In-game 'shop' will bring microtransactions to Fable 3
by Randy Nelson 
{ Oct 21st 2009 at 9:25PM } 
Lionhead boss Peter Molyneux isn't just pushing the curve on Xbox 360 with now-confirmed Project Natal support in Fable 3; during his speech at the annual BAFTA gathering, the legendary designer revealed his intent to integrate an "in-game shop" within the game world, enabling players to purchase DLC without disrupting the game experience (i.e. exiting to the Xbox Live Marketplace). In a report on the presentation, That VideoGame Blog noted that Molyneux had suggested special weapons, for example, could be sold for about £1 ($1.70).
Also mentioned were plans to offer "travel" to new areas of the game world (think Fable 2's DLC destinations) for a fee. Molyneux thankfully didn't suggest that such things as tattoos, hair dye and the like -- which were purchased using the in-game currency of Fable 2 -- would be for-pay in its sequel. We imagine that getting the town crier to announce you as "Supreme Ruler of the Universe Who's Better Than Anyone Else at Fable 3 Ever" will carry a modest fee.
[Thanks, Rain!]
Also mentioned were plans to offer "travel" to new areas of the game world (think Fable 2's DLC destinations) for a fee. Molyneux thankfully didn't suggest that such things as tattoos, hair dye and the like -- which were purchased using the in-game currency of Fable 2 -- would be for-pay in its sequel. We imagine that getting the town crier to announce you as "Supreme Ruler of the Universe Who's Better Than Anyone Else at Fable 3 Ever" will carry a modest fee.
[Thanks, Rain!]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Anthology @ Oct 21st 2009 9:27PM
I'm not even sure what to say.
There's no way to defend this kind of shit.
SpyderTaco (PSN: Ar4chNova89) @ Oct 21st 2009 10:07PM
I'll help you find the words.
F*** PETER MOLYNEUX!
roger @ Oct 21st 2009 10:08PM
What else would you expect from MS, I mean all flamebait aside this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. You purchase defective products and then rebuy them when they break then the only one to blame are yourselves. My 360 still runs fine, but if it ever breaks within the next year and MS doesn't repair it for free that is the last time I purchase any hardware from them.
Alton Brown [ XBL: LordToastington] @ Oct 21st 2009 10:12PM
If you've had your 360 for less than 3 years and it RRoDs, then there's no need to rebuy it, is there?
Markez (attempting to call me less of a man because i knew so much about pans) @ Oct 21st 2009 10:14PM
I'm a Molyneaux fan. Fable II was a fantastic game, and one of the titles I've enjoyed most in recent memory. I expect Fable III will be fantastic as well.
Microtransactions are the wave of the future, like it or lump it (yuk yuk), and it'll be unavoidable wherever you turn. Legions of internet whiners won't change that. It's really not so much whether you can 'defend' this kind of thing. Just accept it.
SpyderTaco (PSN: Ar4chNova89) @ Oct 21st 2009 10:19PM
@Markez
Why should we accept it? You seem to be forgetting that this entire industry is run by the consumers. If the consumers strongly disagree with something then there is no money to be made by the publishers.
Sure, right now it's just a bunch of nerds bickering on a blog about what will soon happen. But that doesn't mean the rest of the industry is willing to be forced to eat this bullsh*t.
I feel bad for the "casual gamer" who buys Fable III having enjoyed the previous games and is slapped in the face with dollar fees for virtual items. People rip on PS Home all the time but those people are aware of the fact that the intention of Home is to make money. It seems like Microsoft is running out of ideas.
Alton Brown [ XBL: LordToastington] @ Oct 21st 2009 10:27PM
You make a good point, Taco. However, I feel that Fable is a strong enough brand that it won't matter if everyone who reads Joystiq doesn't buy it. It'll sell to fans of the first two.
SpyderTaco (PSN: Ar4chNova89) @ Oct 21st 2009 10:33PM
Here is my problem with all of this.
I just finished playing Demon's Souls. It took me about 26hrs to complete my first play through. Now, if I am playing on my 15th hour and having a lot of fun, and a thing pops up saying "$5 is required to move to this area", I'd probably be willing to pay it. Not because I want to, but because I would like to know how the story ends.
I'm not saying that's what will happen, but I think this is going to become a very shady technique that will only matter to those who are already invested in the game. What can you do? You're not going to get rid of the game because you want to know how it all ends.
