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:



Demo Time

Getting a proper demo of a game, in privacy, is still a worthwhile exercise. But building an LACC event around this activity does not make sense.

Publisher-specific media events are becoming more important, as ways to alert the press to product that’s six to 12 months out. These are useful, especially if you’re working out a cover-deal or online exclusive, or merely looking to get a game on the map.

But an event, crowded by other product is just about the worse possible way of achieving real, clear-blue-sky coverage And, anyway, downloadable demos and YouTube are taking the middle-man out of the equation anyway.

Speeches

Did you go to the keynotes at E3? Probably not. DICE is where the best speeches get made, with GDC offering the most choice and the best practical demonstrations. E3 is not a good forum for debate.

A Focal Point

Once a year, just before the big selling season, we all get together and take a look at the games that are about to make or break the financial year. At the end of it, we come out of E3 with a clearer sense of what will be hot, than when we went in. We are also able to take stock of the hardware guys and how their plans are likely to impact on the year ahead.

E3, somehow, is still good at this, but only by being a focal point that we all gravitate towards. It’s not really doing anything but providing that slot in the calendar when we can all take stock and tot up the scores.

For all the reasons stated above; we do need something that provides focus. But, frankly, we need something new, relevant, cost-effective and fun.

Instead of bleating about the crummy job the ESA is doing, it’s up to the publishers to figure out what that is and create an E3 event that's worth the name.



« first‹ previous123

_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?