Slashdot Mirror
Did E3 Just Gasp Its Last Breath?
Ian Lamont writes "This year's E3 is over, and there's already talk that this could be the last one. Even before the conference started, a slew of studios announced they wouldn't be taking part, citing high costs and other 'business reasons.' At the conference itself, 'there were no huge game announcements, and Microsoft didn't even bother having Bungie show up to talk about the next Halo release, claiming that the company wanted to "shorten the presentation."' Electronic Arts CEO John Riccitiello said he 'hated' E3's new format, adding 'either we need to go back to the old E3, or we'll have to have our own private events.' Crave also noted there are no solid plans for next year's show. On the other hand, people have predicted E3's demise in previous years, and they turned out to be wrong."
So will this make the User-created conventions (eg PAX) more attractive to the gaming companies? They seem to want to be more willing to engage the customer-base where they are comfortable, so hopefully they will start to make these events more accessible.
This was an exceptionally insightful comment made on Voodoo Extreme that I am reposting, with full credit to the author. It hits the nail on the head, so to speak.
Microsoft probably had the best show of the three big companies purely for the FFXIII coup (biggest announcement of the show was a port. That about sums it up) but still took a few hits on it's blatent ripping off of Eyetoy and Mii's. Not to mention the pulling back of the Bungie announcement which was a smack in the face to fans. Overall though they same out slightly stronger than they went in.
Sony's was mediocre. Most the time they talked about games we knew were coming and the new announcements were only pre-rendered footage. They came out the same as they went in.
Then there's Nintendo. They couldn't have chosen a worse strategy if they'd tried. The Wiimote add on was interesting but they showed it off with yet another mini-game collection. The Wii is hardly lacking in these. Worse still, Wii music was unvieled and shown to be a pretty rubbish toy that looks like it'll be fun for 5 minutes at most before you never play it again. Animal Crossing was a reasonable unveiling but everyone knew it was coming and it was just too similar to the GC and DS versions with no innovation other than a well designed mic (that apparently is great for picking up voices across the room.
Nintendo fans were promised hard core games to fill the empty schedule up till xmas and we get more of the same crap we've been seeing from lazy third party publishers and Animal Crossing. Nintendo have serously alienated a good portion of their gamer fans and lots of people will either have their console gathering dust for a long time now or simply flog their console.
Overall E3 should get gamers excited but all this show has done is make them bored and that can't be healthy for the industry.
Sure it may have only cost them $500,000 rather than $2,000,000 for a stand but what good is that if you get very poor PR and make people wonder why they have your console over another.
Hopefully they'll pull something out for Leipzig or else it looks like we'll have to wait till TGS for reasonably exciting announcements.
A few years ago, I would have killed to go to E3. But I was but a humble student, with no game industry affiliations, and more importantly... broke.
Since then, I've graduated and become an actual developer. I go to two events a year. PAX and GDC. E3 is obviously something I could go to, and I might if I was in the area. But it doesn't have much draw for me anymore. And I could honestly care less about the booth babes. I want actual content, and E3 isn't even a shadow of what it once was. That would be PAX. I get PAX for the consumery-side of me, and I get GDC for the professional side. There's no place for E3 anymore.
This year there were reduced presentations, next year, it may be that many big companies don't go at all, so visitor attendance will reduce.
That'll be what kills it when it dies, because the attendee's won't think the price worth paying if too many major players aren't coming.
Since they will have to find somewhere to showcase their products if it does die, there will either be a new event created, or they will find some other way of achieving the same goal.
Personally I'd like to see smaller events round the globe. Speaking as a brit who doesn't like travelling into the prison state any more, I can't see myself attending any large events which are US only.
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
Here here! This year's E3 was a success in working as it was designed. Restricted crowds meant that journalists and buyers could easily see (and try!) everything they needed to, and unlike last year everything was located close-by so that people weren't so spread apart. For an event that's about the quick & effective dissemination of information, this year was marked by... the quick & effective dissemination of information.
The only problem with this year's event was that there was very little to show. The few publishers that had stuff were tempted to throw their own events so that they could hog the spotlight for the day, and everyone else is mid-development cycle after the hulking mass of games released in 2007. The fact that publishers didn't have much to show off and everyone was accordingly unexcited has nothing to do with E3, that's a matter of poor planning on their part.
Ever go to a Motorcycle show? Seriously, they are crawling with scantily clad females, along with lots and lots of outrageous costumes, posters, and artwork on the bikes themselves. Heck, I wonder if say the makers of GTA or the like wouldn't do well to get a booth at one of these events.
This is just the most horrible legacy of the Victorian era. "In order to be legitimately intellectual, you have to be chaste and restrained." Horse shit, and further, geeks ought to damn well know better. All that legitimate, intellectual Sci-Fi and Fantasy geekdom is associated with? Gee, no deviant or open sexuality there. No sir.
Oh yeah, except that's one of both Sci-Fi's and Fantasy's major features! Do I even need to justify this? Come on! Robert "Nudist, Promiscuous, Free Love" Heinlein? David "Chimpanzee Strippers" Brin? I can keep going all night folks, those are just two examples from different eras of Sci-Fi. Now, except for a smaller number of respected authors (because let's face it, the line between low-brow fantasy and straight up "Romance" novels is pretty thin), Fantasy has suffered from the blight of Tolkien's legacy, and that sad old fart was a totally misplaced Victorian.
The further and further I get from being prepubescent, the lower and lower my estimation of Tolkien falls. The totally neutered picture of middle earth he paints is really depressing, or alternatively, hilariously homosexual (twelve male dwarves and a histrionic male hobbit - let the innuendo begin). Nobody in his world ever gets to have a non-tragic, positive sexual relationship. Its terribly sad. Why shouldn't there be wild (but female positive, intellectually and emotionally gratifying) wild Elf sex (or wild human-elf sex for that matter) the same way we get human sexuality portrayed in Stranger in A Strange Land? Of course we do, but its rarely handled by writers we actually want to put pen to paper.