Metkis @ Oct 21st 2009 10:36PM
@Markez: I never understood the, "I recognize this is something that a lot of people don't agree with, so just sit there and do nothing about it" mentality. Just because DLC is becoming a popular "wave of the future" (what is this, the 90s?) doesn't mean that people shouldn't be able to protest it, and telling everybody who is protesting to "sit down and shut up" isn't a very constructive way to help move the game industry towards an experience we all can enjoy.
Alton Brown [ XBL: LordToastington] @ Oct 21st 2009 10:37PM
Like Stevetrop mentioned below, I think this is more of a way to purchase DLC in-game. Those "extra parts" are probably stuff like Knothole Island. If Molyneux tried to do something like you just described, Miyamoto would crush his skull for bringing about the death of an industry he helped to revitalize.
Alton Brown [ XBL: LordToastington] @ Oct 21st 2009 10:39PM
As much as I like you, Markez, I'm going to have to go with Metkis on this one.
D dogg @ Oct 21st 2009 10:41PM
I honestly think judgement is being passed too early on this or that his idea is being taken out of context.
I could be wrong, but I'm interpreting it this way, example:
In Deadspace, you upgrade your weapons and suit at stations. Also at these stations, you can change into the console specific suits. NOW, you can also buy the individual DLC weapon packs through this station without having to exit the game and purchase / download said pack / item.
NOW, if I am wrong and this is nothing more than EA's bullshit where you pay to unlock shit already in the game, well that ladies and gentlemen is complete bullshit and I'd say BOYCOTT THE FUCK OUTTA FABLE III!
Time will tell.
sk8monroe81 (PSN--XBL) @ Oct 21st 2009 10:45PM
anthology- there are actually ways to defend it. i am sure there are many people out there that would rather just buy special weapons and armor and other things rather than spending hours working or stealing in the game to do so.
and its easy to pop in things that have no effect on the actual game, but seem interesting, like they said in the post such as special weapons. having more fun killing enemies is always fun and some people wouldnt mind the purchase.
IMO this is annoying and shouldnt be done, but what the hell can we do ?
its all around us now... examples...do you want avocado on that sub ? $ 1.00 extra; bacon ? $ 1.00 extra...$ 50 per month cell phone plan, want to text ? $ 10 per month..premium and/or unneeded items usually cost money..companies have to stay in business and when they strike something popular of course they are going to try and make as much as they can. it sucks because it goes beyond the art and passion of the game making, but at any moment any developer, publisher, or any company for that matter can lose much money if not millions of dollars.
i stay away from this stuff and if everyone else does then it probably wont be offered as much. If it is popular and brings in money is there any reason it should stop ?
and to claim that this only happens on the 360 is a joke because it is happening on both consoles.
AoE @ Oct 21st 2009 10:45PM
@Metkis,
Mind you I am not agreeing with Markez at all... but the thing is all of the yelling and screaming and protesting and online petitions in the world won't change shit, what game companies... what any company listens to is money. So really the best tactic to defeat shenanigans like this isn't to yell at MS or Lionhead, it's to calmly inform non-core gamers of the ways in which they will be screwed and why it's actually far more worthwhile to not purchase the game than it is to purchase it. If it tanks, or if the microtransaction store tanks, it'll be an experiment never to be repeated... but if it's popular... well at that point gamers have decided our fates, even if the hardcore gaming population doesn't agree.
Ballistic H @ Oct 21st 2009 10:47PM
I'd like to see someone pay $0.99 everytime he travels... in an RPG...
Ballistic H @ Oct 21st 2009 10:50PM
Because I DEFINITELY won't.
sk8monroe81 (PSN--XBL) @ Oct 21st 2009 11:01PM
spyder taco why are you comparing this to advancing forward in demons souls ?
the only thing we have heard about this is that 'special weapons' and other things may be available for purchase in game as micro-transactions. these would have no effect on the outcome of the game and are in no way mandatory to complete the game or really needed.
if you had to pay to advance in a game that would outright wrong. have you played dead space ? like someone else brought up if you have played that game there are special armor suits available for purchase in game which had no real effect on the outcome of the game...
i really call these things help for sorry gamers, or loot for spoiled rich kids, or whatever the hell, im stereotyping...
