Skip to Content
8-04-2009 @ 1:24AM
8-04-2009 @ 1:36AM
That's not something we're going to do at this time.Our sources have provided you with a service through us. They are real persons, with real jobs, with real life consequences if they were to be named. Such information stays very private.I realize some of you will become angry over us not naming names, but that's a call the editors of the site have decided to make.
8-04-2009 @ 1:42AM
Good call, afterall, we wouldn't want someone who's helped us before get canned and not be able to help us in the future. Also all of that ethical stuff is good too.
8-04-2009 @ 1:51AM
Yes, it's always good that people who are entrusted with information such that they will lose their job if they divulge it, are ethical enough not to share it. :)
8-04-2009 @ 2:00AM
I see no breach of ethics in this situation. there is no harm done in letting loose a secret that will be out in the next couple of hours anyways. Especially since no financial loss will come of it. The only breach of ethics here might be going against your word, lying. But it's not too far fetched to think that blizzard wants these people to say it. afterall, how would it feel if there was a lull in the amount of players on a major patch day? it's important for blizzard to make the players anticipate something. Even if that's not true, it's hardly a reproachable offense.
8-04-2009 @ 2:05AM
It was Arthas. He talked. Either that or Jay Leno. Man had to do something while he was on break.
8-04-2009 @ 2:08AM
As someone who works for a local newspaper, I appreciate Adam's resolve in not naming sources, but as someone who likes to pass the buck on to other people, I'd like to say that when in doubt, it's Valerie Plame's fault.
8-04-2009 @ 11:27AM
Ive worked in the video game business and ive got to tell you that everything is secretive there you cannot divulge any information whatsoever so getting a leak from someone puts that person in hot waters because they can get some serious lawsuits on their hands, even if we get the news the next day then they will still be marked as someone who cannot be trusted, in my opinion we should just be glad someone is risking their job to give us this informatio, plus well know tomorrow if its true or not
8-04-2009 @ 3:31AM
Anyone who believes this whole-heartedly is a naive fool. Now, don't think I'm disregarding the entire post and calling it an outright lie, because no one can be truly sure of that. And I wouldn't be surprised if these so called "sources" were trustworthy, but can you blame some people, such as myself, for being skeptical?You come in here claiming you have some random "sources" that are independent? Do you mean to tell me that if I told you that Diablo 3 has been canceled and is no longer being released and that I got my information from "independent sources" but can't release their names, you'd actually believe me?I am open to the believe you could be right. But then again, I'm also open to the belief Gods could exist and you see no proof of that either.
8-04-2009 @ 3:46AM
Tastix, cut the melodramatics. This isn't some scrub site making this claim, it's WowInsider, which has a reputation to uphold and wouldn't be making these claims if they weren't true. Your long-winded diatribe would only hold true if it were some random person on a forum making a claim with no reputation to speak of. This isn't one of those times.And again, this is hardly some mind-blowing announcement. For a patch that's been on the PTR for a few weeks now, and with extensive maintenance coming up, it could be guessed just from that. Don't be such a douche.
8-04-2009 @ 4:14AM
Totally agree with you Trent. What Tastix has inadvertently ignored is the effect of reputation. When a person on the street tells you something, and you don't know this person, and have never dealt with them, you have no reason to believe or disbelieve them. You ignore them and wait to see what happens.If however, that same person talks to you every day for a year, giving you information that would otherwise not be released, and that information is 99% accurate, then you can expect that the next time, you've got a 99% chance for accuracy. You can expect that person is telling you the truth.Yes, this may be that 1%. But it's 99% more likely to be accurate than inaccurate.
First time? A confirmation email will be sent to you after submitting.
Members enter your username and password.
Enter your AOL or AIM screenname and password.
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.