Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
E3

Questioning the New E3 86

Posted by Zonk
from the just-like-the-last-dalek dept.
This year's E3 is substantially different than events of the past, with an easily navigated show floor just one of the signs of the changing times. There are a number of questions up in the air as to what the new face of E3 means. Hideo Kojima (creator of the Metal Gear series) went on record at the Konami conference saying that he considers the new format a waste of time. Game|Life's Chris Kohler has a piece up on this subject, and he says that the new E3 is all about the status quo: "Yes, there were press conferences. But when Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony all decide to only show their 2007 games (for the most part) and hold back on announcing huge news (entirely), you know something's up with the venue. At any rate, gamers hoping for some kind of shift in momentum, no matter which direction, didn't get their wish. This year's E3 is all about maintaining the status quo. Typically, it's been the 'battle of the press conferences' to see who 'wins E3.' This year, everybody surrendered."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Questioning the New E3

Comments Filter:
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Noone released any news at PAX this year either... If you ask me, game conferences are dead. Which is fine. The internet is here, and I have word that it's good for spreading information, media, and just about anything else you could want. Without booth babes, a game conference is just a way of putting a name to your embarrasingly nerdy face.
      • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I'm guessing the time machine you invented told you that. Because, you know... PAX07 hasn't happened yet.
      • PAX hasn't happened this year actually... month and a half til it goes down.
      • My naïve interpretation of PAX is that it's not a place to actually release news about games, as you say this is now done via the power of the interblag. PAX seems something like what E3 once was, but instead of being mixed in with the archaic idea that major announcements have to happen only once a year (etc), it's just.. the fun part. And I'm all for that.
      • Er... PAX 2007 hasn't happened yet. PAX 2007 PAX is a festival about the gamer community (not a "conference" about press releases), yet will see the world public playable premiers of dozens of games as well as a bunch of new content/announcements. And by the way, PAX specifically forbids booth babes, which might be the reason why so many (gamer) women come to the show.

        If all you're interested in is getting a glimpse of a scantily clad, non-gamer booth babe, and if you're embarrassed about being a nerd, then
        • by AuMatar (183847)
          What if you want a glimpse of scantily clad booth babes and are proud of being a nerd?
  • These companies should save themselves a few million by just announcing their new shit through the normal marketing channels, TGS or their developer events.
    • by MoonFog (586818) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @05:02AM (#19835829)
      IGN has a video from a Madden 08 event. Now, naturally, football players are present. By all means, that makes at least some sort of sense. However, this event is held in Hollywood, with almost nothing but actors and stuff present apart from the players themselves. IGN even interviews one of them who admits he doesn't even FOLLOW SPORTS!

      Generating hype around your product appears to be more important than delivering on content. E3 appeared to be just that. I, personally, prefer like you suggest to simply download some trailers and preferrably trailers that show in-game footage and footage of someone playing the game, as well as downloading demos.

      I won't cry much if E3 goes away and companies rely more on the internet like you suggest.
    • What new shit? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Opportunist (166417) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @05:35AM (#19835939)
      Have you seen anything new lately? What's new about the 2 millionth first person shooter or the n-th RTS game? Or the "08" sequel of a sports game?

      It's really braindead. Basically the most minuscle change in an interface is hyped as if it was the pinnacle of development (wow, in Supreme Commander you can now zoom in and out all the way, what innovation! This will change the world of RTS forever!), and a few new units that do essentially the same they did in earlier incarnations, just with different animations, are enough to make a game "totally new and improved".

      Or the "new" MMORPGs? Where is the big innovation?

      Wake me up when a game company comes up with something REALLY new. Basically I think that's why E3 and other "game conventions" are failing. Why bother going there to see the same old shit in new graphics? And now even without boobies...
      • Re:What new shit? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Aladrin (926209) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @06:04AM (#19836039)
        Hey, I love innovative games as much as the next guy, but true innovation does -not- happen all that often. It would basically mean an entirely new genre, because otherwise everyone will just say 'That's just an RTS mixed with an MMO' and say there was no innovation.

        I challenge you to come up with a game concept that is truly innovative. I sure as hell can't do it.

        When the technology didn't exist to realize certain genres, it was a lot easier to come up with ideas for new games. Now, we have far more power than we need and that's not holding us back anymore. Nintendo tends to innovate with hardware instead. Powerglove, zapper, etc. There's not much of that left either, though. (I'd love to see a return of the powerglove for the Wii, but that's not innovation.)

