This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business
I would like to add a short, neutrally worded sentence about Annapurna Interactive's 2026 publication of Mixtape and the reported gap between critic reception and some player reactions. I am not proposing to describe this as a personal controversy involving Ellison, only as a sourced note connected to Annapurna Interactive's recent activity. Sources include Vice, PC Gamer, and Aftermath. Would the following wording be acceptable? ~2026-30425-06 (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I looked over the edits and it feels like they belong (if anywhere) in the Annapurna Interactive article instead, since the edits do not mention Ellison by name, instead focusing on Annapurna Interactive itself. The sources do, but the controversy could reasonably remain contained to the Mixtape article itself, and if it is large enough could merit a mention on the Annapurna Interactive article as well (though personally, at the present moment, I do not believe it is). SeikilosEntombed (talk) 10:50, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I do not think it currently needs a mention on either this page (Ellison's) or Annapurna Interactive's, because the controversy is specifically about Mixtape itself. For instance, games like The Last of Us Part II or Stellar Blade have sections on their controversies, but this does not extend beyond their articles because it typically is not relevant. SeikilosEntombed (talk) 11:09, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The controversy also involves her in the sense players are finding data that points in the direction of the game being funded as a vanity project. The games you mention are commercial games from big studios that are impossible to relate to billionare family of the staff ~2026-30425-06 (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For your second point that is somewhat fair, though as I will get into, these billionaire connections are not well established as of this moment. The Aftermath article you linked calls these connections "tenuous", and the other two sources do not point to the idea that Ellison funded this as a vanity project. In fact, each source listed seems to refute this idea instead. On top of that, the text about the "controversy" included in this article currently does not mention anything related to Ellison, just details about Mixtape which are not given context for their relevance. If you can find sources from reputable sites that corroborate the connection to the Ellisons more strongly, and this section was reworded to emphasize Megan Ellison's role specifically, then the edits could be justified. However, in the meantime, I would recommend moving this section to Annapurna Interactive's article, where it is more relevant. SeikilosEntombed (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the BLP concern, but I do not think it supports dismissing the material as irrelevant. Annapurna Interactive is not a loosely related publisher; it is the video game division of Annapurna, the company founded and led by Megan Ellison. If Annapurna Interactive is relevant to this article when discussing company structure or leadership, then it is inconsistent to treat it as irrelevant when reliable sources cover public backlash to a major release from that same division.
I am not arguing that Ellison manipulated reviews, directed the marketing, or made ''Mixtape'' a vanity project. I am arguing that the backlash itself is sourced. ''Vice'', ''PC Gamer'', and ''Aftermath'' covered public criticism around ''Mixtape'', including the critic-user reception gap, limited interactivity, cinematic structure, licensed soundtrack, Annapurna’s role as publisher, and online “industry plant” claims. Those sources also state that claims of review manipulation or coordinated promotion were unsubstantiated.
A neutral sentence could say:
“In May 2026, Annapurna Interactive published ''Mixtape'', whose strong critical reception was followed by online backlash over the critic-user reception gap, limited interactivity, cinematic structure, licensed soundtrack, and Annapurna’s role as publisher; coverage of the backlash noted that claims of review manipulation or coordinated promotion were unsubstantiated.”
This wording does not accuse Ellison of misconduct, does not endorse the “industry plant” claim, and does not add original research. It records sourced public criticism involving a division of the company she founded and leads.
I think my reticence in including the information is two-fold. Firstly, while Annapurna Interactive is certainly relevant to Megan Ellison on a corporate level, she had little to no involvement with Mixtape itself (as a producer or in any other role), meaning that it is debatable whether it merits inclusion in her article. Discussing elements of leadership and company structure which Ellison is directly involved in feels different than discussing controversy about a single game said company has produced. Backlash to a major release under any company is not anything new, and not every instance of it is notable enough to warrant inclusion. I tend to be suspicious of treating any online controversy (such as Mixtape's) as significant, since the internet tends to choose targets for scorn and then drop just as quickly, meaning their importance is often fleeting (and therefore not worth including). Even if it's well sourced, it can be difficult to tell how notable or relevant any event of this internet criticism is, especially since as I have outlined, I find the connection Ellison has to the game to be somewhat abstract (reportedly Ellison is a very hands-off CEO, especially with Annapurna Interactive, with a few notable exceptions mentioned in the article). Still, the claim does seem relatively well sourced. While I would prefer stronger, more notable sources covering the backlash, perhaps it merits a smaller inclusion with some slight rewording to better contextualize it.
However (and this is my second point), I am still confused by the fact that this information is not even included in the Annapurna Interactive article. Even if we disagree on whether the statement should be in Ellison's article, we can both probably agree that it should be included in Annapurna Interactive's. This omission makes the inclusion here feel more questionable. I am not saying that this information should not be in Annapurna Interactive's article, but that because it ought to be, the fact that it is currently included in Ellison's article is strange. However, I concede that this is not really an argument for the information's exclusion here, but an argument that it be included in Annapurna Interactive's article.
What should be done in my opinion is to take the information and wording currently used in this article and recycle it in the article for Annapurna Interactive (which could be done with minimal changes). I would also like to propose my own phrasing for Ellison's article (using some of your ideas and those present on Mixtape's article), which better highlights the notability and context of the information.
"In May 2026, during Ellison's tenure as CEO, Annapurna Interactive released Mixtape, a narrative adventure game developed by Beethoven & Dinosaur. Various gaming outlets reported a notable online backlash to the game regarding its limited interactivity and perceived critic-user review gap, leading to unsubstantiated claims of astroturfing."
This would cite the sources already used in the article. If you have any suggestions to the above (regarding word choice, framing, grammar, etc.), please let me know. SeikilosEntombed (talk) 08:54, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User SilviaASH deleted the section citing WP:COATRACK, and I agree with their reasoning (I was not aware of the policy beforehand). I stand by the belief that the information merits inclusion in Annapurna Interactive's article though. SeikilosEntombed (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
