E3 Grows Up - A Little
Press the Buttons has the news that, thankfully, this year's E3 will attempt to return to the 'industry only' event it was always intended to be. From the post: "The first day of the show is only for authorized media (meaning no more paid-by-the-hour GameStop clerks roaming the floor just for fun and taking up a journalist's valuable time in line for the next big thing) and, as Portico points out, there's now a more dignified dress code in place for the 'booth babes'." I'm glad that PAX exists for everyone to attend, just as I'm glad there are events like E3 where game journos can do their thing. Update: 01/23 17:56 GMT by Z : Joystiq posits that these new guidelines may lead to censorship for mature games. Update: 01/23 22:16 GMT by Z : Additional opinions on this are available from Gamers with Jobs and Heroine Sheik. There's an official response to discussion of this decision from the E3 media relations team over at Gamecloud.
Following the maze of redundant blog posts you end up at this, which appears to be the original article.
Framed a little differently though, as it's titled "E3 Censorship".
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
From TFA: "We shouldn't be there to critique the women. We should be there to critique the games. And don't even get me started on what the use of booth babes in the first place says about the industry's views of women in general..."
Well, shall we, then, get the author started on booth babes in [Detroit|Chicago|<insert your favorite here>] Auto Shows?..
Or, the commercials we see on TV?...
The Modeling "industry" (female models in particular)?...
Or the entire Hollywood?..
Do we draw a line someplace? If so, where should it be?...
Btw, for those challenged by the thought process here, "the use of booth babes in the first place" implies "sex sells", and that by putting a scantily-clad woman in front of anything will get attention drawn to it.. Since this marketing methodology has worked for the past, oh I don't know, thousand years or so, I'm thinking it would take a bit longer, and would require much education to eradicate...
Besides, most industries view women as potential buyers of their products, just like they view men as potential buyers. Try to notice the pattern here..
-K
Karma: Bad (but who really cares anyway?)
It's been said a few times, but E3 wasn't about the media "in the beginning." It was about publishers selling their titles to retaillers, and developers selling their titles to publishers.
E3 is thus not returning to anything, but evolving yet again.
I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
Being a heterosexual male it pains me to say this, but I don't know if I could care less about the Booth Babes. Now, I recognize that for a lot of the people attending E3 there is a certain novelty of a real girl who is reasonably attractive being nearly naked (something they have dreamed about since they created their female night elf priest and had her dance naked), but for the most part it doesn't really add anything and is mostly unnecessary. In fact, I think the presence of Booth Babes is a physical representation of one of the worst elements of Game Development "as long as we have pretty, half-naked girls in it someone will buy our game".
nowhere did i find a picture of (or a link to a picture of) any booth babes.
so i did a google images
enjoy
This article is a little bit misleading. The first couple of days of E3 have always been used for commercial/press conferences. In order to purchase a pass for these days, you _must_ present at least two forms of industry identification, such as a tax stub, business card, etc... And even in the exposition portion of E3, the first day has had restrictions barring many of the stupid GameStop clerks and such from entering.
On the bright side, GameStop clerks and most of the press are mostly relegated to the flashy wings of E3, rarely venturing into the lower cost booths rented by middleware companies - where the business end of things takes place. That said, it would be folly to assume that all of E3 is intended to be industry only. Publishers do not spend millions of dollars setting up the biggest most saturated displays and loudest speakers possible to entice potential investors, they do it to spread hype among their target audience. E3 can be thought of as a slight continuation of GDC, with the focus on marketing.
I worked at an EB for three years as an assistant manager (an assman, we called ourselves).
First, I know game clerks can be nerds and, even, assholes. That said, I would say that ultimately we influenced at least 30% of the purchases from our customers, especially around Christmas time when the moms come in and want something for their kids. Sometimes they have an idea that we talk them out of, like buying GTA for a 6 year old. Other times they might have a choice of three, and we'd advise them on the best for their dollar. And when it came to the hardcore gamers, we had established enough of a repore that they would walk in, literally ask us what to buy, and walk out with whatever we suggested. Myself and the staff at the store prided ourselves on knowing the games, and it always felt good to see a customer come back and ask for more of the same. I know more about the Sims demographics than anyone at EA. I know more than I care to know why people play the hell out of MMORPGs. I can tell the GameBoy cover marketers which colors attract kids' eyes more than others. Although sometimes we entertained fantastical ideas like Rez selling really well, we could generally predict the total sales of every game that came across our counter.
Excluding gamestore clerks out of the equation is a bad idea. We're too important. Usually at least one of us would hit up E3 every year, and report back to everyone else. We'd run videos on the store TVs to show off what we saw to the hardcore customers. Even in the age of up-to-the-minute E3 reporting, being at the convention was always a necessary part of the chain. It let whomever went notice games the press often passed up on. I can partially understand why E3 wants to start barring clerks, but to suggest that "industry-only" excludes one of the most important parts of the selling chain is ludicrous.
Game clerks, or at least the professionals, the ones that try to do their job well, are the kind of people the industry should be courting, not ignoring.
So, in 2005 I went to E3 for the first time. I didn't feel too much like an outsider, my company was there to do business, and I had an industry invite, etc. I was excited, and curious to see what it was all about. While there were many cool things about the show, I ended up disappointed for three reasons. First was of course, the booth babes. I thought it was a bit silly. Now, I'm a man, and enjoy looking at women, however having scantily clad women there with absolutely no real interest in the industry whatsoever was actually a turn off.
:P
However, that wasn't actually the worst detractor from the show. The noise levels, and the blaring loud stage performances were just way too much. I couldn't take more then an hour straight of being in the larger show halls, and had to go outside just to keep my ears from bleeding. The noise made it highly difficult to meet with the various people who actually wanted to talk about their upcoming games in any detail, and have normal conversations.
Lastly, something that I just didn't think about before going, was that there is no place to *sit down*. I mean, I don't mind wandering the show floor, but if I'm going to stop for a while in a booth or view/play something, I kind of expect to be able to have a small break given to my feet
Anyway, here's hoping that the booth babe restrictions/changes, while not the most annoying thing about the show, will lead to alleviations of the other 2 larger issues(in my opinion anyway).