No Comments About E3 Changes?

Discussion in 'Playstation' started by Android, Aug 2, 2006.

  1. Android Guest

    Is this the canary in the coal mine as far as the health of the industry is
    concerned? Has it been a long time in coming? Were there avoidable or
    unavoidable factors leading to its demise? Is everyone so enthralled with
    passing along rumors about the PS3 that no one is interested in real,
    significant news when it happens?

    For what it is worth, and having attended the past 8 shows, I thought that
    E3 was becoming less relevant with each passing year. Those with real
    business (buyers, mostly) did it off the floor. Media covered the show
    because it used to be the major forum for announcements...but then came the
    rise of the Internet and an increase in "pre-E3" events that stole the
    thunder of the real deal. More and more people crammed the convention
    center--so many that it was impossible to get from place to place easily,
    and when you got to where you needed to be, you could barely hear the person
    you were meeting with...let alone getting quality time with a game. It has
    always been a colossal waste of resources for the publishers and
    manufacturers, but apparently that didn't matter when companies were riding
    the wave of successes. With development costs skyrocketing and fewer
    successes overall, they need to cut costs. Where better to cut than
    eliminating the fancy parties and extravagant booths? It was fun while it
    lasted, but I'd rather spend time in a hotel conference room taking notes at
    a press conference than being tossed into the sweaty masses.
  2. Android wrote:
    > Is this the canary in the coal mine as far as the health of the industry is
    > concerned? Has it been a long time in coming? Were there avoidable or
    > unavoidable factors leading to its demise? Is everyone so enthralled with
    > passing along rumors about the PS3 that no one is interested in real,
    > significant news when it happens?
    >
    > For what it is worth, and having attended the past 8 shows, I thought that
    > E3 was becoming less relevant with each passing year. Those with real
    > business (buyers, mostly) did it off the floor. Media covered the show
    > because it used to be the major forum for announcements...but then came the
    > rise of the Internet and an increase in "pre-E3" events that stole the
    > thunder of the real deal. More and more people crammed the convention
    > center--so many that it was impossible to get from place to place easily,
    > and when you got to where you needed to be, you could barely hear the person
    > you were meeting with...let alone getting quality time with a game. It has
    > always been a colossal waste of resources for the publishers and
    > manufacturers, but apparently that didn't matter when companies were riding
    > the wave of successes. With development costs skyrocketing and fewer
    > successes overall, they need to cut costs. Where better to cut than
    > eliminating the fancy parties and extravagant booths? It was fun while it
    > lasted, but I'd rather spend time in a hotel conference room taking notes at
    > a press conference than being tossed into the sweaty masses.

    We've seen it before, we'll see it again. Good shows grow and grow
    until they are too big for their own good, then they implode and
    disappear, only to be replaced by a new more somber one (for the first
    few years anyway).
  3. Jonah Falcon Guest

    As I posted elsewhere:

    It's a bad mistake.

    1. No more mainstream press coverage.
    2. Smaller companies who formerly were able to have their games poured
    over among the big boys no longer have the event.
    3. Gaming media will be forced to trek all over Los Angeles to cover
    games, especially video gaming media who have to lug equipment. That'll

    result in less coverage as well.


    The only people who stand to gain are, duh, the big game companies (EA,

    etc.) But even they'll feel the pinch.


    Question: You think something like "Spore" gets the massive mainstream
    press that it got without E3?
  4. JLC Guest

    "Jonah Falcon" <jonahnynla@mindspring.com> wrote in message
    news:1154526815.479703.7540@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
    > As I posted elsewhere:
    >
    > It's a bad mistake.
    >
    > 1. No more mainstream press coverage.
    > 2. Smaller companies who formerly were able to have their games poured
    > over among the big boys no longer have the event.
    > 3. Gaming media will be forced to trek all over Los Angeles to cover
    > games, especially video gaming media who have to lug equipment. That'll
    >
    > result in less coverage as well.
    >
    >
    > The only people who stand to gain are, duh, the big game companies (EA,
    >
    > etc.) But even they'll feel the pinch.
    >
    >
    > Question: You think something like "Spore" gets the massive mainstream
    > press that it got without E3?


