Molyneux: Fable II co-op was only possible thanks to Live’s structure

Tuesday, 30th September 2008 16:38 GMT By Patrick Garratt

Speaking to Videogamer, Lionhead boss Peter Molyneux has claimed that Fable II’s online co-op has only been possible because of the way Live’s structured, and that PS3′s online offering isn’t as “mature” as 360′s.

“The thing I love about the 360 more than anything is nothing to do with the hardware, it’s all to do with Live. Live is still underexploited for a game mechanic,” he said.

“Some of the stuff in Fable II we’re doing with co-op is only possible because of the way that Live is structured. I love playing around with that stuff as a designer.

“Whereas PS3 doesn’t seem to be quite so mature on that side. They haven’t got quite the same infrastructure and service but, you know, yeah, I’d love to get games on every platform.”

More through the link. As we reported this morning, Molyneux’s aim is to have online co-op patched into Fable II on its launch day.



  1. Tonka

    But It isn’t.
    Didn’t anyone tell him?

    #1 6 years ago
  2. Gekidami

    How would a MicroSoft dev know anything about PSN’s infrastructure? Sounds like he’s saying without knowing… And heres us thinking he isnt a good PR man, MS will be happy.

    #2 6 years ago
  3. Syrok

    Hmm, I wonder what part of the structure was satisfactory.

    #3 6 years ago
  4. JPickford

    It’s amazing that every exclusive game would “impossible” on other formats. I mean, what are the chances of that?

    The developers must be super relieved they picked the right machine each time.

    #4 6 years ago
  5. Soong

    I agree with JPickford.

    #5 6 years ago
  6. Psychotext

    JPickford knows what he’s talking about. :)

    #6 6 years ago
  7. JPickford

    These comments would be impossible on any other site.

    #7 6 years ago
  8. thetownhero

    gosh this guy doesnt even know what he`s fucking talking about.
    he`s just as bad as those asshole xbox fanboys that have no idea and just start blabing some shit.
    but what`s worse is that he`s a game developer so obviously some naive people are going to think it`s true

    #8 6 years ago
  9. Michael O'Connor

    Actually, Molyneux is correct.

    Fable 2′s online would be theoretically possible on other consoles, but due to the fact that the 360 is the only one where one account works across all games, if it was done on another format it would require all numbers of registrations and log-ins and what have you.

    With the 360, if you’re on Xbox Live, that’s it. The other consoles don’t have that. *shudders in memory of the MGO registration*

    #9 6 years ago
  10. JPickford

    Of course he’s correct, but it’s so self-evident it’s barely worth saying. If you use a unique aspect of any machine then obviously that feature wouldn’t work on another machine. Any DS game that uses the touch screen would be ‘impossible’ on the PSP.

    #10 6 years ago
  11. Michael O'Connor

    Well, won’t disagree there.

    #11 6 years ago
  12. No_PUDding

    “These comments would be impossible on any other site.”

    Seriously that’s true. This is one of the saner comment sections on the net.

    And Michael O’Conner, how is that true? How does the PS3 have any online co-op in that case?

    #12 6 years ago
  13. Gekidami

    Michael You say that as if every game on PS3 needs its own subcription and log-in, and thats utterly untrue, most games connect to servers with your ready made PSN log-in, the only real difference is that game servers arnt all hosted in one place like on Live but that would have no effect what so ever on co-op.

    #13 6 years ago
  14. Esha

    Burnout Paradise.

    Now unless anyone wants to say that Tycho of Penny Arcade frequently talks nonsense, bear with me a moment.

    Frequently I’ve seen Tycho speak of the ills and pains of having to deal with Live, especially when trying to line up a golf game. The nonsense he’s had to go through just to set up a match was absurd.

    I also remember where he made one direct comparison, that comparison was Burnout Paradise.

    The XBox 360 version had lots of Live nonsense embedded that made it a pain and a hassle for 360 users to easily get into a match. The PS3 version? It was a part of the game’s interface, and including extra players was as simple as a few D-pad movements.

    That simple.

    Just a couple of D-pad movements versus what the Live version of Burnout Paradise had going on.

    I’m absolutely and completely baffled by how this appears to be “less mature” of a network infrastructure than Live. Wouldn’t a mature networking system be almost invisible to the player and incredibly easy for a player to use?

    So, yes… Burnout Paradise.

    Molyneux is becoming a little farcical if you ask me.

    #14 6 years ago
  15. No_PUDding

    The thing is, is that’s it’s game specific.

    Konami ID@s were forced by (you guessed it ) Konami! So actually it has no relation to the PSN network.

    #15 6 years ago
  16. Psychotext

    Esha: I’m playing Burnout Paradise right now… I’m not sure what you mean by the comparison because it’s just a couple of dpad presses on the 360 too.

    #16 6 years ago
  17. Michael O'Connor

    “Michael You say that as if every game on PS3 needs its own subcription and log-in,”

    No, I didn’t. I said the 360′s online service is connected across the board through nothing more than your gamertag. Having one universal indentity across every game and being able to invite or join from anywhere at any time is still a major highlight of the 360 online service.

    Esha: You don’t need to do any of the “Live nonsense” to play multiplayer on Burnout Paradise on the 360. It’s exactly the same as it is on the PS3.

    PS3′s online service is fine, it’s just a bit hit and miss depending on the game.

    #17 6 years ago
  18. No_PUDding

    I am sure Konami would make a hit or miss online game for the 360 then.

    It’s literally just Konami forcing it becuase they didn’t want to use the hardware manufacturers online store.

    #18 6 years ago
  19. Esha

    Psychotext: I’m just remembering what Tycho said about the experience, that X-Box users had to endure an extra hassle than PS3 users did. Here’s the article:

    It seems to me from this that the PS3, at least on the software side, has a more well-behaved and mature API that allows game developers to have more control over how the networking is applied within their games. Whereas Live on the other hand is restrictive, forcing the Burnout Paradise developers to bring the Live Blades into the Burnout experience, therefore disrupting it.

    If their API is indicative of the attitude of their network architecture, then I can’t see how the more subtle and less domineering PS3 approach is less mature than the X-Box Live approach.

    But eh… what do I know? I can only go by what I see, but when I read that I agreed with Tycho. I like the fluid in-game system that the PS3 Burnout Paradise has.

    Michael: Which is better than it being pretty much hit and miss depending on the service (Live), in my opnion. Everything goes through Live, whereas on the PS3 (as I’ve said above) there’s more control left to the developers.

    We’ll just have different views on this, I suppose.

    #19 6 years ago
  20. Psychotext

    Leaving things in the hands of the developers is not always the best thing to do. I think most people would gladly take being shown the blades occasionally for a consistent experience over all games.

    #20 6 years ago
  21. Tonka

    So no one is seeing the absurdity in this? He is lauding a service due to a feature they had to cut in order to launch the game on time.

    Molinjö: “Xbox LIVE is great for co-op”
    Sane reporter: “But you don’t have on-line co-op in the game”
    Molinjö: “I’m not much of a PR man”

    #21 6 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.