Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
E3 Technology

Were The "Winners" of E3 Enough To Ensure Survival? 101

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the long-in-the-tooth dept.
Now that the industry is winding down after another E3, it's time to reflect on the relative success of the show. Paul Govan reflects with a GeekDad view of the "winners" of this years show. The question is, after the attempts to scale it back to a much more exclusive event, has E3 managed to escape obscurity and defeat at the hands of up-and-comers like PAX? Highlights of the show included Microsoft's new controller-less interface, a sexier PSP, and a myriad of releases from Nintendo.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Were The "Winners" of E3 Enough To Ensure Survival?

Comments Filter:
  • Haven't cared much (Score:4, Insightful)

    by stoolpigeon (454276) * <bittercode@gmail> on Friday June 05, 2009 @11:52AM (#28224425) Homepage Journal

    As I doubt I'll ever have an opportunity to go. PAX on the other hand - I haven't made it yet but I will eventually. So e3? meh. PAX? yes- absolutely I am stoked it is doing well as I look forward to being a part of it in the future.

    • by moderatorrater (1095745) on Friday June 05, 2009 @12:21PM (#28224879)
      That attitude is the one I share, and I think shows the difference between the two shows. After all, E3 is about game companies showing off to each other, PAX is about people who love gaming getting together. I belong to the second group, but not to the first.
      • by flitty (981864) on Friday June 05, 2009 @01:21PM (#28225721)
        I think they both have their place. E3 is used by the consoles to show their latest and greatest reason for existing, and a chance for the gaming market to make a case to the public about it's wares, with it's best shirt on. NPR covered E3 this week, along with other news outlets. I've yet to hear any mention of PAX on national media, even though it seems to be much more appreciated by the gaming community. I think that E3 needs to exist separately from PAX, or else you'll only taint PAX, and kneecap the ability for these corporations to make their best marketing pitches.

        Most gamers know that the claims put out during E3 are crap (my favorite this year "Only the PS3 has the power to run this 40' x 80' display!"), and everyone looks at any claims made during E3 with the appropriate skepticism. it's nice to have that kind of marketing speak segmented to it's own show, and I'm glad it's back to serve this purpose.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by nschubach (922175)

          Most gamers know that the claims put out during E3 are crap (my favorite this year "Only the PS3 has the power to run this 40' x 80' display!")

          ...anyone that thought that was not an attempt at humor or sarcasm anyway is a fool or a "fanboy."

          You don't honestly think they wanted people to believe that, do you?

      • The first however is what leads to you getting the second.

        If Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo get a good response for their technology, the game developer wants to use it to make money selling games to those interested parties.

  • More of the same (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Drakkenmensch (1255800) on Friday June 05, 2009 @11:53AM (#28224437)
    From my personal view as someone who was not able to attend and was left with television and website coverage, 2009's edition was little more than 2008 with booth babes and more people in the background. Press conferences were lifeless as ever, with a few scant release announcement to cut the hum-drum of what looked like a stockholders quarterly fiscal meeting laced with flat corporate-approved jokes.

    In short, can we have PAX yet?

    • by Jurily (900488)

      From my personal view as someone who was not able to attend and was left with television and website coverage, 2009's edition was little more than 2008 with booth babes and more people in the background. Press conferences were lifeless as ever, with a few scant release announcement to cut the hum-drum of what looked like a stockholders quarterly fiscal meeting laced with flat corporate-approved jokes.

      In short, can we have PAX yet?

      At least the fifth comment has any freaking hint as to what "E3" actually is. And this on a website that regularly explains in the summary what a logical XOR is. (Both links treat it as defined, too.)

      • by osu-neko (2604)
        Well, yes, just as an entertainment news segment on TV might explain what a "MacGuffin" is but assume they don't need to explain what "Hollywood" is.
      • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Entertainment_Expo [wikipedia.org]

        Christ, that was difficult. I suppose it also could've been "E-3 visa, a non-immigrant visa allowing Australian citizens to live and work in the United States", among other things, but it seems like the most obvious one given the context of the summary.