    I also agree with what you're saying. Just look at how well the Wii did this
    year at E3. The buzz was amazing. It took everyone by surprise that it would
    get that much attention. I look forward to E3 every year. It's exciting to
    get to find out about all the new stuff coming out and it's just fun to look
    forward to. I've been very surprised by the way people on this group have
    reacted to the news. I was upset when I heard about it and I figured I'd
    come here and find a lot of upset posters. But the reaction has been
    surprisingly against E3. Funny how each year this NG lights up and gets all
    excited about it, yet no one seems to care that's it's being trimmed
    down/maybe going away. JLC
  5. <wolfing1@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >Android wrote:
    >> Is this the canary in the coal mine as far as the health of the industry is
    >> concerned? Has it been a long time in coming? Were there avoidable or


    >We've seen it before, we'll see it again. Good shows grow and grow
    >until they are too big for their own good, then they implode and
    >disappear, only to be replaced by a new more somber one (for the first
    >few years anyway).


    That's true; Comdex closed down too.


    --
    Prozac changed everything, and that's just the beginning.
    -- Eli Lilly & Co. annual report.
  6. TheGame Guest

    One thing I never understand is: for all of the complaints of E3: too
    loud, too many sweaty, smelly ppl, etc, why did you keep going year
    after year? Regarding the "rise of the Internet", I think that was
    great for gamers, to have more real-time E3 coverage instead of having
    to wait months later for a boring "special E3 edition" in a game
    magazine. No offense, but you sound like "an elite game journalist"...
    Interesting that you mention the countless PS3 rumors, do you think
    that could be the reason the sudden change with the show formerly known
    as E3? PS3 did have a bad show for the most part. With this change,
    maybe CES will have more game content in the future...

    Android wrote:
    > Is this the canary in the coal mine as far as the health of the industry is
    > concerned? Has it been a long time in coming? Were there avoidable or
    > unavoidable factors leading to its demise? Is everyone so enthralled with
    > passing along rumors about the PS3 that no one is interested in real,
    > significant news when it happens?
    >
    > For what it is worth, and having attended the past 8 shows, I thought that
    > E3 was becoming less relevant with each passing year. Those with real
    > business (buyers, mostly) did it off the floor. Media covered the show
    > because it used to be the major forum for announcements...but then came the
    > rise of the Internet and an increase in "pre-E3" events that stole the
    > thunder of the real deal. More and more people crammed the convention
    > center--so many that it was impossible to get from place to place easily,
    > and when you got to where you needed to be, you could barely hear the person
    > you were meeting with...let alone getting quality time with a game. It has
    > always been a colossal waste of resources for the publishers and
    > manufacturers, but apparently that didn't matter when companies were riding
    > the wave of successes. With development costs skyrocketing and fewer
    > successes overall, they need to cut costs. Where better to cut than
    > eliminating the fancy parties and extravagant booths? It was fun while it
    > lasted, but I'd rather spend time in a hotel conference room taking notes at
    > a press conference than being tossed into the sweaty masses.
  7. Android Guest

    "TheGame" <n0n0n0n0n0@excite.com> wrote in message
    news:1154554756.936391.266440@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
    > One thing I never understand is: for all of the complaints of E3: too
    > loud, too many sweaty, smelly ppl, etc, why did you keep going year
    > after year?


    Because, like a sports writer attending the Super Bowl or World Series, it
    was my job to attend whether I wanted to or not.

    >Regarding the "rise of the Internet", I think that was
    > great for gamers, to have more real-time E3 coverage instead of having
    > to wait months later for a boring "special E3 edition" in a game
    > magazine. No offense, but you sound like "an elite game journalist"...


