E3 - Downsizing? Cancelled?

[Titanio]

This is the word going around now - E3 as we know it may be finished, and in fact, the whole notion of a jointly-organised industry event may be gone too depending on reports you read.

Gamespot initially reported that E3 would be radically downsized, moving to a model whereby publishers would present their products in meeting room space only, to hundreds at a time rather than thousands:

On July 28, the Web site of UK trade magazine MCV reported discussions had taken place between the ESA and E3 exhibitors which addressed the future of the annual trade show. GameSpot spoke with informed game industry sources late Friday and Saturday and learned that the show would radically shrink in size and move from its usual Los Angeles Convention Center (LACC) venue to a smaller location.

Sources said that rather than fill the 540,000 square feet of the cavernous LACC, the show will take place at a location that would support exhibitors in meeting room space only, with companies showing their wares to a select group of attendees numbering in the hundreds rather than thousands.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6154897.html

But Next-Gen is now reporting that the whole thing may be done and dusted entirely, with larger exhibitors preferring to hold their own independent events (ala Nintendo 'gamer days" etc.). Which effectively would mean the end of E3:

However, we understand the larger exhibitors have jointly decided that the costs of the event do not justify the returns, generally measured in media exposure.

Publishers believe the multi-million dollar budgets would be better spent on more company-focused events that bring attention to their own product lines rather than the industry as a whole.

http://next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3538&Itemid=2

Official word is due tomorrow.

 

[ElStupido]

Nooo - we need a real battleground!

 

[Rolf N]

Nooo - we need a real battleground!

That sooo hits on the head what I wanted to say

Publishers believe the multi-million dollar budgets would be better spent on more company-focused events that bring attention to their own product lines rather than the industry as a whole.

I can see some truth in this. If you're going to E3, as a publisher, you have to compete with everyone else for attention. Worst case: you don't get any coverage at all because everything else is deemed more important. Or you get coverage but only by some publications.

If OTOH Activison or EA or whatever hold their own events, avoiding timing collisions, and invite the press, there will be coverage.

Personally I think it's bad. If E3 is finished, it will be because publishers want to avoid competition, and it's not hard to figure out why they'd want to do that.
It's especially bad from the perspective of smaller companies who can't afford organizing their own events (or are so small that they won't be heard when they invite).

 

[Skrying]

Really bad for the small companies, and really bad for us gamers.

E3 is always so looked forward to because you get to see such a wide range of things. If you produce a great show there then you generate TONS of positive press that can basically propel your product. I'd think even the chance of having such success would be enough to have the companies keep it around.

 

[StefanS]

I can't believe it. E3 has been the only place in the past few years where substantial announcement were made and people actually got their fix of news-worthy news, not just stories.
If true. this is really a sad sad day

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Won't smaller devs actually get better coverage sending in demos and previews to 'mags' as and when they're available, rather than get thrown into the ring with the beefier competitors? E3's a costly event for these companies and I can see why they wouldn't want to do it. Years back it was a good idea to get all the exhibitors together with all the press, but these days with internet communications there's no barriers. I expect hardware to move to events like CES, where they're probably better suited these days. The only losers would be ecclectic hardware exhibits which are less likely to get the media to pay attention, but we never normally hear of them anyway

 

[Hardknock]

I can't believe it. E3 has been the only place in the past few years where substantial announcement were made and people actually got their fix of news-worthy news, not just stories.
If true. this is really a sad sad day

I feel the same way. E3 has been a staple for aslong as I can remember. Where else are companies going to break their huge news stories and big game announcements?

A company specific event wouldn't draw anywhere near as much exposure.

 

[Titanio]

I feel the same way. E3 has been a staple for aslong as I can remember. Where else are companies going to break their huge news stories and big game announcements?

A company specific event wouldn't draw anywhere near as much exposure.

I imagine they'd be like that EA event a couple of weeks ago. And if announcements are big enough, then they'll get the coverage.

My worries would be:

a) for the smaller publishers

b) for the smaller press outlets, and how publishers may be able to much more tightly control coverage through specific avenues. With an event like E3, everyone and anyone there can come and play your game and report it, but if things go private, you never know what might happen between publishers and the press in terms of 'arranged' coverage different games will receive.

 

[Hardknock]

But Titanio this is one of the few big events this industry has. I can't believe we'd just can it like this?

Where else can people go and try out hundreds of software for every system in one place? Where else can you make huge announcements and have the entire industry's attention?

So now we'll have a seperate Nintendo/Sony/MS/EA/Ubisoft/Konami/Capcom/Take Two/Tecmo/etc... events? That sucks no if and's or buts about it.

 

[Titanio]

I don't disagree. Some who actually 'work' E3 might be relieved, but I do think it's nice for the industry to have a flagship annual event (although preferably I'd like it to be a consumer one).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Would it not be better ot have lots of smaller, localised events? If publishers could supply the software to the organizers to showcase in kiosks, you'd get more people actually visiting. Big international events do suffer from most consumers being local. National events would be effectively targetted at national tastes. You'd need some awesome management, but I feel that's the best way to get consumer events.

 

[Titanio]

Yeah, there is the whole "bring it to the consumer" point of view, which is very valid. I don't know, I just like the idea of a prestige event for the industry.

 

[Rolf N]

Yeah, there is the whole "bring it to the consumer" point of view, which is very valid. I don't know, I just like the idea of a prestige event for the industry.