        It's hard to believe you've never heard of it though... Your UID is lower than mine so you've been around on /. for several years; even back when E3 was huge, before they scaled it back.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    So I guess that E3 has managed to escape obscurity and defeat for now.

    • by 2short (466733) on Friday June 05, 2009 @01:08PM (#28225531)

      Well, what one random Anonymous Coward has heard of may not be the best standard. Just FYI,

      The impressive E3 attendance being reported here: 41,000
      2008 PAX attendance: 58,500

      I'm not sure why E3 is described as trying to "escape" defeat at the hands of PAX. How about, Can E3 recover from the defeat PAX has dealt it?

      More to the point though, E3 and PAX have different goals. E3 tries to generate press for it's exhibitors. PAX tries to generate enjoyment for it's attendees. So your having heard of E3 while PAX is better attended may indicate the success of both shows.
      • by Cheeko (165493)

        And thats not taking into account the fact that PAX has already planned to start holding 2 iterations per year. One on each coast.

        Its really pretty simple E3=conference for game companies PAX=conference for gamers. The population of one is much greater than the other.

        • E3 was only ever a conference for game companies and the supply chain very very long ago and the last 2 years ... as the last 2 years showed game companies simply didn't feel the need for a conference like that any more. E3 as a marketing tool towards end users was a far bigger success, it generated lots of hype ... a success they are now trying to recapture.

          Although PAX is in competition with them now, I don't think that will last as E3 moves back to letting the online "press" in (ie. any joe with a blog).

          • by Cheeko (165493)

            I think more importantly PAX doesn't WANT to.

            They succeed at getting the community energized and just together having fun. A smart company would use that not to get media attention, but to target the people it cares about getting its message. I would hazard to say that the press coverage of a large newsbit at E3 generates as much new interest in a game, as a great demo at PAX that spreads word of mouth through the community there.

            Its similar to why PA is such a success. Like minded people taking their in

      • by osu-neko (2604)

        More to the point though, E3 and PAX have different goals. E3 tries to generate press for it's exhibitors. PAX tries to generate enjoyment for it's attendees. ...

        The problem comes when one notes that generating enjoyment for attendees (and thus drawing huge numbers of them) is quite possibly the single most effective tactic for generating press for the exhibitors. With PAX, it's the primary goal, whereas with E3, it's just a means to the actual end, but it's irrelevant whether its a direct or indirect goal, the fact remains PAX will become more successful at both at this rate.

        And that's without even considering the breakdown of centralized media and the rise of the

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by 2short (466733)

          "The problem comes when one notes that generating enjoyment for attendees (and thus drawing huge numbers of them) is quite possibly the single most effective tactic for generating press for the exhibitors."

          I'm not sure that's true, though I agree that the rise of blogs moves things more in this direction.
          Industry big-wigs making a lot of announcements about the fabulous things they are going to do in the coming year, even if it is half vaporware, makes great fodder for people who want to talk
  • by PhrostyMcByte (589271) <phrosty@gmail.com> on Friday June 05, 2009 @11:56AM (#28224493) Homepage
    I don't really understand why E3 can't be more like Comic-Con. Make it a fun event for gamers. It's not like the press will find it any harder to get info. Create some panels, signings, big rooms for LAN games, etc.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Beelzebud (1361137)
      Because companies like 3D Realms and God Games made it an L.A. Strippers Convention for a few years there.
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Tigersmind (1549183)

        I fail to see the downside. Games + Strippers? /giggity

      • Because companies like 3D Realms and God Games made it an L.A. Strippers Convention for a few years there.

        You're right, press, especially videogame press, could never find it's way into strippers.

      • by Mex (191941)

        That's what made it even more popular... The strippers and booth babes.

    • by whiledo (1515553) *

      You basically just described PAX. Seriously, everything you just said is in there. They modeled it after comic conventions.

