree(7) | Disagree(5) | Report

Final_Rpg - 446 days 16 hours ago

It's called bullcrap.

Agree(5) | Disagree(4) | Report

Kigmal - 446 days 16 hours ago

Duke Nukem 3D has 8 player co-op. 8 player co-op ruins games IMO. Imagine Halo 3 with 8 player coop, 8 spartans would stomp through the game in a matter of minutes. That kind of stuff doesn't work for alot of Xbox 360 games, it's not that it cant be done. 60 player online game can be achieved on Xbox 360 provided dedicated servers. Perfect Dark Zero was 32 players and Delta Force Black Hawk Down was 50 players online. It's not a PSN thing. What Peter meant is that Live is a unified service, it's much easier to work with it without having connection issues and stuff like that.

Agree(10) | Disagree(7) | Report

Xelai - 446 days 16 hours ago

Peter a PR guy? Someone who cares about branding, and that stuff?

Aaah, now I get it, you meant Peter Moore. ;-)

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report

HighDefinition - 446 days 16 hours ago

Bye.

Agree(2) | Disagree(8) | Report

Dareaver1 - 446 days 15 hours ago

he did not bash PSN or PS3....

PSN and Live do have different infrastructures....

Here's a bone for the fan-boys....

Because of Live's infrastructure, they have to be more careful with user-created content. I.E. Unreal 3.

Now the benefit's of PSN's infrastructure give it more freedom with user-created content and sharing.

Now see, there are strengths, benefits, and weaknesses in both systems.

It is easier to put a game on Live, because MS takes a big chunk out of the difficulties and cost of having an online game. Dedicated servers cost money and have their drawbacks, P2P has their drawbacks too, but for community gaming Dedicated might not be the better option, only for massive player counts.

with P2P, as long as there is another person playing online i can play the game with them. Dedicated servers, if they go down, that's it. Your investment is now useless online. See what i'm saying.

Peter is not trying to have a fanboy roast, he is just being honest. Live has a different infrastructure, which benefits Fable 2's play type.

There is no need to take offense....

@ below, remember, you can see your friends playing their own game while your playing yours, and you can invite them in and your own NPC's can respond to your friend differently, not only that, you can adjust and turn that off, but your friends characteristics translate over to the game easily, all this flows seamlessly. Live's infrastructure is so much more simple because MS gives the developers the tools, Many of the co-op features in Fable 2 are a first....

Agree(11) | Disagree(2) | Report

xhairs9 - 446 days 15 hours ago

If he's talking about the ability to pop in and out of co-op games, it's been done on the PSN with PSN Games even. That monster game had 4 player co-op with pop-in and out without needing invites etc.

If he's talking about P2P, that's been done, look at MGO. It just doesn't make any sense, I can't think of anything else that could make the structure any different.

Agree(2) | Disagree(3) | Report

Lelouch V Brit - 446 days 14 hours ago

"agreed.
and why ask him if he ever wanted to do a ps3 game? he works for MS. what is he supposed to say? "

agree Microsoft Signs his Checks.

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report

navyguy21 - 446 days 14 hours ago

I think he was talking about the fact that live is and integrated and unified service, meaning you are always connected to the network, sending and recieving information. This is why in co-op in fable 2, you can have the orbs (that shows where your friends are in their world) tracked constantly and accurately. This is why they are also able to track downloads, and determine the top games on XBL, because you are always sending usage information back to the servers. this is also why LIVE costs money, because someone has to maintain all these servers. and with PSN, everything falls on the the developer (friends lists, leaderboards, chatting, in game music, netcode, etc.)

Agree(8) | Disagree(3) | Report

Vecta - 446 days 14 hours ago

Its exactly what navguy21 said.

Agree(2) | Disagree(2) | Report

MazzingerZ - 446 days 14 hours ago

So Fable 2, a western RPG, will be special because of the co-op? (which won't ship at launch)...so RPG lovers, forget about story, gameplay and character development, MSFT asked him to talk about how amazing LIVE is...after Uncharted, GT5P, MGS4, LBP, etc...they can't use anymore "this game is only possible on the X360", so...

