Talk:World of Warcraft: Mists of Pandaria

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... it'll be re-added minutes later? --In.tripletime (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

adding structure

• World of Warcraft: Mists of Pandaria: Pandaren are Blizzard Entertainments first manifestation of a 'neutral playable faction'. This is breaking the company mould of "Red VS Blue" Multiplayer style and has been a long time coming as mentioned in Chris Metzers opening speech saying "The time had come".

• Blizzard DOTA: A complete revamp of the popular Warcraft 3 DOTA has turned the title into Blizzard DOTA which is a similar game play but in keeping with the theme of breaking remixing the red Vs blue model Blizzard has introduced various characters from the Blizzard universe from all the company titles in the new version of DOTA. As such there are no Warcraft III tournaments at Blizzcon 2011 (as can be seen in the events info at http://eu.battle.net/blizzcon/en/event-info/

please fill in appropriately as news is announced this weekend — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulmonological (talk • contribs) 19:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

ubuntu support

it says that m.o.p. will be available for ubuntu, this is a big deal for many users and should be clarified more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xarlev (talk • contribs) 20:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any information about it but omg that would be epic. Pulmonological (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

at the time I posted that it said "platforms: windows, mac os x, ubuntu". Maybe it was just a mistake...

Someone again put Ubuntu up there. There will be NO official release for Ubuntu (because to do so they would also have to release all other versions on Ubuntu). However, you will be able to (and can) play WoW on Ubuntu through the use of Wine. He's Gone Mental 13:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 23 October 2011

Mists of Pandaria Talent Calculator http://www.wowhead.com/mists-of-pandaria-talent-calculator

Victormazzia (talk) 07:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

✗ Not done You placed no question what should be changed nor what your link provides. mabdul 10:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it should bein (it shouldn't) but he did sya precisely what the link provides. A talent calculator for the Mists of Pandara expansion. Just like the previous ones, only with new talents and going up to 90 instaed of 85. Akjar13 (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Negative reaction

This article should mention the extremely negative reaction they have had both the trailer of the expansion and its features. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.136.97.176 (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

What negative reaction? A bunch of people ranting on forums is no basis for inclusion on an Encyclopedic article. And most of the complaints were superficial and extremely childish. --Nutthida (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hum, i don't know where to start. First, the trailer: the most disliked official trailer on Youtube of all of them (Burning Crusade, Wrath and Cata) by a HUGE margin; second: the nearly 43,000 results of "mists of pandaria negative reaction" search on Google (on the first five days after the trailer), third: the flood of negative posts and comments being created on the most important MMO sites, etc, etc ... check by yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.41.76.247 (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

None of that is suitable to be added to the article. --Nutthida (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I knew it. It is extremely difficult to convince someone with arguments and facts when that person does not want to hear :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.41.76.247 (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point, which is that your own opinion is not something that can go into a Wikipedia article. If you find articles in reliable sources that discuss the negative reaction, say Joystiq, 1Up, etc...then that is what can be included. Tarc (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

"Does not what to hear?" =.= no, it has nothing to do with that as Tarc explained. And your last comment is pure trolling and has been removed as it violates WP:FORUM. Good day. --Nutthida (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

No results found for "mists of pandaria negative reaction". Thats what google gave me. splitting it up slightly, only gave 1,230 results. The way you had done the formatting for the search was pulling up any page that mentioned MOP, or negative reactions. when searching for a collision of the two, there is an insignificant result. Second point, the majority of people on the internet don't know what they're talking about.Akjar13 (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarity - that is what is required here. In order to be included a large negative reaction would have to include news articles detailing the overall negative reaction. Individual forum trolling isn't cite-able. Game reviewers and news sites discussing major disappointment would be okay. If they existed. Pulmonological (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The trailer on YouTube has 55,665 likes versus 8,063 dislikes - hardly an extreme negative reaction. -220.245.252.171 (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Mists of Pandaria was the joke of gaming sites & Youtube parodyists for half a year. So many bad King Fu Panda jokes..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.167.21 (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Lists to prose

I've tried to convert most of the lists in this article to the prose format. Most of it reads pretty well, but I don't have enough details in front of me right now to change the list of new races to prose. I'll try to get that one later if someone doesn't beat me to it first. I know there's some more details now on some of the races and their roles within dungeons/raids. ferret (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Release date is 2012 so why are my edits being undone?

I think it's ridiculous to have a "TBA" release date, when it's 99.99% known that it's coming out next year. Blizzard always release expansions the year after they're announced. However, "apparently" the release date needs to be officially announced before any kind of date or year can be entered. Why then, does the Diablo 3 page state "Q1 2012" in the release date, when no official announcement has been made for that game either?Davez621 (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Because Diablo 3 cites an actual press release here that states early 2012. When you can find something like that for a reliable source, then you can enter a date here as well. Tarc (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Digital sales...

Are we EVER likely to get a hold of these sometime?! --Τασουλα (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

This is silly. We have a game informer article that reference Lazard venture. Then we have a second paragraph that is Lazard venture directly. Feels like some POV pushing is brewing here... I'm removing the second mention of the same analyst. Also, probably 70%+ of MOP sells were digital. -- ferret (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't object because I didn't add that information, but it seems as if you have reason to remove it. And regards to digital figures, I should imagine so, but would like to see them officially released still. --Τασουλα (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind the compacting. And I agree that digital sales are likely the major part of the sales. I'd, nevertheless, consider the figure of 600k to 700k retail sales in the first days afte launch, declared by the Lazard, relevant as well. Feel free to add it, if you find it appropriate. If not, then I don't mind as well. I believe we'll have more figures and sources on that with the time. Cheers. -- Nazar (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The Lazard sales figures as mentioned above do not include digital downloads and reaction to the release of the a game 4 days ago compared to a game released 2 years ago is a poor comparison. It feels like there is some ulterior motive, recommed to remove section until we have several sources to be listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.51.1.154 (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

