Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
E3

E3 - So, How Did It Go? 57

Posted by Zonk from the a-little-bit-here-a-little-bit-there dept.
With all of the journalists at last week's E3 event home and rested, the post-game analysis is definitely something to take note of. The elbow room at Barker hanger was appreciated, but many folks were frustrated that the hotel and hanger format was hell on shoe leather. Despite that, everyone seemed to appreciate the ability to actually hear and play the games, even if it meant that they couldn't make it around to every single title this year. The only person I saw saying that the event was an unqualified failure was Michael Pachter, the well-known games industry analyst. Calling the event 'a terrible disappointment', Pachter lamented the almost complete lack of coverage from the mainstream press; a result of the removal of the public and consumer-focused elements of the show. For the views of industry heavyweights, Kotaku put the question to Sony's Jack Tretton, Microsoft's Peter Moore, and Nintendo's Shigeru Miyamoto. Their quote from Tretton summed it up nicely, I think: 'From a personal standpoint I think we need to figure out why we're doing E3.'
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

E3 - So, How Did It Go? More

E3 - So, How Did It Go?

Comments Filter:

  • Yeah. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by morari ( 1080535 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2007 @10:12AM (#19886935) Journal
    From a personal standpoint, they do need to figure that out. It's a waste of time and money for games that already cost too much and take too long to produce. If they really need to put all of their eggs in one basket and announce everything in one fell swoop of wasted efforts, then they could start their own individual conventions... It seems to work well enough for Blizzard and Id.
    • You mean, like the big PS3 launch evening in London or Paris where the journalist to customer was about 3:1?
      At least, on a major event like E3, people not interested in their shallow and overpriced products can still spare 10 min to take a look at their stand.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by soupd ( 1099379 )
      As a gamer, I love E3. No I don't actually go - I'm in the UK and even if I wanted too, I don't think I could be having with all of the trekking around involved in the new format, but as a gamer, it's GREAT. Where else (maybe the TGS) do you get some much new information, screens, trailers and so on, released during so short a space of time?

      Isn't E3 supposed to be about creating a buzz and enthusiasm for gaming? I'd hate to see it disappear, or even for Microsoft, Nintendo or Sony to drop out of attending.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by morari ( 1080535 )
        I would tend to disagree. E3's overblown, extravagant approach was not beneficial to gamers. What it often did was push back release dates and as a result possibly allow games to be marketed before they're actually ready. Many companies put incredibly ridiculous amounts of effort and money into splitting teams up in order to produce playable demos and viewable trailers which are all completely separate from the game actually being worked on. Besides, a lot of the hype in conventions past were regulated to a

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by soupd ( 1099379 )
          Trailers of cinematics and game play are par for the course these days when it comes to marketing, why do you think it's any more effort to produce a trailer for E3 than routine trailer releases? I drop in at Game Trailers (www.gametrailers.com) every few of days and there pages of new game trailers to look at. Likewise, how is the time spent taken to produce a playable demo "wasted"? With playable demos becoming the norm on Xbox Live and PlayStation Network, this just doubles as a try-before-you-buy opport
      • E3 told the mainstream media that gaming was about fat teenagers playing violent games, and scantily clad booth babes. It was not good for gaming.

  • Proofreading? (Score:5, Informative)

    by MooseMuffin ( 799896 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2007 @10:12AM (#19886941)
    "The only person I saw saying that the event was an unqualified failure was Michael Pachter, the well-known games industry."

    Did anyone read this before posting it? I mean subtle spelling and punctuation mistakes slip through, but there's a freaking word missing here.

  • What an ingrate (Score:5, Funny)

    by twosmokes ( 704364 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2007 @10:15AM (#19886975)
    Michael Pachter, the well-known games industry.

    You'd think he'd appreciate the event a bit more seeing as how it was thrown in HIS honor!
    • It should be obvious to everyone that the lack of adorative gamers and hedonism inspiring booth babes at this E3 has upset our grand master. Pray that we can appease him before Christmas, or his dark will shall bring upon us the great plagues of scratched discs, bricked consoles, unresponsive controllers, and memory card wipes!

  • I love Jack Tretton's little quote there... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2007 @10:37AM (#19887207) Journal
    "From a personal standpoint I think we need to figure out why we're doing E3."

    Yeah, Jack, I think you do. Could you also figure out what you're doing with the PS3 while you're at it, please? Because, to the rest of us, it looks like you guys don't have a clue.

    Lies (that $1,200 bounty), deceptions (compatibility), misinformation (price cuts that aren't price cuts). Is there a Sony strategy in the pipeline that doesn't involve being dishonest with its customers?

