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.

Comments

Haven't cared much

[stoolpigeon]

As I doubt I'll ever have an opportunity to go. PAX on the other hand - I haven't made it yet but I will eventually. So e3? meh. PAX? yes- absolutely I am stoked it is doing well as I look forward to being a part of it in the future.

Re:Haven't cared much

[moderatorrater]

That attitude is the one I share, and I think shows the difference between the two shows. After all, E3 is about game companies showing off to each other, PAX is about people who love gaming getting together. I belong to the second group, but not to the first.

Re:Haven't cared much

[flitty]

I think they both have their place. E3 is used by the consoles to show their latest and greatest reason for existing, and a chance for the gaming market to make a case to the public about it's wares, with it's best shirt on. NPR covered E3 this week, along with other news outlets. I've yet to hear any mention of PAX on national media, even though it seems to be much more appreciated by the gaming community. I think that E3 needs to exist separately from PAX, or else you'll only taint PAX, and kneecap the ability for these corporations to make their best marketing pitches.

Most gamers know that the claims put out during E3 are crap (my favorite this year "Only the PS3 has the power to run this 40' x 80' display!"), and everyone looks at any claims made during E3 with the appropriate skepticism. it's nice to have that kind of marketing speak segmented to it's own show, and I'm glad it's back to serve this purpose.

More of the same

[Drakkenmensch]

From my personal view as someone who was not able to attend and was left with television and website coverage, 2009's edition was little more than 2008 with booth babes and more people in the background. Press conferences were lifeless as ever, with a few scant release announcement to cut the hum-drum of what looked like a stockholders quarterly fiscal meeting laced with flat corporate-approved jokes.

In short, can we have PAX yet?

Summary != Article

[Trojan35]

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.

Re:Summary != Article

[PrescriptionWarning]

yes, they had a wii-mote in their pants. no they're not happy to see you.

Re:Multiplayer Mario

[sys.stdout.write]

Yeah okay, it would be entertaining to play a multiplayer game of super mario...

You could do this on Super Nintendo! This guy in green clothes named "Luigi" could be moved with another "controller" held by your "friend".

By friend I mean the kid down the block who always mooched off my Nintendo and smelled a little bit like pee.

I'm sorry, what were we talking about? Oh yeah, E3 is becoming obsolete. I agree.

PAX is unlike E3

[trevorrowe]

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.

There are more than a few "winners" at E3

[BaShildy]

All of us on the floor who were making deals, and making important contacts all won this year as opposed to last year where it was very difficult to meet everyone due to how spread out it was.

E3 in its current form is far more likely to succeed than its previous form. Booth babes and glam weren't the only things brought back this year. E3 was slowly becoming Gamestop-fest where more than 50% of the attendees were game players as opposed to game makers. The ratio was far better this year, with all of the infrastructure that was lacking in the E3 Santa Monica model.

PAX != E3

[pcgabe]

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?

E3 is about games.
PAX is about gamers.

They're fundamentally different, and not really in competition with each other. I'm not sure where the submitter even got this question; E3 battling obscurity isn't mentioned in the article, nor is PAX, nor other expos at all.

Re:Heard of E3. Never heard of PAX

[2short]

Well, what one random Anonymous Coward has heard of may not be the best standard. Just FYI,

The impressive E3 attendance being reported here: 41,000
2008 PAX attendance: 58,500

I'm not sure why E3 is described as trying to "escape" defeat at the hands of PAX. How about, Can E3 recover from the defeat PAX has dealt it?

More to the point though, E3 and PAX have different goals. E3 tries to generate press for it's exhibitors. PAX tries to generate enjoyment for it's attendees. So your having heard of E3 while PAX is better attended may indicate the success of both shows.