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?

Comments

Internet

[MMeldrum]

..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. ;) )

Re:Internet

[iocat]

I think the bigger problem is that the people who've been writing these articles have been going to E3 ten years running -- it's bound to get a bit dull (to them) after a while. I remember last year (E3 2003) which was a *DULL* show, I saw a friend give a pass to a 17-year-old kid. I ran into the kid outside later and he was practically orgasmic and almost unable to speak... "I saw MIYAMOTO! I saw HALF LIFE 2! I SAW TONY HAWK! Dude he said Hi to me, I thought I was going to *push* right there!"

I don't even know what the frick "push" means in that context, but it did give a new perspective on E3 being considered dull. It's dull if you're a jaded journalist or gamer who grew up on 8- and 16-bit gaming. If you're 17, or a new gamer, there's nothing dull about it.

Lack of risks

[MMaestro]

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.

Less is more.

[Alkaiser]

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.