    • Re:I love Jack Tretton's little quote there... (Score:4, Funny)

      by abaddononion ( 1004472 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2007 @10:50AM (#19887401)
      No.

      Thank you for your business.

      ~Jack Tretton

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by EveryNickIsTaken ( 1054794 )
      My favorite is what they're doing with the new version of the PSP. Of course, Sony could have named it something like... PSP lite, PSP-2, etc. Instead, the morons name it PSP-2000. That's so.. 1999. I'm surprised they didn't make it more "hip" and call it the PSP-2k.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
      What are you crabbing about. I am sure that once the novelty of the Wii wears off and all those hot new games for the PS3 come out you will be begging to send your money to Sony. In fact you should rush out and buy a PS3 now while they are available! The PS3 will be a huge smash by March of 08!

      Oh and yea I am kidding.
  • The only person I saw saying that the event was an unqualified failure was Michael Pachter, the well-known games industry.

    Didn't the games industry put the show on in the first place? Why did he bother if it was such a failure?

  • Failure (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Aladrin ( 926209 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2007 @10:45AM (#19887303)
    He may be the only one calling it an unqualified failure, but he's not the only way to say it was horribly managed and very hard on the journalists.

    Since the whole POINT of the show is now the journalists, shouldn't it have totally centered around them?

    The big complaint: Everything was spread out. Every vendor had a different hotel, and the display hangar was 20-30 minutes away. There was -no- way to get to each conference on time, and people actually started to skip conferences that they didn't deem worthy of running for.

    Several journalists also noted that you had to have an appointment to try a game and you were SOL otherwise. There was no chance to walk by a booth and suddenly find a great game that nobody else noticed yet. You HAD to know they existed, or at least that the company was worth talking to, beforehand.

    The vendors loved the fact that they didn't have to move an inch, though some said "can't" instead of "don't have to".

    All the vendors had a vastly scaled-down offering to show, and very few had anything that hadn't been already announced and releasing before year end.

    Yes, E3 has successfully contracted their span and have very little to offer the gamers that wanted to hear news of their games. Unfortunately, the target audience (journalists) wanted exactly the same thing and also didn't get it.

    So while it was not an 'unqualified failure', I think it still deserves the failure label.

    • Re:Failure (Score:5, Informative)

      by Samedi1971 ( 194079 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2007 @01:18PM (#19889739)
      Since the whole POINT of the show is now the journalists, shouldn't it have totally centered around them?

      That's a common misconception. It is NOT about the journalists. It's an industry business to business conference, where hardware and software producers network with the distributors. It evolved into a media circus and now is used to market games to the public, but the reason for the big change this year is that the big names threatened to withdraw if the public and the 3rd-tier journalists weren't excluded.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by madsax ( 203690 )
        Your comment highlights how E3 had evolved into a show without a focus, and this year's event didn't serve to sharpen that focus, unfortunately.

        One of the great things about the spectacle that was the former E3 was that it gave the game industry a ton of coverage from the US mainstream press. What conference exists now that can do that? None of them really - though I hope that VGXpo, PAX, or E for All continue to grow and are able to fill in that gap.

        As a B2B publisher/developer event E3 was a failure sin
        • As I mentioned, E3 brings the publishers and distributors together. That's not exciting or sexy, so you don't hear anything about it. Unless you're one or the other, it probably looks like a total failure. And as you said, the GDC is the place to bring the developers and publishers together, which is a very different focus. I think both can be successful and seperate.

          As the GDC gains in popularity and media attention, how long will it take before it's the new media circus?
          • Except for the fact that publishers (and developers) and distributors weren't brought together at all. If you didn't have an appointment with anyone, tough luck. All the big wigs were back in their hotel rooms and booth managers could've been replaced by an intern handing out mission statements.

            All the real "goodies" to come out this year are a couple videos which could've been released a number of different ways (Halo 3, Super Mario Galaxy and MGS4 look amazing), some expected developments (another Wii-wa


  • "From a personal standpoint I think we need to figure out why we're doing E3."

    E3 still generated several front page stories *a day* on /., and all the other nerd/gaming news sites.
    • E3 still generated several front page stories *a day* on /., and all the other nerd/gaming news sites.

      Only because of the keynotes. E3 could just as easily have been replaced by Keynote Day, where all three console makers agree to give a "State and Future of the Console" address from wherever they were. At least from the public standpoint.
      • Even then, we didn't learn a whole lot. We got a few release dates, some promises, and a little video footage. Most of that, however, was either from the big 3 or major developers like Konami and Capcom. Even that was scaled back from what was typical, and there was little from smaller developers.

