Slashdot Mirror
The End of E3?
Ground Glass writes "Next Generation is reporting that E3 as we know it is finished. The games industry has lost its most glamorous show." Update: 07/30 21:18 GMT by Z : A reader wrote in with a link to an Ars Technica story saying that the event is to be downsized, not cancelled. From that article: "At the end of the day, the reason is very simple: ten years ago, you needed a big trade show to generate buzz and hype. It used to be that COMDEX was a special event because so much new stuff was unveiled, and this was the only way to see it. Now, however, information comes down the pipe faster than ever, and companies are wondering if there's really any benefit to spending the big money on displays only to share the floor with other competitors looking to out-wow attendees." I guess we'll see in a day or two what the future of E3 looks like.
Given the amount of money spent trying to get E3 builds ready, stabilize those builds, then strip out the hacks so that people can get back to work, this may actually be a good thing.
If I have to choose between E3 and essentially getting an extra month of productivity a year...farewell, E3, I barely knew ye.
RomSteady - I came, I saw, I tested. GamerTag: RomSteady / http://www.romsteady.net
Anyway just correcting my post that should be $599. Sony aren't that mad.
http://skeptobot.blogspot.com/ - A site for the Renaissance man and woman
E3 represented everything that was wrong about the games industry. The hype. The focus on graphics. The sexualisation. The sequelisation. The CG sell. The marketers.
Playing a video game can be a serene repose from the world, not unlike a quiet read of a good book. But you'd never gather than from the Festival of the Casual Gamer that was E3. There games are presented like six-packs and waxed over automobiles. E3 was like an arms or car show. Games deserve better.
May the Maths Be with you!
It's all economics. If large exhibitors think that it's too expensive, E3 could charge less per square-foot of show floor ($x/sq.ft.), and compensate with a higher attendance fee ($y/visitor). Surely there are some values of x and y that make the show viable.
From most of the game news I read I've always been under the impression that most of the actual media coverage comes from the exclusive back room presentations/demos along with keynote types and private interviews. For the past few years it seems like E3 has been getting bigger and bigger while yielding less and less real media coverage (coverage of stuff being presented rather than on the convention itself). Is it really surprising that the companies spending a ton of money on huge booths and rediculous displays while not getting equivalent returns would pull out? Thats more the fault of the exhibitors than E3 itself, but the result is the same.
E3 has been going downhill for a while. Back in 1999 I found 2 days worth of stuff to do. In 2005 I found about 2 hours. Booths are now packed with demo reels instead of hands on play, booth babes have been outlawed, no one gives a shit about you unless you are press, and waiting 2 hours to get into an exclusive area to spend 5 minutes watching a trailer or looking at some new molded plastic isn't my idea of fun. I didn't go this year even though one of my ex girlfriends is head of press relations for E3 and has printed me up any badge I wanted.
E3 has gotten so boring that most of my friends in the industry don't care to go anymore - its viewed now as a chore.
But you can argue that such venues for making announcements, have become irrelevant in this era of multimedia web content. All a Major Industry Company has to do is make press releases that get published on all of the major gaming and tech/new sites and reach a lot more people, much more quickly and efficiently with their big announcements. I think it's realistic to say that the web generates the vast majority of hype for pretty much all things tech nowadays. I'm sure if some sort of measurement was done, you would find that the number of game players that actually go to E3 is probably miniscule in comparison to those that surf the gaming/tech news sites.
this makes sense actually. if you start forcing your personal morals on others those oppose often vote with their feet and walk away.
Who killed E3?
E3 used to be a fun public event. This made it as much of a marketing/advertising tool as a publishing and development tools for making new deals. A few years ago, they decided to make E3 off limits to the general public and only available to developers and the media. I'm not surprised companies no longer decided the expensive booths was no longer worth the time, effort and development disruptions. If you've ever worked inside a game company, often times you lose one or two months out of the year just working on throwaway demos to play at E3 and is often some of the worst crunch and chaotic times only reivaled by the emminent release of a new product.
Runesabre
Enspira Online
To everyone who's saying "E3 is not canceled!!!" and giving your "proof" as being the E3 website saying, "Planning is already underway for E3 2007. Mark your calendars: E3 2007 May 16-18, 2007" I have something to share with you: that has been listed on the website since E3 2006 ended. They announced those dates, and have said that exact same thing ever since E3 2006 was going on. I was there, I saw the banners all over the exits. Granted, I'm not exactly glad that this could be happening to E3, but at the same time, it's a shame that you're all using something like that as a proof to defent its existance.
That's not news. At EVERY E3, at the main exit, they have a big banner with the date of the next year's event.
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
Exactly. And this is a huge smackdown of the gaming press. This is the big publishers saying very simply "We don't need to impress you. It's much cheaper to buy you." And it's true! Publishers that spent huge $$$ on E3 can instead spawn publicity that times with game releases much better. They don't have to waste time on demos of half-finished games that will be shown side-by-side to titles almost ready to ship.
Or they can go directly to retailers with game demos. Imagine more console set-ups at your local gamestop or best buy. Next-Gen consoles all have downloadable demos, so publishers can hit gamers directly. E3 just makes no sense anymore (did it ever?). This is just further marginalization of a gaming press whose credibility has long been withering.
I wonder if Nintendo feels that way.
Press releases don't let people try out hardware.
That is the biggest problem with E3 right now. It's full of gamers. The fact that the GP thought PAX would be the replacement for it shows how off track it is.
I know that sounds stupid, but hear me out.
The cost to the exhibitors (Sony, MS, EA, etc.) of putting on E3 is huge. They spend far too much money to piss it away on gamers who will only sway themselves and 2 friends. The show was originally envisioned to be attended by buyers and other high ups, whom if you convinced of buying/distributing your game would result in thousands of sales.
If an attendee is going to deliver 1,000 sales, you can afford to spend up to $50-$100 on them. If an attendee is going to deliver 2 sales, you can only afford to spend $0.10.
Companies are paying per sq/foot charges and booth construction and design charges more in line with the 1,000 sale attendee, but the show is full of 2 sale attendees.
You could see this with the Thursday this year where only conference ($1,000 fee) attendees could enter before noon. You could also see it with the prohibition of retail associates (Gamestop mall employees) from attending without special permission this year.
E3 probably needs to change to keep the riff raff out if it wishes to survive in its current form.
On the other hand, there is a void in shows for the actual gamer. These can be made to work, with the proper cost structure. I wouldn't be surprised to see the ESA (people who put on E3) create a gamers convention or at least associate themselves with one. These shows work well in Japan, and PAX is off to a good start in the US. Many of the larger exhibitors will likely welcome a show of this sort, whereas the people with under development games would rather have a true industry only press event/trade show.
E3 sure has changed a lot. The action truly did used to be in the back rooms. That's where you had to go to see Penn & Teller's Smoke and Mirrors back in the day.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95