sk8monroe81 (PSN--XBL) @ Oct 21st 2009 11:04PM
ballastic- the post said:
"plans to offer "travel" to new areas of the game world"
a lot of people paid to travel to the DLC areas of fable 2, this sounds the same to me ?
spyder taco- the post said:
''enabling players to purchase premium items without disrupting the game experience''
finnith @ Oct 21st 2009 11:08PM
I actually see this as a novel idea, as it will kind of improve the flow of games (i.e. what if instead of having to go to the Marketplace to buy the Knothole Island DLC pack you just bought a ticket for a boat or something to that effect?). I do hope that MGS and Lionhead choose not to whore out the idea with gameplay relevant items (weapons), but something as trivial as clothes (remember that in Fable 2 there were no statistics attached to clothes, let's assume that doesn't change), then there's not really that much point to objecting this kind of thing. Hopefully though, this doesn't set too much of a precedent for future games.
I do agree with what I think Markez is saying though, most people are probably going to buy the game anyways. It'll probably take something similar to the BF:BC debacle with the weapons to really stop this, a small petition or limited outcry from our small corner of the internet is going to do nothing.
WREturns (Please buy and rate my iPhone game, Shape Tapper!) @ Oct 21st 2009 11:22PM
You know what? Markez is right. Fuck you guys and your bitching and moaning every time a developer adds content to an existing game or provides new options. So what if it costs money? If you don't like it, don't buy it. It's not mandatory, it's an OPTION, for fuck's sake. You know how much I payed for Final Fantasy III on the SNES in 1994? $79.99. In 1994, no less. I think that developers should charge MORE for incredibly long games. It's a hell of a lot cheaper in entertainment hours/dollar spent than any other form of media. Think about it.
2 hour movie/$10 a ticket = $5 per hour
400 page book/$13 = 6 hours give or take = $2.16/hour
60 hour game/$60 = $1/hour
AND you can turn around and sell it for a reasonable price? You ever try selling a movie ticket stub or a used book? Hell, I put 300 hours into Oblivion so that cost me about $.20/hour. So I don't care if they charge for special weapons in Fable 3. As far as I'm concerned, they've earned it.
Anthology @ Oct 21st 2009 11:41PM
@WRE
No, simply no.
This is not charging for extras, this is simply a case of charging for things that should be available to the purchaser from the beginning.
You know why you spent so much for Final Fantasy III?
Because it was a fucking great game, that's why.
Even if the times had allowed for DLC, it wouldn't need it, you wouldn't have to buy it because it was already a complete experience.
I, personally, am sick of paying $60 for a fucking 12 hour playtime.
I'm fucking sick of dropping $10 on some DLC released less than a week after the game's release.
If they add something to the game FAN-FUCKING-TASTIC, but don't make BUYING SHIT WITH REAL MONEY a main attraction of the game and don't fucking nickle and dime me every two months for more content.
In the meantime I'll be over here playing TF2, whose provided more content for free than most console games have paid DLC.
CheeziePotato @ Oct 21st 2009 11:49PM
So wait, I pay $60 for this game and I still have to pay for stuff in the game? I thought paying for DLC was unfair, but this is BULLSHIT.
WREturns (Please buy and rate my iPhone game, Shape Tapper!) @ Oct 21st 2009 11:52PM
@ Anthology,
$60 for 12 hours is still cheaper than the equivalent time spent at the movies and the property is yours. If you trade it in soon after buying it it's more like $30-$40 for 12 hours. If you're talking bang for your buck then you just don't have a case. Meanwhile movie theaters continue to charge you $4 for a soda that costs them $.20 and nobody bats an eye. That's charging something extra that enhances the original experience and could come free with the price of admission too, right?
Anthology @ Oct 21st 2009 11:58PM
Are we comparing apples to oranges or what?
I could sell you a deck of cards for a dollar and you'd have the possibility of enjoying it for a longer period of time than either entertainment medium.
Massmass @ Oct 22nd 2009 12:07AM
So this is how gaming dies...; with thunderous applause...
Markez (attempting to call me less of a man because i knew so much about pans) @ Oct 22nd 2009 12:31AM
"You seem to be forgetting that this entire industry is run by the consumers"
Reeeeeaaaaaaaaaaalllllllllllllllllly. You reeeeeeeeeeeeallllllllllllllllllllly believe that? You're loony toons, buddy. Hurray for whiny internet complainers who think they're seriously influencing the way the gaming industry is handling DLC and microtransactions.