I was hearing it was a challenge to manage the crowds as is, and that with a supposed crackdown on non-press attendants.

It can only get harder if you allow in consumers (like E3 did a few years back IIRC). In that light the restriction to press makes sense IMO.

 

[Hardknock]

I don't understand why they can't take both routes? Have E3 open to the public. And then have smaller events for press only throughout the year?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I presume the reason against it is cost. If it takes a few months to prep a demo and takes people away from development, plus all the other costs, you've got to weigh that what you expect the returns to be. I think these days if you make a game you can be pretty guarenteed of coverage in the internet and printed press. And if your game won't get coverage there, I doubt it'd get noticed at E3 either.

I like the idea of a massive super gaming show, but I can see the logistics of not doing one. And having been disappointed at the past 2 and their post-E3 noise, I don't know that we'd actually lose a lot. Hopefully announcements would be more spread throughout the year, and we'd get better discussion!

 

[Zaphod]

Does 'the industry' really want E3, though? The pressure to attend and put on a good show because ‘everyone’ is doing it, dubious value as a launch platform for all but the biggest players (for risk of getting drowned out in the information overload), and generally just a hassle to distract from 'real' work?

I don't doubt for a minute, however, that many would miss it as an annual junket.

 

[Inane_Dork]

I imagine they'd be like that EA event a couple of weeks ago. And if announcements are big enough, then they'll get the coverage.

Bingo. MS's X0n events are big. And the only reason more announcements have not come from them is that MS had to save them for E3. The Rare buyout gathered quite a bit of attention, though.

a) for the smaller publishers

But what can small publishers do at E3 as is? They could rent a tiny back room and invite people in if they could afford even that.

b) for the smaller press outlets, and how publishers may be able to much more tightly control coverage through specific avenues. With an event like E3, everyone and anyone there can come and play your game and report it, but if things go private, you never know what might happen between publishers and the press in terms of 'arranged' coverage different games will receive.

If the entire thing is by appointment only, I agree that might be an issue. Otherwise, I don't see any problem in this area at all.

If E3 becomes something like MGS4 having first-come, enclosed showings at 7:00, 7:25, etc., no problem. And I don't see that playable games would be less common in such an instance because of the drastically reduced attendance. Too, enclosed demos means that much better impressions can be made. Trying to deduce a game's quality from a show floor looping demo is not a desirable situation.

And if E3 dies off in favor of publisher-specific events (which already exist but would merely gain importance), their format would likely be more open like E3 is now. So that would probably be fine.

Where else can people go and try out hundreds of software for every system in one place?

E3 was never meant for that. E3 is for media.

Where else can you make huge announcements and have the entire industry's attention?

How can you make a huge announcement and *not* have the entire industry's attention? Sounds like a contradiction in terms to me. If it's truly huge, it doesn't matter when it's announced.

So now we'll have a seperate Nintendo/Sony/MS/EA/Ubisoft/Konami/Capcom/Take Two/Tecmo/etc... events? That sucks no if and's or buts about it.

We already have them. They'll just gain importance. IMO, I think it'll be nicer because E3 is 95% flash and 5% substance in its current format. Too, if showings became more decentralized, lesser games would get more attention and big announcements would be spread over the year instead of everyone irrationally building up excitement for E3 shockers.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

And I don't see that playable games would be less common in such an instance because of the drastically reduced attendance.

Plus if next-gen consoles have downloadable demos, why limit yourself to a few thousand users at an event when you can create and distribute a worldwide demo in your own time?

How can you make a huge announcement and *not* have the entire industry's attention? Sounds like a contradiction in terms to me. If it's truly huge, it doesn't matter when it's announced.

Exactly. We all heard anout the Wii name without any big conference. It was a press release, and *whoosh* the whole internet is abuzz. Places like GI.biz list press releases from all and sundry. They'll pick up on the big announcements and the rest of the media will pick up that from those sites. With the modern internet even the best kept secrets become common knowledge. A deliberately notice can't go unmissed even if you want it to!

I think the downside would be very rare uber-devs wanting attention but getting overlooked. Something like Project Offset can be shown at an event full of the press just passing by and be sure to get some attention which would escalate. Whereas without people seeing demos first hand, constrained to writing to the media saying 'look at us', those few gems might well be overlooked for the big names. How do these devs get people to notice them?

 

[ninzel]

I've been gaming for years and never had the chance to go to a gaming show due to distance, cost or just not being invited so E3 being cancelled does nothing for me. I would love to have smaller regional shows so I could for example attend a Sony or Nintendo show here in Toronto. A show that was for everyone. I go to the auto show every year ,why not the gaming show.
So gaming sites like IGN might just have to hire more part time local in the feild reporters. News stations do it all the time so they don't have to send thier heavy hitters running all over the country all year long.

 

[ERP]

If it's true, personally I think it's a good thing.
E3 hasn't really been what it purports to be (an industry show) for years.
On the press side it causes everybody to hold information and release it simultaneously, which leads to many things being lost in the flurry.
It was originally for the buyers, but realistically the big deals aren't made at E3 anyway.
GDC is now where devs look for publishers.

It's one less distraction from development, although I have seen directionless games pulled together by the focus that E3 provides.

Games will also ship with less lines of code that read

// HACK --Remove this after E3