Patch 5.4 patch notes
Virtual Realms feature revealed
The Proving Grounds are coming
The latest patch 5.4 newsCataclysm races leaked
by Adam Holisky 
Aug 10th 2009 at 2:00PM
As we're getting into the season of news and information, all major leaks and spoilers will be happening after the break. If you don't want your surprises ruined for you, don't read this post. If you want to know, click after the break and enjoy. This policy worked well for us during the testing phase of Wrath of the Lich King and we're pleased to continue it now.
After the break, the new playable races of Cataclysm.
Our sources have told us that the new races of Cataclysm will be:
- Worgen – Alliance
- Goblin – Horde
You can find out more information about the Goblins and Worgen from WoWWiki, as well as from previous articles we've written.
BlizzCon 2009 is coming up on August 21st and 22nd! We've got all the latest news and information. At BlizzCon you can play the latest games, meet your guildmates, and ask the developers your questions. Plus, there's some great looking costumes.Filed under: News items, Cataclysm
Reader Comments (Page 3 of 36)
Drahliana Aug 13th 2009 10:30AM
No neutral faction.... no one gets to sit out the War.
synistrue Aug 10th 2009 2:05PM
Is this confirmed?
schm0 Aug 10th 2009 2:24PM
Of course it's not confirmed. It's wow.com and their "sources." Now you tell me... why would a "source" that is "close to the situation" violate the NDS?
schm0 Aug 10th 2009 2:32PM
^^ *NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement)
Mailia Aug 10th 2009 2:45PM
Far from it. I wouldn't exactly call this leaked, as there's really no hard proof, as "because we say so" doesn't really count.
impurezero Aug 10th 2009 3:23PM
I like how half the haters are bashing the journalism for using phrases like "sources close to the subject." The other half are bashing it by questioning why someone would risk violating their non-disclosure clause.
Let's put these two sentances together and figure it out people.
If someone with a non-disclosure contract leaks some information to the media..do you really think they're going to allow their name to be printed? More than likely they would prefer something a bit more generic like, "sources close to the subject."
I'm not saying this couldn't be false, still, and I certainly don't know enough about wow.com's journalistic standards to go any further than that. However...nothing, and I mean nothing, in this article itself comes across as bad journalism. It appears that the only relevant information about the leak has been printed (which in this case, was about 4 words), and everything else that's missing, is probably missing to avoid getting someone fired.
Mailia Aug 10th 2009 4:15PM
Of course they wouldn't put out their names, but that also makes it so, that it cannot be confirmed.
TiM Aug 10th 2009 5:48PM
Having been a wow.com/wowinsider reader for several years now I gotta give the folks here the benefit of the doubt. Not once have i been steered wrong. And that's the important part. When dealing with leaked info and things that aren't supposed to be out yet you have to look at the site's track record. Wow.com has an impeccable one in that regard. These guys and gals have earned my respect as a place to go to for news on this game we all love. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt here and say damn it. I'm gonna haave to reroll my rogue as a worgen >
Nick Aug 10th 2009 2:05PM
..Wow
inb4 "this article lacks sources"
Anyway, kind of blows, I would love to play Goblins, but I can't stand the Horde cities.
Adam Holisky Aug 10th 2009 2:10PM
Multiple sources, none of which we are going to reveal.
Robert M Aug 10th 2009 2:14PM
LOL, great response Adam! I love the Blizzard secrecy, makes these leaks remind me of Deep Throat or the Barry Bonds case.
Nick Aug 10th 2009 2:14PM
@Adam
I understand that, but you know, especially from when you guys said 3.2 was going to hit, there is going to be a bunch of whining about no sources.
Adam Holisky Aug 10th 2009 2:16PM
@Nick
Oh indeed. We're prepared for it.
We were right about 3.2, we're right about this. It's all good in the end. =)
kalatash Aug 10th 2009 2:20PM
This article lac- Damn it!
Mark Aug 10th 2009 2:22PM
@Adam
What about when this ends up not being true?
Nick Aug 10th 2009 2:26PM
@Bubsa
Well, it just so happens that you do not recall correctly. There was no indication that 3.2 was coming the night before until wow.com said something. Then, shortly after they made the post, the 3.2 PTR went offline, MMO-Champion also confirmed, and then a post was made confirming it.
joerendous Aug 10th 2009 2:28PM
then don't buy it. good day.
veil Aug 10th 2009 2:34PM
believe it or don't believe it. seriously, nations aren't at risk. the financial sector will survive if you in fact, don't believe this.
Clevins Aug 10th 2009 2:48PM
Bubsa, etc. This is the same phrasing they used to say that the 3.2 patch was dropping last Tuesday. The same people whined about unnamed sources. But that's a legitimate journalism tactic - to groom sources who will share some things with you on the promise that their identity won't be revealed. Good reporters will have several of these so that they aren't reliant on one person. If several people who've told you accurate information in the past all tell you about something it's very probably true. So you report that.
Or you could have journalists that just spit back confirmed information. That's more typically called a PR agent though....
percinho Aug 10th 2009 2:52PM
It's very simple. If you want to believe it you will, if you don't then you won't. These people are professional bloggers and though not everything they write turns out to be true I'm pretty sure they believe it when the publish. If it turns out to be rubbish then their reputation takes a big hit and they'll be slammed in comments, which I suspect is not their personal goal in life.
So basically, if you think they're talking rubbish then ignore it. Personlly I think they probably know a little more about the situation than most of the hard-behind-the-keyboard brigade that chip in below the line, and they'd not have gone live with this without being sure of their sources.