        Puzzle games still have innovations happening, but they don't appeal to nearly as many guys as the non-puzzle (action) games do. (Yes, I know women and old people have started gaming.) I like puzzle games, but if given the choice between an good RPG and a good puzzle game, I'll almost always pick the RPG.

        So again, name an innovation that would appeal to the 'typical gamer'.
        • by CastrTroy (595695)
          I think that there is a lot more room for innovation in the hardware realm. Whatever happened to VR goggles. We had a couple companies pushing them 10 years ago, and then poof, you don't even hear about them any more. But with our advances in display devices and motion sensing technology it should be possible to create a very affordable set of VR goggles. However, there's nobody doing this. Maybe Nintendo will have to step up to the plate again, and release this. The Wii is a very good family/group gam
          • by Aladrin (926209)
            That wouldn't be innovation then, would it? It would be improving a current concept, instead of innovating.

            The WiiMote isn't innovation, either, as the Powerglove and Zapper before it did everything it does. They merely improved on a concept they had made long ago.
          • Because a pair of goggles and the retarded vision of what is "Virtual Reality" would make anyone question its ability to make money.

            We need to drop the idea of the goggles and think much smaller, lighter.... and less nerdtastic.
            • Aren't they supposed to be marketing to us? If sony released a VR setup for the PS3 I'd buy one tomorrow. As it is, they've not really got much to offer, just slightly better graphics that I could get by beefing up a PC.
              • Its one thing for something to be nerdy. Its a whole nother thing when it makes you look like a complete ass....says a guy who plays DDR.

                Before VR I want to see glasses, preferably ones that extend the screen into your peripheral vision and also allow you to glance up with your eyes and see what is above you. At the same time they need something light and fairly durable. They shouldn't generate a ton of heat, and you should be able to tap a button to turn off the video and also makes them translucent, so yo
                • Check it out, I found a place that has designed some smaller VR goggles specfically for FPS gaming, and have actually brought them to market. Am still investigating though, the gun sounds kind of pony.

                  http://www.spokane7.com/tech/stories/?ID=6278 [spokane7.com]

                  http://www.trimersion.com/ [trimersion.com]

                  However, these are not the glasses you are looking for. /kenobi
                  • From what I can tell though, all it is doing is putting screens in front of your eyes. In its current form its no different than sitting in a dark room with good speaker and a big display. Something which might be more comfortable.

                    Games will have to be designed to use "VR" by allowing, very, very wide screen resolutions, wide enough so that there is stuff being rendered in you peripheral vision.The screen would have to be able to cover your entire visual range, it would also allow for a more realistic view
                    • by Bob-taro (996889)
                      I've always wondered if they could make a system that tracked your eye movements, because you wouldn't need very high resolution for peripheral vision. I guess that would only remove some of the rendering load, since you probably couldn't make the high res part of the screen or lens or whatever move to keep up with your eye movements.
        • Puzzle games still have innovation? What planet do you live on? We've been remaking 10 year old puzzle games for years now and labelling them "new & innovative". Besides a few isolated examples (Meteos and Mercurcy) the puzzle genre has been stagnent for years; largely due to the casual gaming audience.
          • by Aladrin (926209)
            It's called 'Earth', come back to it.

            Zuma? Bejeweled? Diner Dash? Oh heck, here... http://reflexive.net/ [reflexive.net] Yes, there's a ton of copycats, but there's also a -lot- of innovative games on there in the last few years. A HECK of a lot more than all other genres combined. (There are other sites as well, but Reflexive tends to have the best sampling of any single site.)
            • I laughed, but the joke lost it's humor after the 100th "match 3" game. At least you pointed to something that's kinda indie oriented.
              • by Aladrin (926209)
                Agreed, even though some of the newer 'match 3' games are pretty doggone good, and worth checking out. "Puzzle Quest" (psp/ds) is addictive to me, and "Burger Rush" (pc) totally snared my mother and sister, and they've played Bejeweled to death.

                My point (which wasn't very well stated) was that the clones should be ignored, when looking for innovation. They only cloud the issue. The fact that there are 100 beweled clones on every game site you visit doesn't take away the fact that Bejeweled was indeed an
                • Sega Swirl was the first iteration of Bejeweled I played, but I'm sure the gameplay extends a few years before that even.
        • I challenge you to come up with a game concept that is truly innovative. I sure as hell can't do it.
          Yeah, but chances are you don't get paid to come up with new ideas for new games by huge gaming/entertainment companies.
        • by Ogive17 (691899)
          Was there an update about "Spore" at E3 this year? That's one game I've been looking forward to for about a year (and I almost never look forward to games.. console or PC).

