Ghost Wolves Disappearing; Nerfing in Subscription MMOs

Recently Blizzard shook up the World of Warcraft Hunter community by making the Grimtotem Spirit Guide untameable. These ghost wolves weren’t originally meant to be pets, but a clever hunter learned how to tame this cool looking beast using existing, legal game mechanics.

The process required that the player be at least level 70 as well as investment of several hundred gold worth of special materials. The process was also a coordinated effort of several people to obtain a comparatively low level pet with no special abilities; it just looks really cool.

In order to tame one of those wolves a hunter has to spend lots of honour/spirit shards to get a helm with meta socket, then spend money on a mystical skyfire diamond and drum of battle just to stand a chance taming one of those beasts.

After the Hunter community discovered it could be done, it checked with Blizzard to see if it was allowed. Blizzard applauded their ingenuity and assured them:

“While this feature of the Grimtotem Spirit Guide wasn’t exactly intended, it was agreed by the development team that this is a fun use of in-game mechanics, and we therefore have no plans to address this issue – it will still be possible in future for everyone who wishes to tame this NPC to do so. ”

However recently, in a not unprecedented move, Blizzard nerfed the ability to tame the ghost wolf for seemingly no reason in a stealth hot fix. Hunters who had spent a considerable amount of time and gold in preparation to tame one of the ghost wolves found themselves unable to do so. When confronted, Blizzard issued this statement:

The removal of the spirit guide has been debated within design discussions for a while now as to what impact the pet and its precedent has on the game.
The unintended nature of the taming, the undead status of the guide, appearance of the wolf in relation to the feel of the hunter class, and the complex processes of taming were all issues touched upon and discussed.

Ultimately the discussions brought us to the conclusion that this should not be a permanent addition to the pet selection available to hunters; however, those that have already tamed them should be allowed to keep them due to their efforts in obtaining one.

Hunters that have wasted precious resources to tame the wolf are angry, and Hunters who have one in their stable are worried. As I’ve mentioned Blizzard’s move was not unprecedented. Several times Hunters have found that pets with a unique look had been reskinned to look like all the others of the species, or that their favorite pet could no longer be fed. Some feel it’s only a matter of time before Blizzard does the same to the ghost wolf. As to an undead pet not being appropriate for the feel of the Hunter class, there are currently three undead tamable pets available to Hunters.

Because of the very open world, the living economies and social groupings; MMO players tend to invest a part of themselves in their virtual lives. Their avatars, pets and items can seem very real and personal to them. It’s not just a game for everyone anymore. Some people are demanding more of their virtual experiences and take it personally when when the company that owns an IP makes changes that effect them.

This brings me to the question of whether this type of business practice is part of the reason some industry experts are predicting subscription MMOs are slowly falling by the way side. When a free to play MMO such as Guild Wars applies nerfs; players will grumble but their monetary investment is relatively low. WoW players invest $15 monthly above and beyond the initial purchase of the game and any expansions. Do they have a right then to expect to be allowed to use legal game mechanics in creative ways to further the enjoyment of their game assuming they aren’t curtailing someone else’s fun in the process?

The legal aspects of virtual property ownership translating to real world assets has begun to come into question. In the business world when someone invests in a product, they can reasonably assume they are entitled to have what they purchase. With the lines between virtual and personal property blurring, can Blizzard continue to make apparently arbitrary decisions effecting players avatars and in-game property without consultation or notice; especially in a case such as this when Blizzard promised its clients, the Hunters, that they would have the right to obtain and retain these properties/pets in the future and have gone back on their word.

One last question; if these Blizzard clients are unsatisfied with company policy, why don’t they take their business elsewhere?

via World of Warcraft WarCry; World of Warcraft Burning Crusade Forums; Time Well wasted – A Tale of Two Pets