In a move some expected and others didn't, Blizzard decided to remove that last layer insulating its game from the practice of RMT: real money transactions. Previously, players had to purchase the trading card game to get the special extra pets for the game, and that was rather a dicey proposition. You could just pay a high price and get the card directly, or you could take your chances with your money, much like Charlie in his pursuit of a golden ticket. Now, you can just go to the Blizzard store and purchase a Pandaren or a Lil' KT pet for $10USD.

Considering how several people were unhappy with the Champions Online microtransaction store, we can't imagine this is going over too well with everyone. Some feel that these are just pets and -- while pricey -- aren't anything to make a fuss over. Others feel that this is the top of the slippery slope that will eventually see some form of in-game benefits gained through store purchases, much like many item mall games. This morning we thought we'd ask you. Do you think this is a wonderful idea, and you're glad to see Blizzard exploring the territory? Do you think it's a good idea but the price is way too high -- a macrotransaction rather than a microtransaction. Are you leery but trusting for now? Or is this all a load of crap, and subscription games should make everything available if you're willing to grind it?

In a crackdown against online gaming, China has put World of Warcraft under review again today, asking Chinese operator NetEase to stop collecting fees and suspend new account registration as the game is in violation of regulation agreements.

A regulator from the General Administration of Press and Publication (GAPP) said today in an online statement that the game was in "gross violation" of Chinese regulations and they have returned the company's application to operate "The Burning Crusade" (Yep, that's right, they said The Burning Crusade and not Wrath of the Lich King) in China. NetEase has responded that they have not received official word from the governing body of their intent. As of this posting, Battle.net China is still accepting registrations for World of Warcraft.

For the past week I've been delving deep into the dungeons of Runic Games' Torchlight and found the experience to be nothing short of joyous. Granted, like many other people I also wish some kind of co-op shipped with the game (even over LAN) but thankfully the developer's next project will be an MMO built upon the foundation laid down by last week's release.

My joy for this game most definitely bleeds into its MMO incarnation, which has led to far too much thinking on additions I'd like to see made. So this week, I'm going to get them all off my chest in the hopes that I'll stop obsessing over them. Of course, there's never a guarantee with these things.

MMOs are a big business these days. This hasn't always been the case -- Ultima Online might have been the first real game of the genre, but it didn't make everyone want to build a competitor. It was the success of World of Warcraft that really opened up the idea that there was a huge amount of money to be made from the genre, and that in turn has brought almost everyone to the table in a rush to build a game, find a method that works, and try to hook as many subscribers as possible. The only problem is that we might find ourselves with an industry drifting toward what MMOSH refers to, quite fairly, as The Bad Place.

We've all found ourselves buying new games, playing them only until the trial is up, and then never picking them up again. Sometimes we don't even give them the full month. And some developers seem to be adopting this mentality as well -- there are rumors here and there about the future of Champions Online after its first month, and both publishers and players are treating it as if the first month is everything. (Their recent free trial seems to tie into this -- you could argue that where MMOs once got new players by word of mouth, they seem to be in love with constant trial offers to entice players now.) And that's just the tip of the problem, really -- the post goes into further detail about the cycle of hype, release, and abandonment. As it says, gone are the days when we should stick with the game that we had and wait for it to improve -- and that might ultimately be far more harmful than whatever holes in the game lead us to leave so quickly.

Sure, the peace between the Alliance and the Horde in World of Warcraft is supposed to be present, but it doesn't stop them from trying to take each other out whenever they can. Take for example today's One Shots sent in to us from Minifig of the Darkness Beyond Twilight guild. While this is obviously a Horde base on the Isle of Conquest, it doesn't stop Minifig from flying straight into it, in what appears to be a crazy attempt to ram straight into their zeppelin. Crazy or brave? You make the call!

With millions of World of Warcraft players, we actually don't get too many screens from that game. If you'd like to send one in from WoW or any other MMO, we'd be glad to post it. Drop it into an email addressed to oneshots AT massively DOT com along with your name, the name of the game, and a quick description. We'll show it off to all our readers and give you the nod.

Often times grind is lambasted as the worst part of this genre, something to be minimized and removed to any and all extent. I understand all too well why; hundreds of hours of brain melting repetitiveness. Only here's the rub: the very nature of MMOs -- persistence -- creates a grind. Unless you keep it under a reasonable number of hours played, it'll turn into a festival of grind.

I used to think this was a colossal problem, yet lately I'm beginning to rethink my stance.

With Patch 3.3 bringing in lots of goodies, the holiday event coming up, and Cataclysm looming on the horizon, Outland may not be the place a lot of people are spending time these days. Nonetheless, the skies over this strange other-world remain a beautiful place to stop and enjoy a moment of quiet. This great World of Warcraft One Shots comes to us from Tristalus of the Crimson Alliance - a guild that he says has been together for 12 years this December! He writes in: Many of us have moved on from Outlands for some time now. One day while I was flying through gathering some materials, I looked up. Everything came together in the sky for a beautiful screenshot! You can almost picture flying through that can't you?

When your server goes down for maintenance, why not take a little time and dig through that screenshot folder. That way if you find something tasty from your travels, you can email it to us here at oneshots AT massively DOT com along with your name, the name of the game, and a quick description. Any other info you'd like to share about your guild, group, character, etc, is welcome as well. We'll post it out here and give you the thanks for contributing to One Shots!

A few days ago, we posted about Brian Green's musings over what's missing in our MMOs. Steve Danuser has taken the time to take a look at both that post and further incidents of ennui through the MMO blogosphere, and come to a similar but slightly different conclusion -- that what's missing isn't the fault of what's already there. The problem isn't the quests, it's that so few of them feel heroic or individual, and they're more or less your only option for progressing through the game. The problem isn't the exploration, it's that there's no real incentive to bother. In short, that we don't need to penalize people who enjoy these parts of the game, we simply need to stop penalizing the people who don't.