    I agree that real-time coverage is better for gamers, even though it spelled
    the end for our magazine. And, by the way, I've never called myself a game
    "journalist." I wrote articles, commented upon news, and reviewed games.
    "Journalism" implies more in-depth study, interviews, and analysis than most
    game magazines have time for.

    > Interesting that you mention the countless PS3 rumors, do you think
    > that could be the reason the sudden change with the show formerly known
    > as E3? PS3 did have a bad show for the most part. With this change,
    > maybe CES will have more game content in the future...


    It probably was a factor in Sony's decision, but also Nintendo and
    Microsoft's decision as well. Think of how many millions of dollars these
    companies spend to promote their systems and games at E3. Only one of them
    is declared "Best of Show" each year, which means all those dollars did
    nothing for the other two. And I question whether a good show is even
    helpful. Dreamcast had a great showing at E3, compared with the PS2, and
    look where it got them. The Wii was declared this year's winner, and yet in
    the long run I think that MS or Sony will still sell more units in this
    generation. If it were me, I'd question the sanity of dumping money into E3
    year after year, especially if having a "bad show" (as far as the press is
    concerned) hurts me more than having a good show ever helps me.

    I don't think CES will pick up the slack. I think E3 will return to the
    low-key event it was supposed to be, and the media will rely more upon
    regional events and press conferences throughout the year instead of upon
    one large show.

    > Android wrote:
    > > Is this the canary in the coal mine as far as the health of the industry

    is
    > > concerned? Has it been a long time in coming? Were there avoidable or
    > > unavoidable factors leading to its demise? Is everyone so enthralled

    with
    > > passing along rumors about the PS3 that no one is interested in real,
    > > significant news when it happens?
    > >
    > > For what it is worth, and having attended the past 8 shows, I thought

    that
    > > E3 was becoming less relevant with each passing year. Those with real
    > > business (buyers, mostly) did it off the floor. Media covered the show
    > > because it used to be the major forum for announcements...but then came

    the
    > > rise of the Internet and an increase in "pre-E3" events that stole the
    > > thunder of the real deal. More and more people crammed the convention
    > > center--so many that it was impossible to get from place to place

    easily,
    > > and when you got to where you needed to be, you could barely hear the

    person
    > > you were meeting with...let alone getting quality time with a game. It

    has
    > > always been a colossal waste of resources for the publishers and
    > > manufacturers, but apparently that didn't matter when companies were

    riding
    > > the wave of successes. With development costs skyrocketing and fewer
    > > successes overall, they need to cut costs. Where better to cut than
    > > eliminating the fancy parties and extravagant booths? It was fun while

    it
    > > lasted, but I'd rather spend time in a hotel conference room taking

    notes at
    > > a press conference than being tossed into the sweaty masses.

    >
    >
  8. TheGame Guest

    Android wrote:
    > Because, like a sports writer attending the Super Bowl or World Series, it
    > was my job to attend whether I wanted to or not.


    OK, well chark it up as "part of the job then". Besides many would love
    to be forced to be paid to go to E3. Every job has its plusses and
    minusses...

    > I agree that real-time coverage is better for gamers, even though it spelled
    > the end for our magazine.


    The internet killed many mags. You know the cliche "adapt or die". Did
    you try to take your mag online? Game sites with subs, e.g. gamespot
    and ign, seem to be doing well online...esp ign with murdoch purchase

    > And, by the way, I've never called myself a game
    > "journalist."


    Well I am sure u know of some in the gaming media (well like most
    media) that thinks a little way too highly of themselves...

    > It probably was a factor in Sony's decision, but also Nintendo and
    > Microsoft's decision as well. Think of how many millions of dollars these
    > companies spend to promote their systems and games at E3.


    True but that also was a cheap way to generate buzz because for the
    next weeks everyone was going to be talking about E3 online and
    offline. Thus I doubt it cost them that much, esp not M$ or $ony...

