View Full Version : Should I Care About E3?


rothbart
06-27-2007, 01:58 PM
Should I care about E3?
by Sean Workman

Before last year's announcement of the reworking of E3 if you asked a gamer what E3 represented, it was likely to be described as the Mecca of videogame enthusiasts. *A single place and time where all things videogame were the only things important. *Eating, sleeping, bathing... all secondary. *You learned what new games were announced, what hits were likely to be flops, what obscure titles were likely to be hits, you got to see beautiful women dressed up as your favorite videogame characters (Admit it even if you didn't know what game they were supposed to be from, they were a huge draw. *And by "they" I mean... nevermind). *The most accurate one word description of E3 in its heyday was "spectacle". *Which company would have the biggest booth, the loudest booth, the best game, the longest line, the best swag, the skimpiest booth-babe costume (I sense a pattern here).

Fast forward to E3 2007. *E3 this year is going to be spread out over multiple locations in a relatively small area instead of in a single site. *This is fundamentally one of the things that will seriously change E3 2007 from previous incarnations. *You won't have the big guns setting up shop within shouting distance (well, E3 shouting distance is probably about three feet from what I hear but you know what I mean). *If you're trying to cover all the major events, it may not be possible unless you have multiple reporters covering the different events since you now have to travel from one place to another. *While it wasn't terribly uncommon to not see the entire show's offerings before, I'm betting it will be the norm now that it's so spread out.

Another key distinction is E3 2007 is limited to invited gaming press only. *Sorry EB Games employees, Best Buy lackeys, etc. *The "everyman" isn't welcome. *His dollar will welcome be later in the year, but for this event, stay home and hit up GameTrailers.com or GameVideos.com... who am I kidding. *Every gaming presence on the web will likely showcase E3 information and media... they're going to be the exclusive outlets for this stuff. *But one problem I see is that a lot of people feel a good portion of the gaming media is biased and/or jaded. *Since we don't have "normal people" attending the show getting excited over what's being shown, we're going to have to rely on the media's excitement to get us excited. *And a lot of times, I think some of the people we get our news from like to intentionally play things down... *Halo 3? *meh... *Uncharted? *meh... *Mario Galaxy? *meh... *obscure Japanese game I'm sure you've never heard of and are likely not to play? *OMG! *It'll r0x0r your s0x0rz! *I fear that thousands of hyped up "everyday people" might be a more accurate gauge of a game's buzz factor than people that get paid to do it day in and day out. *We'll see, but I think the loss of that buzz is a lose-lose for the customers AND the developers who have worked so hard on the games that will be shown.

No booth babes. *This topic deserves an entire article itself with a ton of hands-on reporting, but since I'm already excluded from attending E3, I don't care. *I hope they bring in the booth studs. *That should keep the already reduced foot traffic moving nicely. *Bring in the Chippendale Dancers gyrating their hips while wearing Unreal Tournament 3 armor or the Masterchief getting inside people's "comfort bubble" with his unusually large "armor bulge". *If I was attending, I'd be writing this with a lot less malice and a lot more sadness over the loss of booth babes.

With the new E3 rules companies are being severely limited in the space they can use for their presence. *By God if Sony or Microsoft wants to equip an entire city block with gaming stations and unreleased games while privately chartering their own private power company, why should E3 stop them? *This has been explained two ways: to keep the "chaos factor" down and to reduce the costs associated with shows like E3. *I'm sorry, but don't we pay $60 for games and don't they spend millions of dollars marketing/advertising them? *I think they should stop an annual bone being tossed our direction if we want.

To me, all the above factors spell one thing... *the single annual Event/Expo/Extravaganza (See what I did? That's three E's right there!) is dead. *We now have many smaller (but growing) shows spread out throughout the year. *We've got the Penny Arcade Expo (PAX), Game Developer's Conference (GDC), Tokyo Game Show (TGS), X07 (Microsoft's Xbox 360-centered game show), Sony's Gamers Day, E For All Expo (E4), Nintendo's Show and the list keeps growing. *These other shows don't have such stringent rules about booth babes, booth size, or attendance... and considering all these other shows exist, are the companies really saving money and reducing the amount of work they do? *I doubt it very much. *With E3 in its currently redefined state, why wouldn't companies like Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo prefer to put on their own platform-specific shows? *There's very little chance of being upstaged by the competition that way and you've got everybody's attention. *E3 opened the doors for these other shows to grow. *By scaling back, you're basically off-loading most of what a lot of people liked and taking a huge risk at the same time. *Can the press adequately convey the excitement that the "loosely qualified" industry professionals have over the past few years? *Will E3 week be chocked full of truly new and exciting info? *Will the expo end without some of the major expected announcements being made instead being saved for other shows? *At the end of the year will we look back at the year's big announcement and see them scattered all over the calendar/map except for E3? *I'm not sure, but we'll get a better indication in a few weeks when E3 hits. *One thing is for sure though... I personally care less for E3 right now that I've ever cared since I knew what it was. *The burden is on the show to make me want to care again.

For what it's worth, I'll be attending PAX '07 hoping for a little of that "chaos factor" I mentioned above... if you're attending, see you there!

rothbart
06-27-2007, 11:25 PM
*tumbleweed blows by*

And the responses to the article pretty much sum up my thoughts exactly... I really shouldn't care about E3. *;D

Locke
06-28-2007, 12:05 AM
I think the real question is how a tumbleweed came to symbolize an empty place devoid of people or in this case posts.

Good article, I feel bad that E3 is dis-allowing the 'average joes' from coming in because I've never been able to go to a large scale expo, where is PAX being held?

rothbart
06-28-2007, 12:26 AM
I think the real question is how a tumbleweed came to symbolize an empty place devoid of people or in this case posts.

Would crickets chirping be better? ;D I can do crickets too!

where is PAX being held?

Seattle.

Captiosus
06-28-2007, 01:40 AM
Well I had originally thought about replying, but really all I could think of saying was:

Wow, that's a damn shame what they've done to E3. I used to look forward to it every year, especially since one of my friends is a manager for GameCrazy and got to go every year on the company dime. Guess that's all a-changin.. Can't say I like this new plan one bit.

Altered_Weapon
07-03-2007, 12:22 AM
I couldn't believe my ears when they essentially cancelled the biggest video gaming expo of all time. For the love of whoever you worship on sunday, why would you do that. Did the organizers think "how can I shoot my penis off and lose the respect of every gamer on the planet?" It's not fair to those of us who thought it was the golden ticket to anyone we knew who was going to attend. It's so sad. I hope PAX is the new E3.

I would continue but I have to go play with my son.