It's an interesting and astute observation that gets at the heart of the real problem -- that game design has moved forward, and by and large this is a good thing. All of the improvements in design we've seen over the past several years, even in games sometimes derided as clones of World of Warcraft, is evidenced that the game industry has a clearer idea than ever of how to do effective achievement-based progression. What needs to be addressed is not the formula, but the scope and the specifics. Something is missing, but there's no sense in throwing out what's there and well-polished to try and find it.

There's always that one game. We all know what it is, even though which game it is changes for person to person, but we know about it because we're adamant that we won't play it. We don't want to. Half the time we've read up on the game and explained in detail how many things we dislike about it and why we're certain -- certain! -- we would never enjoy it. Other players can praise it to high heaven, over and over, but we won't even touch it. We don't want to, no way.

Cue two months later when we're playing it and won't stop talking about how awesome it is.

What game is slowly wearing down your resistance? Because there is one, we all know it, and it's half a question of whether or not you admit that your resistance is slowly eroding. Is it the newly free-to-play Dungeons and Dragons Online, because you don't like the business model? The nine-hundred-pound gorilla that is World of Warcraft? Maybe you're pretty sure you'd enjoy EverQuest II but you still have a lingering resistance to playing ti for whatever reason. Which game have you sworn up and down you won't play that you're growing more attracted to -- or, which ones did you swear you wouldn't touch in the past that you're now thrilled with?

Game design has certainly come a long way from Ultima Online, the first real example of what we now think of as the MMO genre. We've gone from games with no restrictions on behaviors to games where it's almost impossible to be truly horrid to other people, from ones without any real structure to a clean path of progression, from obtuse game mechanics to transparent and clear information. So with all of these changes, asks Brian 'Psychochild' Green, why are we feeling like there's something missing? Why do we find ourselves less than satisfied in our cleaner, better-designed, and well-built virtual worlds?

The article asks the interesting question that if leveling and gear were removed from the games we play, what would we do? In most current games, he argues that there isn't a whole lot left once you take away the achievement axis, and that leads to a sense of hollowness in many -- achievements only fostering further achievements. He goes on to argue in favor of a greater sense of adventure and more options for exploration without requiring a strict advancement path. Whether or not it's a truly viable theory is up for debate, but the core concepts should prove interesting to anyone looking for an answer to the question "why am I doing this?" We've seen a rise in prominence of goal-focused games following the success of World of Warcraft, and perhaps it's time to start moving to the other end of the spectrum.

Online gaming revenues soared in China to 6.18 billion RMB (USD 906 million) in the second quarter of 2009, according to Reuters. They cite data from Analysys International, a research firm which states China's online game revenues for Q2 2009 were up 39.5 percent over last year. Among the top three earners (trailing behind Tencent Holdings and Shanda Games) was NetEase, the company which is presently the licensed operator of World of Warcraft in China. Reuters states that NetEase saw revenues of 780 million RMB (USD 114 million) in the second quarter of this year.

This continual growth of online gaming in China has been a key issue with legislators in recent years. The Chinese media's coverage of internet and gaming addiction has intensified, and there is now increased government scrutiny of the virtual currencies and economies these games have given rise to. It's not just a China issue, as foreign companies are either operating online games in the country or have been eyeing this lucrative market. As we mentioned on Monday, the issue of regulating foreign game operation in China may be coming to a head with the current struggle between the General Administration of Press and Publications (GAPP) and the Ministry of Culture. Whatever agreement is reached between these government agencies will determine the future of foreign online game operations in the country.

[Via GamePolitics]

Over at Keen and Graev's blog, Keen brings up a rather interesting point about the pace at which we play MMOs nowadays. He's concerned that everyone -- developers included -- are too concerned with leaping and bounding through each and every moment they play an MMO.

There may really be no 'right' answer to the question this observation raises: Do we move too fast through an MMO? Or even more to the point -- in our opinion -- is this genre becoming too concerned with imitating a singleplayer game? Those two questions are most definitely connected and it really comes down to what people want, which ultimately reaches the question of how people spend their money.

Walled garden games -- we're talking World of Warcraft and such here -- most definitely thrive on pushing players forward. It's the sandbox games that ask their players to move around horizontally; to actually talk to someone for a reason other than finishing a quest to level or craft. It's all a matter of preference. If the sandbox loving, slow rolling players aren't being properly served, someone will capitalize on that. Why, we're pretty sure there's a new game called Fallen Earth that some of you may be interested in checking out.

It's ironic that just as the GDC in Shanghai is getting into motion, the Chinese government is making some moves regarding the future of online games in China. It's a sweeping change, at that -- the General Administration of Press and Publication, the regulator of games in China, made a declaration officially preventing any foreign companies from operating a game in China, through joint ventures or otherwise. The move is fairly clearly intended to prevent any foreign companies from muscling in on China's lucrative online gaming market, but it's possible that liberal interpretations of "investors" might even include foreign players on Chinese servers.

However, the GAPP's declaration isn't the end of the story. As it turns out, the Chinese Ministry of Culture is at odds with this announcement, claiming that the authority to make such decisions passed to them on the seventh of September. Tuo Zu Hai, the vice director of the Ministry of Culture's Market Department, said he was "shocked to hear the news", indicating that there was a communication lapse between the two agencies and the ultimate resolution is still up in the air. It's unsure of how much impact this will have on NetEase, whose recent acquisition of World of Warcraft was a major coup for the company and who would be directly affected if Blizzard was blocked from interacting with them.

[ via GamePolitics ]