    > Dreamcast had a great showing at E3, compared with the PS2, and
    > look where it got them.


    Not a good example. The 3 main reasons why DC failed: 1. Sega's rep, 2.
    lack of 3rd party support, 3. PS2 hype

    > The Wii was declared this year's winner, and yet in
    > the long run I think that MS or Sony will still sell more units in this
    > generation.


    It depends on who you talk to. Some said 360 won it, others Wii. Wii
    did generate alot of buzz as a result of E3 tho...

    > I don't think CES will pick up the slack.


    Well for gaming it will never be the circus that E3 was, but I won't be
    shocked if Sony and M$ show off their consoles and games there.
  9. Zackman Guest

    TheGame <n0n0n0n0n0@excite.com> spake thusly:

    > OK, well chark it up as "part of the job then". Besides many would
    > love to be forced to be paid to go to E3. Every job has its plusses
    > and minusses...


    Imagine if your job was to go to the Super Bowl every year and run around
    during the game interviewing coaches and players and sportscasters. It
    sounds like a dream job -- who wouldn't want to get paid to go to the Super
    Bowl? -- but after a while it would just seem like work. Especially if you
    had to continually cut through the stands to get from place to place, being
    jostled by shouting, sweaty fans. For game journalists like Droid, that's
    the E3 experience.

    > Well for gaming it will never be the circus that E3 was, but I won't
    > be shocked if Sony and M$ show off their consoles and games there.


    Yeah, whatever E3 becomes will still be a place where games get shown every
    year. But I think we'll see more events where game and hardware developers
    show off their own stuff on their own turf on their own time, like the
    annual X0 events that MS does.

    -Z-
  10. CJ Guest


    > Yeah, whatever E3 becomes will still be a place where games get shown
    > every
    > year. But I think we'll see more events where game and hardware developers
    > show off their own stuff on their own turf on their own time, like the
    > annual X0 events that MS does.


    I definitely think that's what we'll see. IIRC, one of the reasons the
    major publishers wanted E3 cut back (or depending on which news source you
    believe, eliminated) was that they were spending too much time and money
    during the development cycle rushing to get a demo available for E3. Now
    major publishers will schedule their events where most game demos get
    displayed to the media at a time that doesn't interfere with a development
    cycle so much. I don't think that would be a bad thing. IMO, if there was a
    1-day Halo 3 event or a 1-day GTA IV event where demos of the games were
    shown to the media, those events will draw just as much coverage as E3, at
    least among the gaming media. An event that doesn't interfere with the
    development cycle, and allows more time for a developer to get a really good
    demo done, saves them money and hopefully results in an even better demo
    shown to the press and us gamers.
  11. TheGame Guest

    Zackman wrote:
    > Imagine if your job was to go to the Super Bowl every year and run around
    > during the game interviewing coaches and players and sportscasters. It
    > sounds like a dream job -- who wouldn't want to get paid to go to the Super
    > Bowl? -- but after a while it would just seem like work. Especially if you
    > had to continually cut through the stands to get from place to place, being
    > jostled by shouting, sweaty fans. For game journalists like Droid, that's
    > the E3 experience.


    Yeah I understand. It just get annoying sometimes. For example, I was
    listening to the gaming steve podcast post E3. He was basically crying
    about how tired he was after E3. I am thinking "sounds like someone who
    needs a little excercise..." No major diss, I still like his podcast...

    I think overall its a loss for the game industry. E3 helped to generate
    buzz and sales during the slower time of the year for the game
    industry. I wonder how long the thought of changine E3 been in the
    motion? Have there been rumors the last few years? It seems rather
    sudden to me...
  12. Fred Liken Guest

    "Android" <androvich@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
    news:XtednTxWpo93rk3ZnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com...

    > Is this the canary in the coal mine as far as the health of the industry
    > is
    > concerned? Has it been a long time in coming? Were there avoidable or
    > unavoidable factors leading to its demise? Is everyone so enthralled with
    > passing along rumors about the PS3 that no one is interested in real,
    > significant news when it happens?