          But you are correct, true innovation rarely occurs.
        • by Maniac-X (825402)
          Someone beat you to the punch. http://www.slashgear.com/wii-power-glove-092860.ph p/ [slashgear.com]
      • by DrXym (126579)
        Have you seen anything new lately? What's new about the 2 millionth first person shooter or the n-th RTS game? Or the "08" sequel of a sports game?

        I disagree. There are plenty of amazing games. To take one example, LittleBigPlanet would be an amazing title to reveal at E3. An guaranteed game of show. Except of course it was revealed at the Sony GDC.

        The same is true of most other titles. So what's the point of E3? Why should the press bother with all the expense and effort of covering an event that shows

        • So what's the point of E3? Why should the press bother with all the expense and effort of covering an event that shows nothing new?

          The same point of just about any trade show. Showing off your products in a way that you can control, allowing the troops to travel once in a while and throwing parties on the company's dime.

          Why does the press go? Vendor parties.

      • Re:What new shit? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Kohath (38547) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @08:33AM (#19837011)
        Games are not about innovation. Games are about FUN.

        If you have a fun game that people have already played, and you add a minor tweak to it that makes it fun to play all over again, that's a good thing. It's a success. The goal of having FUN was achieved.

        New concepts in games that are not fun are failures, even if they are the most innovative thing ever.

        If you don't like games or if you're bored with them and you want something different, maybe games aren't really for you. Maybe find a non-videogame hobby for a while.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Yep, I saw something new at E3:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YzpfhAMBR8 [youtube.com]

        Regards
        elFarto
      • by p0tat03 (985078)

        I think I brought this up in another thread yesterday... but what's with the double standard with movies and games? I don't ever hear anyone on Slashdot complain about how the new summer action blockbuster du jour is too formulaic and predictable. People somehow learn that, while some movies challenge the art of the cinema, others are simply meant to entertain, not revolutionize, and we can successfully leave the critical artsy part of our minds at the door and just enjoy things blowing up and one liners be

        • If you don't hear /.ers complain about movies without plot or script, you might want to read up in the threat about that Transformers movie.

          I don't mind good games that don't change the world as we know it. What I do mind is that every single minor and insignificant tweak is called "revolutionary" and touted as if it reinvented the game industry.
      • by _xeno_ (155264)

        wow, in Supreme Commander you can now zoom in and out all the way, what innovation! This will change the world of RTS forever!

        I think this demonstrates another problem with attempting to innovate - people notice the small changes and miss the big picture. The zoom feature in Supreme Commander actually allows quite a bit of new things in the game that can't be done without it.

        One of the most obvious is unit scale - there are some units in the game that would literally take up multiple screens if you weren't allowed to zoom out. Some weapons have an area of effect that would be multiple screens. Without the zoom, these wouldn't

      • Basically the most minuscle change in an interface is hyped as if it was the pinnacle of development (wow, in Supreme Commander you can now zoom in and out all the way, what innovation! This will change the world of RTS forever!), and a few new units that do essentially the same they did in earlier incarnations, just with different animations, are enough to make a game "totally new and improved".

        Yeah, I was also really disappointed with Supreme Commander. After waiting 10 years, you would think it would ad
    • by Kohath (38547)
      No. The press would bash them endlessly. Taking away fun press perks is the fastest way to get the word out that your game sucks.
      • by DrXym (126579)
        The press already get a pile of perks. If they weren't at E3 they'd be still get their jollies to see "exclusive" looks at games, invites to other shows, invites launch parties at the Playboy mansion, goody bags full of merchandise and so on. That's not going to disappear even if E3 did.
  • E3 Is Perfect Now (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 12, 2007 @04:31AM (#19835703)
    E3 is meant to accomplish two things:

    1) Publishers and developers to all be in one place to have meetings, sign or work on deals, and all the other face to face work that goes on to get projects in motion

    2) A concentrated press event for companies to show off their stuff

    Over time E3 became a magnet for fanboys to find a way in to the show to get free promotional material, lamely try to pick up on the local LA strippers working as models, and in general just clog up the place.

    E3 is perfect now. I don't know of anyone who actually is involved with game development who doesn't love the new format.

