Changing E3 Expo 2007 – A Huge Mistake
Okay, in case you have not heard the rumors the past few days, it is official. The ESA has announced that they are changing the format of E3 for 2007. While they announced some of the changes, it ended with more information at a later date. Having attending E3 and going through their press credential process just to prove I am worthy of getting the plastic Press Badge holder, I think they are making a huge mistake!
The E3 of Long Ago
E3 did not start out as the huge show it is known for today. In fact it started out in Atlanta and was much smaller. You also had the two CES events each year that included video games and computers. However, once the deal was inked for the LA Expo center, CES became just an electronic show without games. A few years ago this started to change back, but not like it was.
Is E3 the Mac Daddy?
Now the ESA wants to make E3 more intimate offering more attention to the press? Yea, right! This year, despite the booth babe controversy which really was not a big deal, E3 was highly attended from a world wide gathering of vendors, press and retailers. It was a great show and for most part the main topic was Xbox and Xbox 360 (after all we are an Xbox site). I wanted to sit down and write this short editorial for our readers. I wanted them to know while E3 sounds like the Mac Daddy of all events and the Golden ticket to Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory, it is expensive and hard to cover.
Opinions are Cheap, Availability isn’t.
Websites, magazines and other media outlets send teams of 4-6 people just to cover the whole event the right way. The hotels are expensive and you have the plane ticket and taxi costs. Of course then before this, you have to register and even if you attended before, you must submit everything from credentials to a photo copy of your driver license and then wait to get accepted. Red tape is expected but each year they make it harder for the smaller people to attend. Now all of a sudden they want to cater to the press and have more workshops and events? (see the press release) Something isn’t sounding right in Gamesville.
We Want Games, Not Spreadsheets.
The bottom line is we attend the show for a few reasons and no it is not for the free shwag. We want to see the games the demos and yea I want to see the booth babes. E3 is exciting but after the event the parties and the Press conferences, you need a few days to recover. It’s like a sensory overload and I will gladly take that over shelling out all that money to attend some small meeting and boring workshops. You get a chance to network with contacts and talk with the people that at times are not reachable by a phone call or Email. I also like getting a chance to meet the people who send us our review copies and press releases.
Why Change E3 Now?
So why change it after 12 years and just signing another ten year deal? This is my opinion and my views and thoughts in no way reflect that of the editor or owner of Xbox Solution. The ESA knows they have a great thing and with this year’s attendance, they know they can change their rules and get away with it. However, here is where their plan is going to fail. While even the press love to jump on a certain bandwagon and say this year Nintendo won the show, the fact remains each of the big three had something everyone was talking about. We as journalists get a chance to play pre-builds of the games. It helps give us an idea of what to tell our readers. If the ESA decides and follows through with this plan of taking away the huge floor show and all three big players from E3, it’s just another small time event. No one is going to go through the hassle of registering and enduring the cost to attend.
CES may increase the floor space for the three and the smaller companies but they don’t have the room. My guess is that someone with a ton of money will enter the game (no pun intended) and take away the big three and invite them at a cheaper rate and get them to take part. I also question the ESA in their press statement where they said they want to give the smaller and international developers more space to show off their stuff. The ESA created this circus and now they want to lower the big tent and take away the spotlight? To me it makes no sense and seems more like another way of either getting more money or control.
Who Will Suffer? The Gamers.
In the end the press and the industry as a whole will suffer if the ESA down-sizes E3. Stay tuned for more on this as I am sure MS, Sony and Nintendo along with the developers start to release press releases in response to this. I just hope they don’t ruin something that gives us the chance to see and get valuable knowledge at one huge event. I know most others would not want to have to attend three or four other events in addition to E3 just to get the same information for their publications or websites, and I know I don’t and can’t afford to as well!
So when it comes down to the bottom line of things, and everything has a bottom line these days, it is the gamers that will suffer. Why? Because E3 will become a smaller, more managed event. This will mean that only large corporate sites (more than likely) will have the time, staff, and budget to meet with everyone. If there are no chance encounters on the show floor to see a game that truly sparkles among the rest, the only ones to know about it will be the huge conglamorates among the gaming press. If you’re not reading their material, you’ll never know what great things are in store for the industry.
We don’t have anything against big press, big companies, or big advertising deals. But lets face facts, if something is purely a business then you aren’t going to have the same outlook on things as true gamers, like the staff and visitors at Xbox Solution and other non-corporate sites and magazines have. Of course, if the companies care to spend a couple of weeks booking sites small and large, and are willing to dedicate the time and resources to reach out to the masses, then I’ve written this prematurely. But I bet that won’t be the case.
Written By Rich Reed XBS Head Writer Â
Â
Filed under: Editorials
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
E3 collapsed under its own weight. In essence, it was a media arms race between the three major manufacturers that delivered far less benefit to the declared “winner” than it cost to participate.
E3 does not directly generate sales.
E3 was never intended to connect publishers or manufacturers with the public, or even with the press, per se. It was designed to connect publishers with retailers, so those retailers could make decisions about what to order for their shelves.
That will still happen. It just will happen without the 50,000 extraneous people, without fansite webmasters, without booth babes, and without the huge headache and the huger bill.
The only negative thing about this downscaling of E3 is although it might reduce promotion expenses and allow game prices to drop, it almost certainly won’t.
Having a best of E3 logo on a game box helped companies sell more copies of that title.
E3 certainly does generate sales! More deals have been made in the bathrooms and back rooms of E3. It generates tons of sales in one form or the other!
E3 was always geared to bring Publishers and manufactors to the press that was one of the first changes made!
The last 2 comments you posted may seem like the way it will be but the truth is that E3 needs the core press that attends E3. Even more than they need the game comapnies.
The cost of a game will not drop or rise due to E3. It is and will always be a trade show it was always meant to promote. Saying by ruducing the show will help prices drop is unfounded and untrue!
Narcogen hit it on the head. E3 is primarily a forum for business and inviting 50,000 fanboys to the party just gums up the gears of work. In this business, most people go to 2 websites for their gaming information and if they don’t, they should. The only two companies that need to be invited to E3 is Gamespot and IGN. Any other website coverage is just a waste of time. I’m not saying Gamespot and IGN are the be all and end all, but in terms of BIG industry coverage they tend to do it better than anyone else. You can disagree with their reviews all you want, but when it comes to preview coverage, they really can’t be beat.
E3 has been getting out of hand. I guarantee this new format will not have any negative effect on sales. Games will still receive the “Best of E3″, but where did those come from anyway? Gamespot and IGN. It doesn’t matter if Xboxsolution or Game Revolution calls “Gears of War” the best of E3. The publisher doesn’t care about that. They care whether IGN and Gamespot call it that.
The problem with this editorial can be summed up with a quote from the article:
If you’re not reading their material (referring to large corporate gaming websites), you’ll never know what great things are in store for the industry.
Unless you’re completely ignorant of what gaming websites are the “Go To” websites for this kind of industry information, that’s EXACTLY where you’ll be going to get it. So this article is redundant. I don’t go to Xboxsolution, Gaming-age, Gamezone, Gamespy etc. during E3. Why would I? I go to the two places I know will cover almost everything, with videos and screens and detailed previews because these places have the manpower to offer that kind of coverage. This is no slight against smaller sites. It’s just, as far as I’m concerned, basic common sense.