Is E3 still relevant? Some interesting points
primesuspect
Beepin n' BoopinDetroit, MI Icrontian
Here's some food for thought. We've been covering E3 for years now. I'd be interested to hear from Icrontic veterans who have covered the show in the past ( @UPSLynx @CB @Ghoosdum @Jokerz4fun @church4252 @Charshie @CrazyJoe @Bandrik @AlexDeGruven)
E3 is a spring break party populated by fresh-faced fanboys and an old boys' network.
E3 is a spring break party populated by fresh-faced fanboys and an old boys' network.
0
Comments
My second year of E3 was not nearly as valuable as the first because the contacts had already been made, and while I met a few new people, I didn't feel like I was really breaking a lot of ground like I did the first time.
Personally, I think, what would make E3 more valuable in general would be to find a way to tone down the fanboyism. A lot of the show is devoted to sort of bringing out the fans in people, even the journalists. I approached it as a serious business and networking event, and while the fan stuff was cool sometimes, and I liked getting swag and being driven to parties and crap, the show would be a more valuable tool if it wasn't so pandering, and if there weren't so many non-press at the event.
It also seems like each year it gets more and more difficult for the people from smaller outlets to get stuff done on the news front. I mean with IGN and Gamespot having their little office things litterally right on the shoe floor with their cameras and life streams, and constant updates, it's impossible for anyone else to break anything, which means for the little guys, it really is only about the networking, some of which is impossible anyway because of the 'old boys network' which doesn't take little outlets seriously. Of the AAA publishers, only Valve and Bethesda ever really took any time to talk to me.
And that's only changed slightly with the advent of faster communications and digital media. We now see more of the event, for better or worse, and we see it faster. Not a lot has really changed beyond that, at least in the eyes of the event itself.
What has changed is the gamer.
The console jockey of yesteryear is either still a console jockey, or more likely has moved on to PC, mobile, or just Life® with their kids taking over that seat. Thing is, their kids don't know, and don't care, about the gentrified bombastic buffoons and their young padawans. Information comes from the electronic, and a big live event doesn't change that fact. The press-releases aren't necessarily happening there, though they often focus around it, and it's beholden to what essentially amounts to a niche market. It's all the same big names every year when the majority of the relevant and revolutionary development is happening in the smaller groups focused on the product and the market as it is. Those previously console jockeys selling organs for a glimpse of an industry pass are now using that enthusiasm to make the things they want for themselves and the others who want them. The players have become the creators, and they have found they no longer need the mammoth support they once did for creation and distribution.
For the size and expense, the sacrament just isn't there anymore. I know even I, a Registered Nintendo Fanboy and card-carrying Halo 3 junkie (don't look at me like that), haven't bothered clicking an E3 coverage link in years unless it was specifically sent to me by someone I know. They just aren't much more than glitzy marketing and competitive masturbation between the silver-backs.
All the fun is in the bonobo cage, but they're not invited.
*I say gamer, but what I actually mean is videogamer, and then really console jockeys.
I am sitting here thinking if E3 is still relevant or not and I simply cannot do so right now. I have been covering the event for four straight years and to me as a 'journalist' I get to write about what I love and hate about Video Games. If/when there is a time I do not go to E3 I will be able to write if it is relevant or not.
For me this year it is relevant because I get to bring the news from the show floor to the Icrontic page. Its not about the swag or checking out all the booth babes but it is about who I get to talk to and re-establishing the connections I made in years past. To be able to see friends that I made from other publications and have a beer or two with them.
Has it gotten stale since the first time I been to the show. Heck yeah it has. Does my fanboyism comes out when I am sitting at the Sony and Nintendo press conference? You bet your bottom dollar. Do I think Microsoft hates me for not inviting me to their press conference? Sure, why not. Do I wish they would include more indie and mobile games? Hell to the yes!
E3 needs to get with the time and include some of the smaller developers and showcase them on the show floor instead of allowing major outlet like IGN, G4, ect. to take up space on the show floor for their 'office'.
I love E3 for what it purports to be (or is perceived to be), not for what it actually is. But I also love it for part of what it actually is (I'll get to that in a minute). I'll also be the first to admit that I went because I was one of those fresh-faced fanboys.
E3 represents itself (and is touted) as the Super Bowl of the gaming industry, where publishers and console makers come out with guns blazing, ready to blow everyone's mind. In fact, I think 2010 was exactly that:
1. Microsoft gave every attendee at its primary presentation (secondary location folks like myself were not so lucky) a brand new redesigned XBox 360 (250GB).