    • E3 is meant to accomplish two things: 1) Publishers and developers to all be in one place to have meetings, sign or work on deals, and all the other face to face work that goes on to get projects in motion

      Fine, but you don't need an Expo for that.

      2) A concentrated press event for companies to show off their stuff Over time E3 became a magnet for fanboys to find a way in to the show to get free promotional material, lamely try to pick up on the local LA strippers working as models, and in general just

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Right, bad bad fans, disgusting fans who show their interest in an inappropriate way, rather than applauding the 10th reincarnation of the same old idea.

        No, they have a point. E3 was designed as an industry event meant for industry members and press. It was never meant for fans. The idea was to invite a bunch of people together from the industry, then whip out your proverbial cocks and have the press measure them to see whose was biggest. Honestly, the fans who did "crash the show" could be quite the annoyance, especially if they were making it hard to impossible for press people to cover the event and therefore report E3 to the people who either: a) h

        • Re:E3 Is Perfect Now (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Aladrin (926209) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @08:13AM (#19836823)
          I'm not questioning the initial purpose, but I am going to question the destruction of a highly-successful business.

          E3 filled a niche so well that the entire world was taking note. Instead of running with their fame, they decide to gimp themselves and return to their roots.

          This is actually not the first time something like this has happened!

          When I was young, there was a yearly food expo in Tampa. (I think it was in Tampa.) We used to go every year and check out all the booths and get the free goodies. This often included free food samples, such as tiny (like 2") loaves of bread from Wonder and such. 1 year, they decided that the pesky customers (who paid admission!) were in the way and they didn't let us in. Guess where that expo is now? It's non-existant. Turns out the vendors found it an excellent way to promote their product to customers, instead of trying to promote it to the middle man, and get the middle man to promote it to customers.

          That's what E3 was. Gamers all over the world worked themselves into a frenzy each year about each and every game announced at E3. Even the dumb games that were way overhyped saw fanboys for their products.

          This year, none of that. The closest a consumer can get is a video feed via XB-live/PS-network or some bad-grammar blogger on a game news site. Many stated their intention not to participate beforehand, and all the ones that -did- participate only announced games that will release very soon.

          Did anyone learn anything from any of the conferences? MGS4 - might be PS3 exclusive... Yeah, we knew that. We got a more solid release date on Mario Galaxy. They could have announced that without a major conference. The Wii is getting a fitness game... -yawn-

          Just because you succeed in executing your battle strategy does not mean you will win the war. Any decent tactician will tell you that plans never go right, and you must constantly adapt. E3 is attempting to stick to the original plan and it's killing them.

          Look at it another way: Many great inventions were an accident to the actual product being developed. If they'd said 'that isn't what we were aiming at' and discarded it, it would have been extremely stupid.

          Sure, E3 is welcome to do whatever they want with their expo... But that won't stop everyone from telling them how stupid they are.
          • It was the big exhibitors that asked for the change in format. E3 was good in some ways - it was certainly beloved by the individuals who got to go - but it was very bad for game companies in a couple of ways. First, it ate up a lot of funds (some companies spent enough each year on E3 to fund an entire new game) and secondly it warped the development schedule --- there are a ton of stories about a schedule that slipped because the team had to take time off to make a special demo for E3 (remember E3 was fam
            • by Aladrin (926209)
              You don't kill the cash cow. They'd have been better to have changed E3's direction to be more what the public wanted (while saving money for the Big 3), and have another show that did what the industry wanted.

              No matter what MS/Sony/Nintendo say, they're lying if they say E3 wasn't worth the money. They aren't idiots, and they simply wouldn't have spent it if that were the case.

              I don't see why E3 had to cost SO much money for the companies involved. GIVE them the floorspace they want, they can buy the st
              • by br14n420 (1111329)
                I thought the cash cow was game rentals and sales? Who is actually stupid enough to decide whether or not they will purchase a game based on how it was covered at E3 four years ago when they released the first game movies of "futuristic" game play?
        • I do not see how you can equate a rock concert to E3. A rock concert is available to the public through ticket sales by the venue or artist. E3 was supposed to be exclusively for press and insiders with strict control of admission. No matter how you spin it, the fans were "crashing" the show.