        The E3 information bonanza isn't what it used to be.

  • What if they abandon E3? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ScotchForBreakfast ( 1060672 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2007 @10:47AM (#19887347)
    My concern is that over the long run the big console makers and publishers will abandon E3. Rather they'll just host their own private events where they can schmooze their own had picked gaming media friends however they like. This would leave the smaller developers with no showcase to show their wears. Although for all I know this may already be the case to a certain extent... :(
    • This would leave the smaller developers with no showcase to show their wears.

      I'm glad smaller developers have something to wear. Most of them are too ugly to be seen naked.

      But there are plenty of places for small developers to showcase their wares. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of conventions across this country that They could go to to provide demos and show screen caps, etc... I can name 4 that would provide them with a wide exposure to many gamers: GenCon, Origins, ComiCon, and DragonCon. I re
  • Did anyone catch star wars the force unleashed? I'm quite looking forward to this game. I think it's gonna be THAT game which will make me finally buy one of the newer consoles. At this point I want something that'll let me play guitar hero :D
  • But this years E3 was great IMHO. We got news, got to see upcoming games, good PR events (I hate PR events, but I also like to find out wtf is going on in the gaming world and this is a good chance for that).

    Old E3 was fun, but it was more about booth babes, and just handing random crap to thew 23458349589304 of people who showed up.

    I foudn this E3 and from the few people I know who went, they all loved it. no more spending an hour fighting your way across the floor just to see something on the other side.

    P
  • a more boring E3. Announcements about games we all knew about, Epic giving in to Games For Windows Live when they have complained so vocally about the 360 Marketplace, etc... First E3 in a while that left me wondering what I will play next year, or if I really care any longer.
  • If you are like me, which I suspect you are, then when E3 comes by every year, you simply visit IGN or similar, download some videos and read some editorials. I hear that for the journalists, this E3 was quite different. For me, and probably you too, it was quite the same.

  • I didn't think it was bad (Score:3, Informative)

    by The-Bus ( 138060 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2007 @11:24AM (#19887893)
    From a consumer's standpoint, it was terribly boring. Most surprises you could count on one hand. Last year's E3 was much better, in my opinion.

    But this year's E3 wasn't bad. It just seemed not to be... for us. Nintendo's presentation seemed especially aimed at investors and other developers. The sooner you can get someone to join your platform, the sooner you can have a lot of great third party titles, which has been a Nintendo console weakness the past ten years. The message seemed to be, "We're doing well. Developers, join us if you haven't already done so. It's worth the investment of time and money."

    Sony's was actually wonderful, compared to last year's embarassment. At least most of the games announced seem to be available in the next 18 months and not years and years off.

    Microsoft's I didn't see.

  • What percentage of gamers actually care about E3? I'm willing to bet that less than one person in a thousand that plays video games paid any attention at all to E3.

    I haven't done a survey, and I pulled the number directly from my ass, but I might even be overstating the figure. The vast majority of internet-connected gamers will base their game purchases on some reviews, and their console purchases on price and what their friends bought so they can play against each other.

    E3 is only good for telling p
    • That is true for most gamers, but I would argue that for a "hardcore" gamer E3 is comparable to a major holiday or festival like Christmas, if possibly more so. I know I feel that way.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by CRiMSON ( 3495 )
      I found E3 pretty good imo, I watched most of the coverage, and it was exciting to be shown games tha tI'll be playing in this year, Not games and tech demos for shit that I may get to play in a year or 2. but then again, E3 isn't really for us.
  • Considering that about 80 percent of the game releases at E3 are for games that will release in October of this year, or next year, it's hard for the general gaming public to get excited about them.

    And most of the "game demos" were actually films - not actual game play on a screen, but artificial film that may or may not be true to the real game play when it releases.

    Just think of the hype for PS3 games - turned out many of those wonderful videos last year had zero to do with the final game release for the
  • ...for two reasons:

    (a) Boobies!
    (b) Game announcements that blew my fucking mind. Everyone remembers the 2003 Half-Life 2 presentation for example, even if it was built on a pile of fake (eg. NPC actions unscripted my ass, but still.)
  • Let's look at the history of E3 (as I understand it, anyway) and try to figure out what it turned into.

    In a nutshell, the Electronic Entertainment Expo was supposed to be a trade show. It was a place for producers, publishers, retailers, and hardware manufacturers to mingle and network, showcase products to one another, and set up business deals. (This is the point of a trade show, after all.) It was also a significant press event, where companies would go to make presentations and hopefully turn some heads

Slashdot Top Deals

If you think the system is working, ask someone who's waiting for a prompt.

Close