Agree(3) | Disagree(7) | Report

kewlkat007 - 446 days 13 hours ago

...

Agree(4) | Disagree(2) | Report

Dareaver1 - 446 days 13 hours ago

please read Navyguy's post. It makes perfect sense, and hits the nail on the head.

Agree(2) | Disagree(2) | Report

BattleAxe - 446 days 13 hours ago

Molyneux doesn't make any sense in what he is saying. If you can do 8 player online co-op in Resistance 2 then surely what he is saying is a pile of crap.

Agree(0) | Disagree(4) | Report

xhairs9 - 446 days 12 hours ago

I get that it's a unified service and that the information is constantly being sent back and forth, but in order to play co-op you must be online period. With the PSN it can track the same things such as: downloads are tracked in the PS Store, top games CAN be tracked for online which is the same for the 360 (if you have no live account you can still play games, where do those stats go? it's just like playing the ps3 on single player without being online you wont get those stats) They can be tracked on both systems.

As far as tracking dots on the minimap for co-op it seems to me just to be a little bit of extra coding in the game through PSN which CAN be done, it's just left to the developer is all.

Taking a look back at his statement was that it, "could ONLY be done on the 360." With what's just been provided, it CAN be done on the ps3 but they just don't want to do the extra work (not saying I don't blame them, but it CAN still be done).

But at the same time, he didn't go into depth about his reasons so we can only assume he's talking about some other features of live...

Agree(5) | Disagree(2) | Report

Ju - 446 days 11 hours ago

I'm with xhairs on this one. Where have you been guys. Since trophies found their ways into the PSN player ranking is possible. Also, friends and cross game friend invites is available thru the XMB now. No real need to have game specific implementations (however, some games let you track friends and simply join, best seen so far in UT3, IMO). So, I am not sure if I understand what so different in Live. But he didn't point out exactly what he was referring too.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

Skadoosh - 446 days 10 hours ago

Navyguy speaks the truth....

Fable 2 equals a perfect online experience while the PSN has something like MGO! A mess of an online experience.

Agree(2) | Disagree(5) | Report

BattleAxe - 446 days 9 hours ago

Perfect online experience....realy? Wow, how is the game? How many hours have you played the game for?...........Keep quiet, you don't know what you're talking about, kind of like Microsoft employee Molyneux.

Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report

navyguy21 - 445 days 13 hours ago

i didnt mean to offend anyone here lol. But let me explain. When i sign into XBL, im connected to my friends all the time. Live tracks what im doing and what they are doing and sends it to the respective consoles. example, if im at the dashboard, and my friend is playing GTA 4, if i go to his gamer profile, i can see what he is playing right down to the area he is in inside the game. Or with halo 3, i can tell what online mode he is in and the score and time left with the option to join right in, or madden i can tell the score of the game they are playing and if its online, franchise, or whatever. Thats what i meant. all this isnt done by the developer, its done by MS. With my PS3, first i have to sign into PSN, then i can only tell what game they are playing, no other info. I didnt mean that 60 player co-op is not possible like ive seen some posters say. I simply meant that everything online related is handled by MS, and thats what peter meant, because live allows the player's exact location in his own game to be displayed in mine with an orb. PSN isnt connected like that. The developer only does support for his/her own game.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

solidjun5 - 446 days 16 hours ago

the company he works for is owned by Microsoft and I can understand, to some degree, his argument. Like Fishy Fingers said above, I wish he went more in-depth as to why the online infrastructure of LIVE is so unique that only Fable-2 co-op can only be implemented on. I mean, ToastMan018 alluded to a wondeful point. Resistance 2 is running something I find, quite frankly amazing (60 player/8 player co-op).

Besides, at least he's not Bull$%^(ING to the point of no return. It's not like Cliffy B, where it is inferred that he wouldn't work on the PS3 hardware because of the controller. I find that argument ludicrous considering he's a gamer and I'm sure he played the PS2 quite a few times. Or the guy from Bethesda who stated that the reason why the PS3 version hasn't been shown was because the 360 is easily transportable. I find that hard to believe, since you can just set up a Kiosk running both machines. Capcom did it for RE5. Anyway, I like Peter. He's someone you can have a good chat with, while having a few drinks.