    This isn't significant. E3 is a relic. Why are you crazed?
  13. Android Guest

    "Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote in message
    news:44d24689$0$60361$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com...
    > "Android" <androvich@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:XtednTxWpo93rk3ZnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com...
    >
    > > Is this the canary in the coal mine as far as the health of the industry
    > > is
    > > concerned? Has it been a long time in coming? Were there avoidable or
    > > unavoidable factors leading to its demise? Is everyone so enthralled

    with
    > > passing along rumors about the PS3 that no one is interested in real,
    > > significant news when it happens?

    >
    > This isn't significant. E3 is a relic. Why are you crazed?


    I'm not crazed. I just don't understand why these newsgroups are full of
    rumors about the PS3 and yet, when some "real" news happens, no one has
    anything to say about it. Whether you like it or not, E3 is/was a big part
    of the videogame industry for the past ~12 years, and its demise is
    newsworthy...or at least more newsworthy than "Another reason the PS3 with
    bomb!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" posts.
  14. Zackman Guest

    TheGame <n0n0n0n0n0@excite.com> spake thusly:

    > Yeah I understand. It just get annoying sometimes. For example, I was
    > listening to the gaming steve podcast post E3. He was basically crying
    > about how tired he was after E3. I am thinking "sounds like someone
    > who needs a little excercise..."


    You know the old saying about walking a mile in another man's shoes. I've
    been to E3 for several years running, and altho I love the excitement of the
    show, trying to get actual work done there just kept getting harder and
    harder. I wish I was one of those guys who weasels his way into E3 because
    he works the register at an EB Games or has a blog that gets 100 hits a
    week, and could just go and play games all day and collect giant bags of
    tchotchkes to sell on ebay. But for people who need to work there, it can be
    hell.

    > I think overall its a loss for the game industry. E3 helped to
    > generate buzz and sales during the slower time of the year for the
    > game industry. I wonder how long the thought of changine E3 been in
    > the motion? Have there been rumors the last few years? It seems rather
    > sudden to me...


    Doug Lowenstein said they've been talking about it for 3 or 4 years. And the
    new E3 is going to be mainly for the press, so there will still be lots of
    buzz and announcements coming out of the show.

    -Z-
  15. "Jonah Falcon" <jonahnynla@mindspring.com> wrote in message
    news:1154526815.479703.7540@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
    > As I posted elsewhere:
    >
    > It's a bad mistake.
    >
    > 1. No more mainstream press coverage.
    > 2. Smaller companies who formerly were able to have their games poured
    > over among the big boys no longer have the event.
    > 3. Gaming media will be forced to trek all over Los Angeles to cover
    > games, especially video gaming media who have to lug equipment. That'll
    >
    > result in less coverage as well.
    >
    >
    > The only people who stand to gain are, duh, the big game companies (EA,
    >
    > etc.) But even they'll feel the pinch.
    >
    >
    > Question: You think something like "Spore" gets the massive mainstream
    > press that it got without E3?
    >


    E3 was SERIOUS advertisement. The revamped E3 will be all 'behind closed
    doors' sessions. No one ever really hears about those much. Unless of course
    they lift NDAs quicker.
  16. "Android" <androvich@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
    news:XtednTxWpo93rk3ZnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com...
    > Is this the canary in the coal mine as far as the health of the industry
    > is
    > concerned? Has it been a long time in coming? Were there avoidable or
    > unavoidable factors leading to its demise? Is everyone so enthralled with
    > passing along rumors about the PS3 that no one is interested in real,
    > significant news when it happens?
    >
    > For what it is worth, and having attended the past 8 shows, I thought that
    > E3 was becoming less relevant with each passing year. Those with real
    > business (buyers, mostly) did it off the floor. Media covered the show
    > because it used to be the major forum for announcements...but then came
    > the
    > rise of the Internet and an increase in "pre-E3" events that stole the
    > thunder of the real deal. More and more people crammed the convention
    > center--so many that it was impossible to get from place to place easily,
    > and when you got to where you needed to be, you could barely hear the
    > person
    > you were meeting with...let alone getting quality time with a game. It
    > has
    > always been a colossal waste of resources for the publishers and
    > manufacturers, but apparently that didn't matter when companies were
    > riding
    > the wave of successes. With development costs skyrocketing and fewer
    > successes overall, they need to cut costs. Where better to cut than
    > eliminating the fancy parties and extravagant booths? It was fun while it
    > lasted, but I'd rather spend time in a hotel conference room taking notes
    > at
    > a press conference than being tossed into the sweaty masses.


