Fable 2 shipping without online co-op, will be added post-launch
by Griffin McElroy 
{ Sep 27th 2008 at 11:35AM }
Before you swear off Molyneux's highly anticipated brainchild, know that later in the same post, it's explained that the feature will come to the title in an auto-update -- Lionhead and Microsoft Game Studios are hoping to make it available within a week of the title's North American launch. We're just glad to know that Fable 2's online co-op mode didn't go the way of the real-time growing trees.
[Via X3F]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Obie @ Sep 27th 2008 11:37AM
So much for shipping a "finished" game.
Lame, weak, not cool.
Morisato @ Sep 27th 2008 1:14PM
I hate this practice. Soon they'll start selling blank discs that allow you to download the game when they complete it. While some might argue that it's basically digital download while retaining it's resale value, it's more like, play the game until the host decides to take the files off their server. extended rental yay!
Hyams @ Sep 27th 2008 1:41PM
Well, really, if we don't have patching, devs only have two choices:
1) Delay the game until said feature is ready,
2) Cut out the feature and try and have it in the sequal instead.
So, yeah, I'm perfectly happy with 'unfinished' games being shipped with future patches in mind. =)
(As long as said future patches are free, that is.)
Anticrawl @ Sep 27th 2008 2:01PM
So fucking gay, my lady and I will be apart that time and wanted to be able to play co-op online out of the box. I seriously doubt this will be available within the week. What the fuck? How dare they tot such a feature and not have it ready for us, liable to not even buy the damn game because I don't wanna get stuck waiting until they just decide to roll out the patch, which could take months if they don't feel like it and there are issues in the certification process.
wiredknight @ Sep 27th 2008 2:28PM
@anticrawl
Yes, how dare they try to deliver the best experience possible, even if it takes a little while longer. They are so selfish for not thinking of you and your specific issues when trying to make the game better for everyone else.
Anticrawl @ Sep 27th 2008 2:28PM
And not only that, but what is in place to keep them from charging extra for this feature if they decide to? The community will already own the game and be wanting it so we'd be at their mercy in that regard and they could charge anything they wanted.
Arnon @ Sep 27th 2008 2:33PM
Is it even possible to PAY for patches? Even on PC? Rofl.
Anticrawl @ Sep 27th 2008 3:43PM
How is not holding it off and shipping a complete game not better for the community? I don't see how you think it's unreasonable to ask for what you are paying for. I wouldn't pay to beta test something, or for a demo (looking at you Gran Turismo fans). There is no assurance they will even release said patch and nothing stopping them from putting it off indefinitly. The only way a consumer can be sure they get what they paid for is to actually get what they pay for at the point of sale.
And in regards to charging for a patch they could simply call it downloadable content and use the excuse that it adds a new feature to the game and they underestimated the costs associated with it.
Anticrawl @ Sep 27th 2008 3:46PM
To make things as simple as possible for all the dense people on Joystiq today this is an entertainment industry...
Their job is to entertain me and I am not amused.
Arxh @ Sep 27th 2008 3:59PM
Perhaps you missed the part where they stated it would be an auto-update... you know, the kind you dont have to pay for...
Anticrawl @ Sep 27th 2008 4:18PM
Again I say, there is nothing holding them to keep it as an auto-update. Sure likely they will, but I don't like the risk associated with not getting what I paid for out of the box, since paying for it alone is already risky enough.
BananaBoat @ Sep 27th 2008 6:33PM
Bawwwww more for the week wait.
I agree that they kinda mangled the meaning of the word "Gold" in the phrase "Going gold" but is a week really going to kill you? Would you rather it had been included, but in a buggy form?
I can wait till I've beaten the single player campaign to try some co-op. I just hope Molyneux delivered on his other 100 promises.
samfish @ Sep 27th 2008 10:00PM
If it's only going to take an extra week, than why not...y'know...delay the game an extra week and ship it as it should be?
Personally, I'm tired of this. Finish the freakin' game and THEN ship it. We aren't the developers damn beta test monkeys.
Mr Khan @ Sep 27th 2008 10:53PM
Aye, samfish
Patches are all well and good to fix glitches that were missed in play testing, but they shouldn't be used as a tool to take deadline pressure off of devs
Darthweder @ Oct 4th 2008 10:34PM
@Samfish
Don't you think they might have pushed back the release of the co-op so they wouldn't be using you as testers? They probably knew it was buggy and wanted another month to work on it. You do realize they start stamping discs at least a few weeks before release day. Doing it as a patch allows for more testing and bug fixing
BigD145 @ Sep 27th 2008 11:38AM
I'm tired of playing Alpha and Beta games. When will we actually get some finished versions?
