Were The "Winners" of E3 Enough To Ensure Survival?
Now that the industry is winding down after another E3, it's time to reflect on the relative success of the show. Paul Govan reflects with a GeekDad view of the "winners" of this years show. The question is, after the attempts to scale it back to a much more exclusive event, has E3 managed to escape obscurity and defeat at the hands of up-and-comers like PAX? Highlights of the show included Microsoft's new controller-less interface, a sexier PSP, and a myriad of releases from Nintendo.
Is it just me, or did the article have absolutely nothing to do with the E3 question in the summary? I was expecting an article on E3's success/failure/survivability, and instead I got a Wii-Sports love-fest.
I live in the Seattle area and have attended the last 4 PAX events. PAX won't replace E3. Don't missunderstand, PAX is probably much more fun of an event than E3 ever will be. PAX is for the community of gamers, not for the publishers and developers. Sure, there is some spill-over, but PAX is overwhelmingly a gamer convention.
Press conference videos of the big 'three' (Microsoft,Sony,Nintendo) are here:
http://e3.gamespot.com/press-conference/microsoft-e3/
Microsoft won it for me, big time. Do not miss the project Natal introduction in Microsoft video (even with Steven Spielberg, pretty amazing stuff).
Good idea, except that Demigod's problems are almost entirely connectivity issues. The base engine performance is actually really polished. On a Local Area Network, all the problems Demigod has in it's matchmaking wouldn't have been seen at all. All their local machines should in theory be able to connect without incident, and none of the little routing issues which it's having now would be shown. So yes, in general it might help, but in Demigod's case the game would have looked BETTER than it does now.
Fear is the mind killer.