          Maybe it would have been wiser to restrict the access again or open the expo to the public for 1-2 days and continue with the smaller circle later on. Excluding your customers from a "show' -and yes it has been percei

        • Re:E3 Is Perfect Now (Score:5, Interesting)

          by DDLKermit007 (911046) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @10:49AM (#19838683)
          You really know jack assed shit about E3, let alone how a convention is run don't you? Press has ZERO trouble covering everything. The main show you see everywhere online is pretty much just allot of glitter. The people who you say should be there have whats called appointments setup. Only reason they may not get their crap done is because they were dicking around trying to win the latest GeForce Nvidia is giving away (those buttons were stupid as hell last year). Only people who have trouble covering such setups are bloggers, and lesser sites. Now while I'm of the opinion bloggers have ZERO valid press credentials, lesser sites need an oportunity to get a foot in the door which the main show is for. They get to fight through the fans to make contancts. With the current setup that is a whole hell of allot harder. This is in effect, mostly slamming the door shut on people who wish to start a site or mag up without allot more startup time.

          I've been to E3 on all sides of the fence: developer, press, and as a fan. Now while I'm all for kicking a HUGE ammount of the slobbering masses out (banning retail clerks was BIG plus this last year), but how the show is now is just crappy. If they'd just check credentials a little better, or just outright do away with the free passes anyone can get (make the entry fee $100 minimum) it'd make sure allot more people were there for reasons that don't coencide with "it was a 30 min drive from my home".
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Mikya (901578)
      E3 is perfect now. I don't know of anyone who actually is involved with game development who doesn't love the new format.

      So in other words you don't know is actually involved with game development? ;)
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      E3 is perfect now. I don't know of anyone who actually is involved with game development who doesn't love the new format.


      Did you even read the article summary? Last I checked, Hideo Kojima was "involved with game development".

    • by flitty (981864)
      Regardless of what E3 "should have been", what it became was a large expo to show off every game coming out in the upcoming year. So many gems like Guitar Hero and Shadow of the Colossus were largely off the radar until they showed at E3. I looked forward to E3 time every year to see what was coming out during the next couple months. A lot of the Wii's success came from last year's e3 hype. Half-Life 2's showing at e3 sticks out in my mind also.

      The gap that is left in the public sphere is the "coming
      • E3 was never about the game trailers. Among other things, it was about letting alot of media types get their hands on playable, if incomplete, versions of the game. Until very recently, there was no reasonable way to provide playable demo's of a console game to everyone who might want to try them. And even now, the E3 format allows the developers and publishers to have a great deal more control over access to the demo's.

        And quite frankly, alot of things that can happen in early demo's is worth hiding.

        END
  • E3 nintendo news (Score:4, Informative)

    by joe 155 (937621) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @05:26AM (#19835905) Journal
    http://ms.nintendo-europe.com/e32007/enGB/index.ht ml?feature=4Qs_Rj-SZwwItyhbXcTIfqhPN_a3EmxF [nintendo-europe.com]

    This page has the info from ninty about the E3 show, sure I guess a lot of it we might have heard of before, but Wii Fitness was a new one to me. The work out board looks pretty cool too, if they make a way to make it higher then you could do step exercises with it as well. All in all I'm glad I've got a wii/DS combo.
  • E3 (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Jaaay (1124197)
    became worthless after everyone got the internet and gets the latest news constantly, there's no real surprises anymore. 10 years ago it was a more exciting event that most people were reading about in gaming magazines only.
  • The main thing I've been unimpressed with from this E3 is lack of decent press coverage. Pretty much no commentary, insight or news of any kind has come out of the event. Instead, I've seen at least half a dozen reports from E3 which could just about pass for press releases by the companies doing the demos.

    I think they should rename it E2. Yes, it's electronic entertainment, but it's no longer an "expo".
  • Wasn't this the stated goal of the new format? Developers didn't want to spend a month or more every year putting everything on hold to try to win E3.
  • by Darlok (131116) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @09:14AM (#19837483)
    Previous posts have alluded to this, but here's a bit of history to explain what's happening. IDG didn't kill E3 to replace it with this new format. The exhibitors did... Sony, Microsoft, EA, etc. The only way trade shows succeed is if they make money by serving as a marketing tool connecting the manufacturers with the industry buyers. There's much more effective methods of reaching the gamer community than buying an expensive booth and hiring large-breasted women.

    The top exhibitors at E3 banded together and vowed to not return after last year, effectively killing the show. IDG scrambled to react, and came up with this new format in an attempt to woo exhibitors back, and continue the event. This year was something of a test. If the top companies decide the new format was an effective way to reach wholesale buyers and network with other people in their creative and supply chains, it will probably continue. If they decide it was not, E3 is most likely dead for all time.