Stuka @ Sep 27th 2008 11:39AM
Wow, first LBP and now Fable 2? Wake me when the FINISHED Fall 2008 games hit.
HighFiveJesus @ Sep 27th 2008 3:45PM
why do you sleep so much
Red Leader @ Sep 27th 2008 3:52PM
Wake me up when they start shipping games that are hyped for good reason and don't suck. Lookin' at you Mercenaries 2 and Force Unleashed.
Jakka(A tribute to whose who fought and failed during the Epic Flamewar of L.A. Noir and MR.ESC) @ Sep 27th 2008 11:40AM
Isn't this ironic? Both LBP and Fable 2 come out on the same day and both have their co-op delayed.
Also since I doubt that Fable 2 supports split-screen, shouldn't the title say "Fable 2 shipping without co-op,"?
Eggy @ Sep 27th 2008 11:42AM
Only create mode is delayed in LBP, you can still play online co-op.
Jakka(A tribute to whose who fought and failed during the Epic Flamewar of L.A. Noir and MR.ESC) @ Sep 27th 2008 11:50AM
Also isn't this ironic that Console are turning into PC's lately.
Having to upgrade your hardware, check(Red Rings and Multiple SKU's).Hardware requirements,check(Some games won't run without HDD).DRM, check(Movies on Marketplace).Installs,check.Unfinished buggy games, check.
Haggard (Mr.ESC resurrection force) @ Sep 27th 2008 11:57AM
Consoles are still a lot simpler for consumers than PCs (don't take this the wrong way, I'm a die-hard PC gamer), the only reason that they're complex for consumers is when the manufacturers stuff them full of cheap parts.
Haggard (Mr.ESC resurrection force) @ Sep 27th 2008 11:57AM
*only time when consoles are complex
The Aggie CEO @ Sep 27th 2008 12:03PM
the ONLY Only Co-op missing from LBP@ launch is 4 player create mode......it will still have4 player online co-op and 3 player co-op create mode.....
Xoviet chiK @ Sep 27th 2008 12:32PM
Fable II doesn't have split-screen, you are right. There is no screen divide, you have to play in the same viewing area. Fable II supports offline cooperative play, it was announced long before Online Play was confirmed at E3 or in OXM.
Top Cat @ Sep 27th 2008 2:26PM
Someone (by that, i mean everyone) needs to look up the meaning of irony.
Arnon @ Sep 27th 2008 2:34PM
Actually Jakka, you can still play Offline co-op, as well as see your online friend's orbs floating around Albion and you can trade and chat with them.. only feature missing is having them in the game itself. Mind you, this is not Lionhead's doing.. it's Microsoft patching up their servers for it.
Joshua @ Sep 27th 2008 5:48PM
It does have split screen co op though.
Hence why Online co op is the only thing that missing.
Eggy @ Sep 27th 2008 11:42AM
Plenty to do on your own. Fable TLC however was kinda disappointing for me. When I first got it (for the PC) I was expecting something more along the line of Morrowind in complexity and storyline but it wasn't even close.
MC Double Def DP @ Sep 27th 2008 11:56AM
I ate an apple expecting it to taste like an orange, however was kinda disappointing for me.
Eggy @ Sep 27th 2008 1:12PM
Well if the lead dev claims it's the second coming of Christ you'd expect something great.
j.howlett @ Sep 27th 2008 2:51PM
MC DDD, did someone promise to sell you the best citrus fruit only for you to end up purchasing a delicious and nutritious apple?
Haggard (steam: haggard_dawn, PSN: HaggyWaggy) @ Sep 27th 2008 6:36PM
When said lead developer is Peter Molyneaux, one should take the claim with a bucket of salt.
Debikul @ Sep 27th 2008 11:46AM
If you don't get online with the game then it's not a problem.
If you want to get online with the game you still can when the patch comes out so why complain?
For me though, I kinda like it that way so I can focus on the single player part of the game without an annoying itch to get online. Plus it lets you jump online with a sense of knowledge of how to do things. Trust me, there have been a few times I've heard someone ask "How do I do this?" and the reply was "Haven't you played the actual game?"