"It would be a crime to claim disappointment without considering the digital sales, at least. Nevertheless, it wouldn't be surprising if sales were slumped in comparison to previous outings simply because World of Warcraft has been bleeding subscribers lately." -- says GAMING BLEND -- http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Analyst-Says-Mists-Pandaria-Retail-Sales-Disappointing-47500.html . -- Nazar (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The subscription bleed requires careful thought. There's a couple things to point out: Blizzard announces world wide subscription levels, and has repeatedly expressed that the greater bulk have been lost in China. Second, MOP has only been released in NA/EU, where subscription have dropped but at a much slower rate than the asian market. Anyways, time will provide more details. We may not know the true picture until Blizzard makes a statement or their next stockholder call. -- ferret (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Partially agree. For Wikipedia, though, a secondary source's opinion is considered optimal, and we've got lots of secondary sources discussing the issue (pointing out lower sales estimations and subscription bleed). Though, I'm quite sure when Blizzard makes an official statement on the actual sales' volume, it's gonna be the final and exact data to rely upon for everyone. -- Nazar (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Still feeling somewhat undue weightish and/or NPOV on this stuff. The new piece on digital sales is partially misreported. Murray didn't say "nearly" a million users, but "more than", while additionally estimating around 4.5 million copies for the quarter and for subscription numbers to uptick nearly 700k. If we're going to cover this, needs to be covered fully. -- ferret (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free to add that stuff. It'll surely enhance the NPOV value of the overall picture. Though, again, Blizzard itself (when its statement becomes available) is a WP:Primary source, and it will always try to present the figures in such a way that they look best for them. If they expect higher quarterly sales (and have failed in first days' sales relative to Cata), then they'll keep silent about first days and speak loud and clear about quarterly figures (which we are still to see). Therefore, WP:Secondary sources are necessary for independent evaluations. -- Nazar (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is an encyclopedic article, not a speculative analysis. You seem to be ap Well, Blizzard issued a press release announcing that they sold 2.7 million copies in the first week. Based on retail sales, this would indicate that digital accounted for about 75% of total sales, with about 2 million units moved digitally. That also doesn't include China, as the expansion didn't launch there until October 2. While well below Cataclysm's record breaking sales, it's about in line with Wrath's initial sales performance, and better than the analyst's estimates. They also reported that the active subscriber numbers have risen back above 10 million, from 9.1 million at the previous investor report.

While secondary sources are important, they still don't have access to digital sales figures, and as such are not exactly WP:Reliable sources when it comes to total sales, especially as the video games industry moves more and more towards digital distribution. In particular, I don't know that speculative analysis should hold much weight.

On the flip side, Activision Blizzard is a business, and while they may try to spin information to skew things in a better light (as businesses tend to do), they have to be pretty transparent when it comes to things like sales figures, due to things like, say, federal laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.139.18 (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd say the Larard analysts' opinion was pretty accurate. If they sold 2.7 mil within first week, they likely had around 1.5 to 2.0 mil total sales in first 24 hours at best, which calculates to roughly 50% drop from Cata's figures (Lazard evaluation was published on September 28th, and was speaking practically about first 2 days of sales). Now if we think about those 1 mil who had annual pass and were pretty sure to get the Pandaria expansion anyway, the result doesn't look that bright for Blizzard. But we'll see how it develops. I wonder whether they will be able to keep subs above 9 mil after a few months... But, who knows, there are always ups and downs... My feeling is, though, they've reached their top and it's not going upwards again anytime soon. I'm pretty sure we'll have more analysts reporting on that in future... -- Nazar (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is supposed to be a encyclopedic article detailing facts, and specifically factual information on sales, not a speculative analysis. You seem to be approaching this topic from a clearly non-neutral POV and without reliable facts, effectively trying to imply that they're doing poorly. The fact is that this is not the place for your personal feelings or original research. The sales and reception section of the article is currently poorly written and relies heavily on innacurate, speculative sources, giving two whole paragraphs to flawed data. My suggestion would be to rewrite it into a single paragraph briefly outlining the two conflicting early reports on retail sales, the actual figures including digital sales and subscribers, how they compare to the speculation, and follow it up perhaps with some references to the importance of digital sales (such as the Forbes article about how digital outsold retail 4:1) and how that's impacting the industry as a whole.

WP is not a place to publish speculation of its editors. My above comments are aimed at weighting the sources we've got and their reports. Analysis and evaluation of subject by independent, secondary sources, if made by qualified experts in the field, is relevant for the WP articles, though. In our case we've got no reason to distrust the sales figures recently published by Blizzard, and, therefore, these are the exact numbers to be relied upon. However, as noted above, a primary source is likely to present the facts at a specific angle suitable for them, therefore, independent comments by secondary sources are preferable, based on these facts. Analysts' reviews are reliable and preferable sources in our case, for the purpose of independent evaluation and rough estimations, not for the final data. The ones used in the article so far should be presented in historic perspective at this point, though, and more weight could be given to new analysts' reports based on the most recent official Blizzard data. Feel free to edit accordingly. -- Nazar (talk) 08:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Subscription drop

No mention *YET* to the subscription drop associated with this expansion?. Heh. Wikipedia and reality, here we go!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.13.230.138 (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

battle pets is very similar to the pokemon games

that should be added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.64.62 (talk) 12:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Why? I mean, it is, but what about that is notable or worth mentioning? It's just a description of the mini-game (or are you suggesting that there's more than that?) Justin.Parallax (talk) 12:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)