    As wild an event as it used to be, there's no return on investment for companies to slug it out in front of a seething mass of gamers who wiggled their way in to grab bagfuls of booth swag and monopolize the demo units. It's supposed to be an industry event -- not a public event -- and the new format more strongly reflects that. Actual industry insiders apparently DO like the new format much better, though I think the jury is out on whether they liked it enough to continue. Especially in light of the emergence of other, more focused gaming conferences like the Sandbox Symposium [siggraph.org] coming up in August.

    It's not the big flashy public event it once was... but then again, it was never supposed to be that in the first place. It had to change into this, or it would no longer exist at all.

    • I've worked at trade shows, and what the parent said is true. The exhibitors have a big say in how the expo is structured. If several say they won't be buying their multi-$ booth space, then the show company has to make decisions. If the focus was for the industry, restricting access to the industry isn't a bad idea. They may have to lower exhibit space costs in order for more companies to justify purchasing a booth, but it could be a way to slowly build up the expo to becoming THE show for game compani
    • by grapeape (137008)
      Thats great except it didnt really get any manufacturers and industry buyers together that didnt already have their deals in the bag. The limited floorspace and presentation time forced out many of the smaller developers. This wasnt about the big guys not wanting to duke it out with each other is was more about the big guys not wanting to be shown up by the little guys. Development houses like Gamecock, XSEED, Techmo and SNK being a few who were either told they needed an invite or decided it was too muc
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Darlok (131116)
        Yeah. Sucks, but face it. The smaller companies don't have the financial ability to support a show like that -- trust me when I tell you that shows aren't cheap to produce, and "old E3" was even moreso than others. In a very pure sense, the big guys were subsidizing the event that the little guys could take advantage of. Is it any wonder that they decided it wasn't in their best interests to do so anymore? Yeah, the consumer and the market as a whole suffers, but E3 was not, and is not, a substitute fo
        • by grapeape (137008)
          I assume that is what the E.I.E.I.O. thing that Gamecock was planning was all about. They were the last time I read up on it planning to do an actual show next year but this year were supposed to be doing a sort of mini event near the site of E3. I have not seen any press coverage of that though so I am not sure if they pulled if off or not.

          I agree with everything you said, my only beef is that in the past the only ones who truly benefited from E3 as far as getting deals done were the small guys...without
    • by TypeC (975677)

      There's much more effective methods of reaching the gamer community than buying an expensive booth and hiring large-breasted women.
      You're right. Who needs expensive booths?
  • by d3l33t (1106803)
    The fact that e3 has become televised, and also streamed live over the internet allows thousands to enjoy the conference without actually attending. Making it perfect to communicate to the consumer on a large scale level, while also catering to the gaming business by allowing hands on demos to a select group. It's evolved, sure, but what hasn't?
  • ...but I can't help thinking that it was only because Nintendo and Microsoft were smart enough not to blow their load all at once. Maybe I'm just projecting my personal feelings for the companies, and I do have to give Sony a lot of credit for at least TRYING to turn its image around (after all, they have had a brain transplant since the release of the PS3), but I kinda get the feeling that that's ALL we're going to hear from Sony for the rest of the year. Maybe Microsoft and Nintendo knew this, and are wai
    • by anduz (1027854)
      I have the exact opposite feeling really, I watched all the press conferences live and Sonys was by far the worse of them. Not so much because it was actually worse, but because it obviously wasn't ment for a live stream unlike both the Microsoft and the Nintendo conferences.

      Both Microsoft and Nintendo wanted to give everyone sitting at home fullscreen showcasing of all the games the ywanted to show off, Sony didn't. Aside from, I think, four games games only two of them with actual gameplay footage (nba0
  • I don't know about it being a waste of time, it seems like they are getting through to their customers on a completely different level this year. Usually E3 hasn't been the big thing it was hyped up to be, it was a conference where everyone who went were in for all the treats while for everyone else it just ment that the big gamesites would have more trailers/interviews/previews and a photoseries of boothbabes...

    This year it's completely different for people sitting at home, and it's different because of
  • The action is elsewhere. It's at the Game Developer's Conference [gdconf.com] for technology, and the Hollywood Games Summit [hollywoodandgames.com] for content.

    Anyone with $799 can go to the Hollywood Games Summit. They even throw in subscriptions to both Game Developer and the Hollywood Reporter.

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..." -- Isaac Asimov

Working...