Create new account
Forgot password?

FEATURE

Opinion: E3 Must Change or Die

Colin Campbell's picture

By Colin Campbell

July 19, 2008

  • Login or register to post comments

See also:

Related Articles:



TV

There were plenty of camera crews at E3, some of them representing the sum total of their audiences. Mostly absent were the network crews which once came to E3. My view is that this exposure was never as valuable as some claimed (mostly, the stories were about violence, or they were reactively negative about the growth of gaming as a hobby). Even so, at least it was coverage, of a sort.

Some of the camera crews at E3 appeared to spend much of their time interviewing other journalists. If you wanted to convert this coverage into monetary value, you might have enough for a latte and a slice of cheesecake.

One exception was G4 and its useful coverage of the hardware conferences. But G4 and MTV are always up for a TV event around big games brands. Publishers should make them dance.


A ‘Business’ Event?

Deals get done at E3, sure. But how many deals get done as a direct result of E3, and do they justify the expense? E3 is not an international market, like Toy Fair or Book Fair. Very few people are ‘finding a deal’ at E3. They are merely doing business as usual in a convenient environment.

We don’t need a business show, except maybe in places like Eastern Europe or Asia where contacts and information need to be established.

Meet the Press

It was awesome that so many senior execs and creatives were made available at E3. Getting the boss of EA to explain his position direct to games journos is an excellent idea.

But someone like Riccitiello gives interviews and speeches year-round, as he should. There is value in him talking to the specialist press, regardless of E3. And, it would be a shame if E3 is being used as a focal point for this exercise, which ought to be ongoing and year-round. Even just one every quarter would be fine.

Social Activity

E3 is not, by design, a social activity. So how comes this is the event’s most valuable benefit? And, if so, can’t we create something, or grow something organically, that offers the same benefits, only with less expense and more time, say, on a golf course?

Let’s lighten up and find a way to enjoy each other just for the merry hell of it. Companies in the game industry could be spending a lot smarter on reaching out to the business.

« first‹ previous123next ›last »

_bootzilla_'s picture
On July 21st _bootzilla_ said:

So the question is really, what was wrong with the old E3 format? And what are the benefits of the new E3 format?

frostquake's picture
On July 21st frostquake said:

If E3 is going to be closed to the "public" then the public has to rely on what can come out of E3, which by the way is usually the medium of the Internet, followed by TV, then Print based Media.
This "closed" doors mentality of the past has to go away. We are all connected in some way or fashion and thrive on that "instant" access.
I really don't rely on the comments of industry insiders as much as I rely on the actual video content delivered of that medium, or that actual hands-on that I get with a demo. We "ALL" have opinions on the current demo we are trying and having someone tell you what it is like is like trying to describe a flavor. You really don't know if you will like it till you try it.
I would really like to see publishers spend more time and money on providing demos to their consumers, instead of a show for a select few who then write commentary on the "flavor" of the game.

cronotrigger913's picture
On July 19th cronotrigger913 said:

It is somewhat ironic that this is supposedly what the publishers wanted when they decided the old E3 was too much and that it needed to change. What did they expect would happen? Take for example those comments from Ubi and EA, where they called E3 a waste. It's a waste because you voted to have it become a waste. Am I wrong in this? Didn't they all have meetings with the ESA to say E3 was too much before? These people need to start figuring all this out because us consumers are getting very disappointed, year after year.

One thing that surprised me, disappointed me, and then made me think was the quote from Miyamoto, stating E3 wasn't a place to show off games like Zelda and Mario. Rather it was for interesting concepts like WiiMusic. I'm pretty sure no one ever thought that, and Sony and Msoft might disagree with him. So it seems no one truly knows what E3 really is anymore, and there needs to be a consensus on the matter before we move out. And they should have informed the public what E3 really stands for instead of assuming we knew what they were thinking. E3 has always been about the big announcements, and to just take them away because they thought it was different is naive. And Nintendo kept egging us on, saying E3 was for the core gamers, and BARELY backed that statement up.

E3 has to change, but it needs to inform the public on what it's going to change into so we aren't disappointed so much. Everyone says the readers on the net are somewhat creating the problem by reading the liveblogs, but we've been doing that for years! Why should we suddenly change?