    I'm actually glad too about the way E3 is going to be re-organized. And
    pushed back to July (i've read).

    I'd rather have devs working on games, than working on demos.

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  17. "Andrew Ryan Chang" <archang@sfu.ca> wrote in message
    news:eaqtme$k0o$1@morgoth.sfu.ca...
    > <wolfing1@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>Android wrote:
    >>> Is this the canary in the coal mine as far as the health of the industry
    >>> is
    >>> concerned? Has it been a long time in coming? Were there avoidable or

    >
    >>We've seen it before, we'll see it again. Good shows grow and grow
    >>until they are too big for their own good, then they implode and
    >>disappear, only to be replaced by a new more somber one (for the first
    >>few years anyway).

    >
    > That's true; Comdex closed down too.


    We'll see it again.... TGS will be next.


    >
    >
    > --
    > Prozac changed everything, and that's just the beginning.
    > -- Eli Lilly & Co. annual report.
  18. poldy Guest

    In article <eb-dnaD0p7OWg0zZnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
    "Android" <androvich@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:

    > I don't think CES will pick up the slack. I think E3 will return to the
    > low-key event it was supposed to be, and the media will rely more upon
    > regional events and press conferences throughout the year instead of upon
    > one large show.


    If sales and profits come back, watch it slowly build up again.
  19. poldy Guest

    In article <AsednXC0jZNhxEzZnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
    "Zackman" <zackman@SPAMISEVILearthling.net> wrote:

    > Yeah, whatever E3 becomes will still be a place where games get shown every
    > year. But I think we'll see more events where game and hardware developers
    > show off their own stuff on their own turf on their own time, like the
    > annual X0 events that MS does.


    Do they fly in journalists and put them up for that?

    Pretty sure EA does it with people who run gaming-related web sites, fly
    them to Orlando or Redwood City, give them swag, etc.

    What this means is the rich publishers and developers will always be
    able to get coverage.

    At least at E3, a smaller dev might have a chance to get some attention.
  20. poldy Guest

    In article <vAwAg.1135$uW1.166@dukeread06>,
    "Brenden D. Chase" <brenden.chaseREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote:

    > >>We've seen it before, we'll see it again. Good shows grow and grow
    > >>until they are too big for their own good, then they implode and
    > >>disappear, only to be replaced by a new more somber one (for the first
    > >>few years anyway).

    > >
    > > That's true; Comdex closed down too.

    >
    > We'll see it again.... TGS will be next.
    >


    But with Comdex, it was because profit margins disappeared in the PC
    business. First bigger companies like DEC went out of business while
    IBM just scaled back their consumer business.

    Dell and HP are the only ones making any kind of money and that's on
    razor thin margins, after much consolidation.

    Game sales are down but publishers are trying to get people to pay $60
    for next gen games. However, the reality is the last 3 years, game
    prices have fallen as they have to rapidly discount with so much
    competition for shelf space. Then game sales slowed down in the last
    year.

    The margins are there with $50-60 software. But the volume isn't there
    yet.

    And besides consoles, these days, kids and their parents have iPods and
    fancy cell phones to compete for their money.

Share This Page