Massmass @ Oct 22nd 2009 12:37AM
They influenced PS3 sales and image... DLC is next and for the better this time.
WREturns (Please buy and rate my iPhone game, Shape Tapper!) @ Oct 22nd 2009 12:52AM
Anthology,
A deck of cards? Hell, even if I am comparing apples to oranges at least both things are fruit. Comparing a deck of cards to a videogame is like comparing apples to horseshoes. All I'm saying is that gamers are fussy, entitled little bitches who get far more entertainment value out of their games than almost any other enthusiast with a similar technology-based hobby gets out of theirs. You guys bitch about companies trying to make money off of cheap ports and cash-ins and then you bitch when they try to make a little extra cash off of a huge AAA epic as well. With fans like you, who needs critics?
SpyderTaco (PSN: Ar4chNova89) @ Oct 22nd 2009 2:17AM
@Markez
So you're telling me that you DON'T believe consumers control the industry.
You obviously know very little about marketing. Here, I'll sum it up for you.
Publishers publish things.
Consumers consume things.
If the consumer does not like what the publisher is offering, they won't buy it.
If the publisher isn't selling to the consumer, they lose majority of their funding.
No funding, no publisher. Simple.
Markez (attempting to call me less of a man because i knew so much about pans) @ Oct 22nd 2009 2:45AM
What you're describing isn't really marketing, lol, but I suppose that's beside the point. Let's say that consumers do control the industry. That would definitely explain why we're going to see more microtransactions, more DLC, more unlockable content, and we'll see each in newer and more innovative ways than ever before as we go down the line here. Consumers contintue to gobble this stuff up in all ways, shapes, and forms. Consumers don't strongly disagree with this, there is going to continue to be gobs of money to be made here by publishers because consumers continue to vote with their dollars that they like this type of thing.
You're not an example of the common/majority gaming consumer, and how does this become a Microsoft issue for you? I got a chuckle out of this fairytale picture you have of the poor casual gamer who spends 60 beans of his own leisure money on his gaming hobby and poor ol' fella is confronted with an optional microtransaction for virtual clothing he doesn't need to buy, or optional DLC/areas they're smart enough to know they don't need to buy. Be sure to let me know though if the whiny internet uprising ever happens and the elitist hardcore begin to dictate what the industry does, and publishers bend to the will of the few and they willfullly turn away from the additional revenue streams that continue to stare them in the face.
sk8monroe81 (PSN--XBL) @ Oct 22nd 2009 3:43AM
spyder and markez- i think you both are right.
first i believe that sometimes companies and business can influence the market and consumers from time to time and mold what we 'like to buy' through exuberant marketing campaigns.
consumers control the markets and everything only to an extent. when a game like halo 3 and cod4 sell 10+ millions copies each approximately you get 100 other shooters that come out because publishers believe 'that is what we want', but did we really want all those shooters ? companies are always going to make products they want to and attempt to mold the market into accepting the new product, or adapting products to consumers tastes, but doesn't always work when overdone.
90% of businesses fail, so just let this fail if thats the case, however, im sure these DLC and mini packs are popular to some people.
everything available in any market doesn't have to tailor to your tastes because every consumer is different. there will always be a wide range of products and services available, or at least i hope so.
also companies must hate when people ask for something and then do not buy it, such as putting more hardcore games on the wii. i dont think any mature game has sold well on the wii, so of course concentration will always be on the casual games, which everyone on joystiq seems to complain about.
sk8monroe81 (PSN--XBL) @ Oct 22nd 2009 3:54AM
and markez a question whats the deal with quoting me ? do you have a hidden thing for me or something where you need to be reminded by me ? it just feels weird to see that when you post every time. i hope you don't have issues.
anyways i am glad you can misspell a quote first of all and i guess it shows praise to me that you were wrong. You typed in a mean way to me in that forum for no reason and brought up an old debate which you had forgot i guess. now you have an obsession with the subject or something ?
Markez (attempting to call me less of a man because i knew so much about pans) @ Oct 22nd 2009 10:25AM
Mostly I just think it's funny the way it rhymes. Apologies for being a dick.
