Slashdot Mirror
On E3's Awards, Anticipation, Predictions
Thanks to HomeLAN Fed for its article discussing the state of the annual 'Best Of E3' game awards, in which the writer suggests that the "E3 awards are a bit of a sham and... a lot of games that get these awards are either not released in the coming year or if they are they are not as good as their E3 presentations make them out to be." He points out that "...out of the 16 categories that the Game Critics E3 awards had last year, 10 of them went to games that have not yet come out and won't be out until after E3 2004." Elsewhere, GameSpot focuses its 'GameSpotting' editorials on the forthcoming E3 trade show itself, suggesting that the show "is becoming a bigger and bigger source of stress and anxiety to the gaming industry as time goes by", even taking into account the excitement of "the biggest video game convention on God's green earth."
I'm not completely sure this ever happens, but what if one or two of the top ten awards ended up having that game cancelled? I'm guessing that probably won't happen as the developer figures they'll make money on it, but what about all those other "moneymaking" games that got cancelled, a few were on IGN's article the other day about mysteriously disappearing games, and other games too like Interplay and Volition's supposed Descent IV, etc.
the Political Inquirer
"is becoming a bigger and bigger source of stress and anxiety to the gaming industry as time goes by"
... trade shows ... or rather, the insipient demand for new products to be released at the trade show ... puts a lot of stress on mfr's. time and again, i've been to trade shows/conventions where new products were announced, proto's were made, and then 4 months later, the project is -still- not ready for public release. this screws with markets, and is generally unhealthy.
... but its the best policy for tech mfr's ...
its true
at this years music messe, my company (a leading musical instrument manufacturer) opted not to participate - we all still went to the show, and enjoyed it very much - but since we've long since stopped timing our product releases to the show period of the year (and only release things when they're -ready- i.e. manufacturing is producing shelf-storable product), we no longer feel a demand as a mfr to invest so heavily in the show.
its a double-edged sword, though. a lot of customers expect new stuff at the show. nevertheless, it feels better as a company not to have to cater to the mob-think that trade shows == target product release date. 'its ready when its ready' is definitely not something you'll hear much at a trade show
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
While I agree with the overall subject of the article, what is the root cause that is driving the awards?
Who exactly is hypeing these games that gets them the awards? If E3 is such a source of anxiety to the developers and publishers, maybe they should start by setting realistic expectations of when they're games will be delivered. It's not that I don't agree with id's philosophy of "when it's done" - but why show the game that early if they know the game isn't going to be released until *after* the following year's E3?
Do they need all the publicity to hype a game that far out? I would assume that the smaller game developers probably do - but if you look at the ones winning the awards - Doom3, HalfLife 2, Halo 3, they're going to get the coverage in the press regardless if the game is there or not.
I don't know what the answer or the solution is - my choice would be for E3 to have a rule that games to be shown should be released within 6-8 months of the show, but the inevitable "code leak", "revamping", or some other excuse would poke holes in that quicker than anything.