Revitalizing The Videogame Trade Show
Thanks to GamesTM for its feature discussing the current state of the videogame trade show. Although shows such as this year's E3 were more exciting, the article argues: "The likes of the Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3), the European Computer Trade Show (ECTS) and the Tokyo Game Show have recently been accused of being dull, predictable or lacking substance. Last year, there was no ground-breaking news, no earth-shattering games (only updates of ones we already knew about), and some companies didn't even turn up." Simon Byron of Barrington Harvey makes the point: "In this media-savvy world, information is readily accessible, so of course there are fewer opportunities to be surprised - which is what I think is at the heart of most people's criticisms of trade shows." In light of our previous coverage of trade show significance, how do you see videogame trade shows evolving?
..that's the main "problem".
;) )
In the days of the SNES and the Megadrive we'd have to wait around 2 months (by the time it's written up and printed) for news in games magazines.
These days we get the latest news within hours/days on gaming sites. (And on slashdot we even get repeats.
I encourage those who haven't already, check out the GDC. This conference has the surprises that E3 used to have, but not the booth babes. :(
Next week is SIGGRAPH its even in the same place as E3 was this year. It also has some of the surprises you used to see in these trade shows such as Comdex and E3.
Another 'problem' stems from the videogames themselves. Game companies don't like to change their formulas by much, so you end up with remakes of previous games over and over. Do this enough and anything less than radical seems like boring news in a market where everyone copies one another.
How do I see videogame trade shows evolving?
Booth babes with EVEN BIGGER hooters!
-1 Unfunny
+1 True
Get the 'rock star' factor back.
Trade-show rules should be relaxed a little... this little fascist state that gets created in "Exhibit Hall X" is tiring, and after a day of it any sane person is -exhausted-
Bring back some of the party factor. There is no identity at trade shows - there needs to be one.
Imagine if someone with a little rock star factor hosted the show, and there was actual stunts and PR capers worth having news written about
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
While I didn't go to E3, I anxiously awaited news online from the show. I was excited to see what new details were available from the games I'm looking forward to playing. (coughDoom3cough) And of course, some new titles were announced too. (coughNewZeldacough) Also, I think these shows can bring some other games to light (that might have been missed before).
Have these people played video games from before 1999?
Trade shows follow console life cycles, naturally because game development follows console life cycles.
Last year was the year of utmost stagnation for the current generation, while the years before it were still "prime" and the years following will be where companies try to hype the next machine.
Glog!
LA over and over and over again drains the life out of the show. Put it in a new location and the people attending are going to be excited.
It is why SIGGRAPH changes location every other year.
If E3 would just pare out the crap games, games that are like 10%-30% complete they could breathe some life back into the show.
They could put some of the suprise back in the show by not giving out Best of Show E3 Awards to games 2 years in a row, or even better, not giving those awards out to games that aren't going to be out within the next year.
It's just like movies that release trailers for their movie 1 year in advance. You can't possibly expect me to care for that long.
E3 could be significant again if they didn't leak every big surprise 3 days before the actual announcement.
It could also be made better by not acting like you have a big announcement and hpying things up that are not that interesting in the least, you know, like Sega pulling that crap they did this year. ("Hey! We're co-publishing the Matrix Online!")
You gotta have Kentia Hall, and you gotta have your Phantoms, Gizmondo, and other spectacular failure ideas...they make the place look crowded, and give everyone an easy to find Worst of Show.
So, if they had less games displayed, games that we could play, and determine what would be worthy in the next 6 months, that'd make for a much better show. As it is, you're overwhelmed with like 500 titles, and there's no way you can get a feel for one game without ignoring the rest, and every single game is competing to be that one that you ignore the others for.
Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
about any of these shows, i've been gaming since the 80's and i've yet to care about any of them. bottom line is that they're for sheep and/or those looking to make their own flocks/herds. anyone with half a brain cell can find whatever info they need on the net, usually before its even out of the real print shops. besides, the shows are to convince distributors to carry their software, not for the consumers.
sigs suck
This is yet another damn re-post.
insightful!
E3 is for the retailers making buying decisions 6 months in advance as to what they will stock on their store shelves for Christmas and beyond.
E3 is secondarily for the press.
E3 is not for gamers. 1 gamer wooed = 1 sale. That's just not worth it. All this expenditure and brou-ha-ha is to woo that 1 guy that = 100,000 sales in his chain of video game stores.
Do we GET IT now??
Indeed. The next gen of consoles should be enough to get them excited again "The lack of exciting new hardware also seems to be the major sticking point." as the article points out. Perhaps the expos should occur between the Commonwealth and Olympic games (every 2 or 4 years) rather than every year.