Trev @ Sep 27th 2008 12:35PM
There's a difference though. Fable 2's online co-op and single player campaigns are the same thing. Doing either one is playing "the actual game".
If Molyneux didn't under-deliver so regularly it wouldn't be an issue. As it is, I'm canceling my reservation for Fable 2 and I'll pick it up if and when this patch actually comes out. I want the game, but playing it with friends is what's really compelling. If I can't do that, there are 2 other games launching on the same day that I'm just as interested in.
Debikul @ Sep 27th 2008 12:43PM
Ahh ok. I played the original Fable a little bit but never played it or the expansion online so I stand corrected good sir.
Arnon @ Sep 27th 2008 2:37PM
Lol it's final.. I'm calling out idiots! Weeeeeeeeee
Trev's an idiot. Peter has nothing to do with this.. it's MS's servers being patched to allow this feature.
Trev @ Sep 28th 2008 12:09AM
Looks like someone didn't read the article here or the source. You got proof that it's MS, or are you just a fucking tool, Arnon?
Even better, explain why they need to patch the game to play co-op when you can already communicate and trade items? How could that work if these servers aren't ready? It's almost as though the Live components will already be in place and its an issue of the ability to bring other players in just not being on the disc.
Your overenthusiastic defense of Molyneux's latest hype machine is hilarious. Fable 1 was supposed to have online co-op and real and growing trees among several other features which were never delivered. So Molyneux says these features are coming, and I trust him about as far as I can throw him.
Arnon @ Sep 28th 2008 1:18PM
I laugh at the fact that you probably haven't looked up anything Fable 2 related and you judge something of this sort.. How would Lionhead have anything to do with this? They don't control the servers over at Microsoft.. use your head.
Also, communicating and trading items is far different than actually inviting the character into your own game.
"Your overenthusiastic defense of Molyneux's latest hype machine is hilarious. Fable 1 was supposed to have online co-op and real and growing trees among several other features which were never delivered. So Molyneux says these features are coming, and I trust him about as far as I can throw him."
I couldn't care less what Fable 1 was supposed to have.. stick to the subject. I also couldn't care less about how much you trust him. This, AGAIN, has nothing to do with Lionhead's game.. the code is already there, and they're patching the servers for it to you know.. work.
(By the way, I've read 3 articles of this + the source. Have fun, nub ^_^)
Trev @ Sep 28th 2008 7:55PM
The game before this, same series and same developer, failed to deliver on promised features. Now we see this one shipping without one of the /same/ promised features and have only that same quality promise that they'll be added later. I am sticking to the subject, which is Lionhead's chronic failure to deliver. Only an idiot would blindly defend and follow people like this.
If you managed to read three articles and see where it says it's the servers, then you're reading different ones that this. This says the game will be patched. X3F says the game will be patched. Gamerscoreblog says the game will be patched. There is not mention of it being a server issue.
Prove it or screw off. Either way, quit assuming you're the only one following the game. I wouldn't have reserved it if I hadn't been.
Arnon @ Sep 28th 2008 9:07PM
THIS article doesn't even state that this is Lionhead's doing..
"Lionhead and Microsoft Game Studios are hoping to make it available within a week of the title's North American launch."
MS has a major part in this, or else they wouldn't be mentioned.. And Lionhead is mentioned because well.. it's their game. They have no control over MS's servers (As I've already said).
And wut? The feature will be in the game.. you act as if you've been lied to all your life and that someone just struck you in the side of the head with a 'stupid stick'.
"But but but.. it was promised!" Yeah, it was, and it's coming. They didn't say anything about it being there on day-one. And no, they never promised that Fable would be later released with all the 'promised features' that were left out.. considering that you weren't able to download auto-patches (certain things like adding completely new gigs of content) to the original XBOX.
NOT-TO-MENTION, this is 22 days in advance being speculated.. by the time this comes out, it could already be in the game.
Arnon @ Sep 28th 2008 9:16PM
Because you know.. the developers at Lionhead, they're the ones actually patching all the games that come out on the 360. Like Gears of War, Ninja Gaiden 2, etc.. yup, it's them.
It works like this.. the developers have the code ready.. and Microsoft is able to convert it and release the patch over LIVE.