Agree(2) | Disagree(2) | Report

bumnut - 446 days 16 hours ago

60 players is no big deal, pc had had 64 players years ago.

but that is definately an adavantage for ps3 owners because the highest i have seen on 360 is 50 players (frontlines) which ran like crap.

Agree(3) | Disagree(3) | Report

solidjun5 - 446 days 16 hours ago

by the same argument, I think the 2-player co-op is so unique. PC been doing that for years too. I'm speaking in the context of consoles.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

Fishy Fingers - 446 days 17 hours ago

Really? Care to link me to anywhere that even suggests co-op was missed because of storage space?

I guess LBP is missing co-op create because lack of space on the BR disc?

Both dev's have said it was a decision made so the games could meet there respective release dates.

Please enlighten me as to what exactly would be needed software side to allow co-op that requires a large amount of storage.

Agree(5) | Disagree(1) | Report

kewlkat007 - 446 days 13 hours ago

awaits for a logical answer between disc space and co-op?

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

solidjun5 - 446 days 16 hours ago

Hey look everyone, let's see what else ludicrous thing Omega will type up.

Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report

Fishy Fingers - 446 days 17 hours ago

You really believe MS invests all that money back into Live each year? They don't even cough up for many dedicated servers.

Your also not including movie/TV downloads, game downloads, advertising revenue etc etc,

Agree(7) | Disagree(1) | Report

Fishy Fingers - 446 days 16 hours ago

Dude Id be surprised if a 5th of the money went back into Live or PSN.

Both are an excellent source of revenue for their respective companies and a great way to recoup some money they have both lost on the hardware side of things.

Adding new features costs money yes, but the new feature also opens up a new source of revenue. Netflix/PSN video store for example, you think they make a profit or a loss from that?

Either way, niether of us know for sure but both Sony and MS are here to make money.

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report

DARK WITNESS - 446 days 16 hours ago

You can correct me if i am wrong, but i thought MS bought lion Head. so, indirectly he does work for M$.

or let me put it this way. M$ are the publishers for gears of war, but they don't own Epic. so cliffy B does not work for M$, but his game is being published by them. there is nothing that could stop cliffy making a exclusive game for the ps3 ( apart from his hate for the ps3 controller ).

where as Peter would need to leave Lion head to join a new studio in order to make something for the ps3. Or unless M$ let go of Lion head, as they did with bungie.

like i said, correct me if i am wrong. but that is my understanding.

Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report

Ju - 446 days 11 hours ago

Its not a better service because it costs money, it has some features because MS controls it. And everybody has to go thru MS and follow their rules. That's the only difference. Not because you pay for it. One of the features might be how MS ranks games and how every communication runs thru MS's system (thus voice chat integrated into Live (==OS) rather the app).

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

Fishy Fingers - 446 days 16 hours ago

Ted's far to busy with games and building up his studio for stuff like this. Regardless where your console "loyalty" lies I think you have to admire him for his "tact" when it comes to interviews or tricky questions.

Really, he's a top guy.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

Pennywise - 446 days 16 hours ago

Molyneux is just saying what he is paid to say. I'm sure a person with his intelligence doesn't wholeheartedly believe this.

Agree(5) | Disagree(2) | Report

BUKKAKALYPSE - 446 days 14 hours ago

where do you come up with this stuff??? 0 lag?? get real!

I'd gladly pay $50 a year for a online service that delivers in every way. I mean the money you spend (or in your case, your parents spend) on the extra power consumtion of the PS3 alone would more than pay for Live and that's not including what it would cost to run life with playstation for a year. Add another $350/y if you're constantly "folding@home"

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

Agent002 - 446 days 16 hours ago

They are both good.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

militant07 - 446 days 15 hours ago

there well be allway diffrent between free and fee

Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report

pixelsword - 445 days 17 hours ago

...you uh, may want to seek help.

And don't go to a catholic priest or your local boy scout troop, either.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

cr33ping_death - 445 days 13 hours ago

wow sack ....pixel is right whats with you being fixated on male genitalia? you in the closet? and N4G is your only release?

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report