2. Nintendo (almost quite literally) asploded the collective minds of every attendee at the Nokia theater with the 3DS.
3. Activision spent an absurd amount of money on what can only be thought of as a micro-Coachella at the Staples Center (seriously, still one of the most insane evenings I've ever spent anywhere, ever) with Eminem and Rihanna, Usher, Deadmau5, David Guetta, Jane's Addiction, Chris Cornell, Maynard Keenan (singing Bohemian Rhapsody with a single guitar (played by a guy who looks enough like @Thrax that I still Fry a bit about it when I think about it) and a choir), N.E.R.D., 90ft stripper poles, and Tony Hawk (nowhere near a complete list).
4. The long-rumored but rarely seen by anyone in the real world OnLive service went live on day 2 with demos and "Holy crap, it actually works!". I had been anticipating OnLive since it's initial announcement and having the chance to play with the technology and see it in person before most of the world was just amazing for me.
Just a few of the things that cemented what I always believed E3 to be about before I ever attended the first time. Those 4 things encompassed what I always dreamed it would be like, and it all came true. And then I got to talk about it on the Internet. I got to meet people whose names I've only seen on bylines or seen/heard on podcasts (a very pregnant Natalie DelConte (now Morris), most notably). I got to party with thousands of like-minded individuals (@kewlrats likes gimlets) in an awesome place (say what you will, LA is a cool city). My geek cache went THROUGH THE ROOF (I feel like a Harvard douche every time I start a sentence with "When I was at E3...", but it's still an awesome feeling), and people would stare in rapt attention as I regaled them with the retelling of my first experience with the 3DS or the WiiU Golf demo.
What E3 actually is pales in comparison for fans. E3 is first and foremost a trade show. It's a place for publishers, console makers, and everyone else involved to show the buyers what the buyers want: a product they can sell to you and me. Everything else is secondary. The show is not for the fans, it's not for the media, it's for the buyers who will get the games/consoles onto store shelves. This is the part that disappoints the fanboy media like myself. We want all the access and the attention, but we (particularly the smaller outlets) kind of got left to the sidelines.
In 2010, this didn't bother me. I was still starstruck with the spectacle and was just insanely geeked to be there. In 2011, this bothered me a lot. We have readers who depend on us for information (or at least prefer us over the larger outlets), and we were being told we had to wait for up to 3 hours to see BF3.
But, like I said above, I still love E3 for what it actually is. Without it, publishers would have to find other ways to wow their buyers, and there would be so much less access than we get.
2011 was an extremely social event for me. Icrontians were everywhere, and I got to meet @Charshie, @Church4252, and @Sledgehammer in person. I also made some industry contacts and met a few new friends. I got to watch @primesuspect wolf down teriyaki fish in lettuce cups (I participated too, quite a lot) 'till he made himself sick.
And yes, I would do it all over again.
So, to answer the question: Yes. E3 is still relevant, and probably always will be. Publishers don't NEED it to get their games sold, but the auto industry doesn't need the NAIAS to get its cars sold either. Yet they're both still going strong.
1. I think that E3 is relevant to those who are true gaming enthusiasts or hobbyists. It's great to get the news about upcoming titles and companies do a relatively good job of building that buzz.
2. Where E3 is ruined is as a result of the "exclusiveness" of events and parties. I understand needing to restrict attendee #'s based upon venue size, but it's sad that it's become a competition for anyone who isn't part of the "cool kids" club to try and enjoy some post show activities. It's equally sad that companies have also pushed this to make their events exclusive which when you pull away the "glitz and glamour" rarely have anything to do with the game or company they are representing. It's a chance to capture additional retention and outdo another company. But it doesn't generate sales, pre-orders or anything else.
3. E3 needs to evolve. The mobile and social gaming space has grown faster than any industry analyst could predict and nothing is being done currently to capitalize upon this. Some companies will take advantage of this and setup their own demo stations for mobile/social, but historically it's been an afterthought.
4. At some point companies may realize that the effort and expense of E3 is better spent at internal events at their own studios or at other locations. MS has done this before as has E3 with EA3 taking place before E3 for judging purposes as well as Summer Showcase which takes place in July/August. This allows for exclusive 1:1 time for press and development teams to just get to the basics of the game and it's marketing. And maybe some barbecue. When this becomes a more adopted practice, something will give between either hosting these type of events or spending the time at E3. I could be wrong, but some bean counter will then realize that they could get the same bang for their buck doing their own event with optimum coverage than participating in a larger one where you have to compete for coverage.
Time will tell who's right.