Trev @ Sep 28th 2008 10:15PM
'the developer is "still making tweaks" to the game's online mode'
Who's the developer? Lionhead. Who's still working on the online? Lionhead. Not Microsoft, they're just announcing it.
You failed to provide proof once again that it's MS, and your frantic excuses for Molyneux and company as-it-stands not delivering a hyped feature that they "hope" to patch in within the first week tell me you're going to eat up whatever garbage they give you.
If there ever was an application of the "drank the koolaid" phrase, you're it.
Arnon @ Sep 29th 2008 7:54AM
My idiocy statement stands firm to your name.. because if you knew anything about how my post was well.. posted.. I specifically stated that a company works on the finished product and then either MS or SONY will release the patch when they feel like it.. Lionhead is just a developing team.. not the core point to which all games are patched through LIVE.
Use your head.
The developer can make as many tweaks as he wants.. that doesn't mean he has control over Microsoft's servers.. unless they're dedicated and Lionhead is funding the servers (Which is usually not the case with XBL games).
Trev @ Sep 29th 2008 9:19AM
Another failure to provide a source that says it's all on MS's end. Typical.
The game is going out unfinished (without co-op) and you're trying to pass the buck to MS about that. Lionhead did not complete their game , Lionhead is developing the patch that shouldn't need to exist. Whether it gets held up in certification is irrelevant to the situation; there shouldn't be a patch in the first place.
Combine the fact that they're sending out an incomplete game with Lionhead's total unreliability, and it takes some pretty poor judgment to follow them. I'll believe online co-op when I see online co-op. Promises from Molyneux/Lionhead are like the Duke Nukem Forever release date.
The only idiot here is you, for trusting these folks to deliver when they failed so often in the past.
Arnon @ Sep 29th 2008 4:57PM
Yes dude, I'm a failure.. I love how when you cant come up with the correct response to what I've posted, you say I cant provide proof.. Not only do you contradict yourself by saying this, but there doesn't need to be proof. How would Lionhead have rights to Microsoft's servers? The only way they could, would to be if they owned them (dedicated). Lionhead creates the code for the patch, and Microsoft releases it.. again, please use the empty shell that's resting on your neck.
"The only idiot here is you, for trusting these folks to deliver when they failed so often in the past."
Failed on what? Fable 1 was awesome.. and reviewers agree on that.. only game I can think of is Black & White 2.. not to mention, the entire game is finished. Everything they've mentioned is in the game (Even this..), but I understand it's hard being stupid, and I'm pretty sure you're still an idiot haha..
"The game is going out unfinished (without co-op) and you're trying to pass the buck to MS about that. Lionhead did not complete their game , Lionhead is developing the patch that shouldn't need to exist. Whether it gets held up in certification is irrelevant to the situation; there shouldn't be a patch in the first place."
So no game should have patches.. Ew.. that means every game in existence was never completed. Fail logic is fail. By the way, Fable 2 will still have co-op on day one.. again, fail logic is fail. I'm pretty sure you mean -online- co-op..
Here's your logic:
"Dis game wont have co-op day one.. oh god time to cancel my pre-order becuz I wont be able to play with some random dood in Antarctica. And if games are getting patchez, that means they are incomplete pieces of crap!"
Arnon @ Sep 29th 2008 4:58PM
Not ONLY THAT, but this is complete speculation as someone is posting this article 22(now 21) days before it's official release.
Trev @ Sep 29th 2008 10:56PM
The "correct response"? Your arrogance is impossible to get around. The Lionhead-fanboyism is equally thick. You just can't accept doubt that they'll do everything they say.
I write software for a living. You don't need to patch the client side if the only issue is with the servers. That's just not how it works. That's why there's no patch to go with new COD4 playlists, and evidence Fable 2 is shipping out missing components.
You've failed YET AGAIN to provide any evidence that the ball is in Microsoft's court, or that Lionhead is even working on the patch right now. Any sort of dev blog or progress report interview would work, but all you did was ramble. It's a big enough exclusive title that if they failed, I'm sure MS would step in and do it for them. I just have no interest in a game like this that I can't play with friends.
Since you only defense is childish hyperbole and insults, and you're not worth my time. I'm sure Molyneux appreciates you covering his ass though.
Arnon @ Sep 30th 2008 11:34AM
And you fail to see the point that the feature will still be in the game.. possibly day one now. So quit bitching.