Duke @ Oct 22nd 2009 3:14PM
Its always amazing to see the people that will show and say they want to be charged more, and that game prices were higher in the past and we should be thrilled with them being even higher now. You all can piss away money however you like and brush your teeth with gold toothbrushes if you like, but that doesn't meant that other people shouldn't be bothered by being screwed over. The micro transactions are out of control right now.
They have marketing people at these companies to bullsh*t us about how good these screwings are, so why do you feel the need to encourage it too? People have a right to be bothered by increasing costs.
sk8monroe81 (PSN--XBL) @ Oct 22nd 2009 3:22PM
k it was funny i admit.
just when you said i got in an argument and lost over pans, that pissed me off because i remembered the whole thing dearly for some reason...
that person was acting so smart, then i kept chopping his comments down to size, and then he had to try the old 'less of a man' comment because i cook. which was very funny itself and told me at that point that i had won the argument and the guy was trying anything to change the subject and make me look bad, which really only made the guy look like a lazy and sexist person.
just seemed like your 2 cents came from left field on the whole thing i guess and felt like you were only trying to be mean. but i may be wrong and im sure i could have been mean to you in the past also, cause im not always the nicest guy.
Lucas Flatter @ Oct 21st 2009 9:32PM
don't defend it...don't buy it
Alton Brown [ XBL: LordToastington] @ Oct 21st 2009 9:31PM
Well, that's bullshit.
Victor @ Oct 21st 2009 10:21PM
No, it's Peter Moneylux!
devilsei @ Oct 21st 2009 11:54PM
Vic, all I gotta ask is...
What's the difference?
Bananarama @ Oct 21st 2009 9:33PM
The only way this could be acceptable is if you can buy it for in game currency OR real world money.
WINterfang ( Now with the power to piss you off ) @ Oct 21st 2009 11:04PM
I think it will be like Yoville.
the facebook app has ingame currency in which you could by clothes,drinks and food but there's also premium cool stuff like pets etc... that require cash, things like one buck etc but they are unnecessary so think about then as in-game DLC.
I'm not defending this but I think it's not a big deal and won't affect your progress of the game, besides aren't Guitar Hero/Rock Band songs 1.99 a piece?
Bananarama @ Oct 21st 2009 11:31PM
The difference between your two examples are that Yoville is free, while I will be paying 60 dollars for fable 3, and rock band and GH songs are developed after the game is released, and are not already on the disc. When I pay $60 for a game, I feel I am entitled to everything that is on that disc. I should not then have to spend extra money to get stuff that I already paid for.
Mr Khan @ Oct 22nd 2009 8:31AM
Maybe on a sliding scale? How easy is it to get currency in Fable? (their unit is Gold, right?) So something like 1,000 G per $, or whatever could be slightly unfair to give you incentive to put real money on it, but make it so that you don't have to.
Bobby Kotick 2: Echoes @ Oct 21st 2009 9:34PM
Because in-game currency is for pussies.
Nihilism98 @ Oct 21st 2009 9:34PM
I'm kinda ticked about Natal being included at this point, as it seems like a gimmick.
But my opinion on THAT could change.
It won't change on this. Microtransactions suck.
sonicspike41 @ Oct 21st 2009 9:40PM
The way I see it is:
If you plan on having in-game microtransactions from the start, then you should use some of that expected income to help offset other things. For example, lower the price of the game, include it in a worthy enough bundle, create plenty of for-free content, or lower the price of the game.
Succulent @ Oct 21st 2009 9:47PM
Spot on sonicspike41.
Micro transactions are all good and well when it isn't for shit that should've been included in the game in the first place, for it's price.
They'll charge us for the box art next. What? You want a CD with a design on it? That'll be extra mate.
Prox @ Oct 22nd 2009 9:31AM
Yeah, it seems like they're trying really hard to make me HATE Fable III.
Lord Malvern @ Oct 21st 2009 9:34PM
I could understand if this were a free-to-play MMO, but not on a single player game that costs $60 just to get in the door.
Jack Tretton @ Oct 21st 2009 9:36PM
"Also mentioned were plans to offer 'travel' to new areas of the game world...for a fee."
This kind of shit is why fewer and fewer games offered at MSRP will never be the *whole* game as developed from day one. Hell, I'm sure DLC gets discussed at the first creative kickoff meeting.