    • by Cheeko (165493)

      Basically make it PAX with press conferences?

    • by bickle (101226)
      Because it is not intended for entertaining the fans. It is an industry event to drum up interest in their titles and get retailers to order copies.
    • > I don't really understand why E3 can't be more like Comic-Con. Make it a fun event for gamers. It's not like the press will find it any harder to get info. Create some panels, signings, big rooms for LAN games, etc.

      As someone who was there all 3 days, you're missing the point of its purpose: its targeted for publishers and the media, not gamers.
      That said, I got a chance to play Silent Hill: Shattered Memories, Torchlight, and Jade Dynasty amongst many, many others.

      The show is already big enough, that i

  • Yeah okay, it would be entertaining to play a multiplayer game of super mario...

    For about five minutes.

    Then I would want to play a real game.
    I don't understand how every person reviewing E3 needs to mention that. It's not that cool. It's not original.
    • by sys.stdout.write (1551563) on Friday June 05, 2009 @12:09PM (#28224719)

      Yeah okay, it would be entertaining to play a multiplayer game of super mario...

      You could do this on Super Nintendo! This guy in green clothes named "Luigi" could be moved with another "controller" held by your "friend".

      By friend I mean the kid down the block who always mooched off my Nintendo and smelled a little bit like pee.

      I'm sorry, what were we talking about? Oh yeah, E3 is becoming obsolete. I agree.

      • by whiledo (1515553) *

        That's not multiple players, that's alternating players.

        • by osu-neko (2604)

          Actually, if we're talking about Mario Bros, that's multiple players, not alternating players.

          Multiple players is not something new. It was a standard feature of Pong and Tank in the early 70's. Naturally, it was also a common feature of early home consoles, well before GP's Super Nintendo came along. I remember many a fine day kicking sibling ass in front of the black & white in the basement (there was no point connecting those consoles to the fancy color TV, and mom wanted to be able to actually wa

          • by whiledo (1515553) *

            Actually, if we're talking about Mario Bros, that's multiple players, not alternating players.

            I considered that he might be talking about that. But it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense since the play mechanic was totally different. Mario Bros showed up on the SNES in Super Mario All Stars. Might as well talk about Mario Kart, which came out before it. Yes, Mario Bros was released before then but the poster specifically said SNES.

            Really, I'm just taking them far too seriously, as it's obvious that their comment was a throwaway joke that wasn't meant to actually be viewed logically. Still,

    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Yeah okay, it would be entertaining to play a multiplayer game of super mario...

      For about five minutes.

      You've obviously never played a multiplayer game of Zelda on the Gamecube.

      Okay, granted, it's phenomenally unlikely you would have, given the requirements (four people, each with GBAs, plus four GBA-to-GC cables), but still, the one time I could pull that off with my friends, it was an insane amount of fun for a few hours. A deceptively vicious combination of cooperation and screaming obscenities at each other in less-than-cooperative points. And it would've been fun the next time, too, if we could ever g

    • by KDR_11k (778916)

      NSMB (DS) had that multiplayer mode for two people, those who played it loved it.

    • by MAD R (1570369)
      You haven't played Super Mario War [72dpiarmy.com], have you? the game its based on is basically a simple death match mode of Super Mario where you try to jump on the other player, and this updated version adds power ups from the various games into the mix. It's probably what this new super mario bros game will devolve into after a few minutes of "friendly co op gameplay", though hopefully Nintendo will include a death match mode too.
      • by osu-neko (2604)

        Ah, Mario returns to its roots. One of the most compelling gameplay elements of the original Mario Bros. was knocking an enemy back right-side up as your friend attempted to get it. XD

        Still, Joust was a lot more fun...

    • by Millennium (2451)

      So you've gotten so desperate to hate the Wii that you're now saying Mario isn't a real game? Sounds like someone needs a nap.

  • Summary != Article (Score:5, Informative)

    by Trojan35 (910785) on Friday June 05, 2009 @12:06PM (#28224673)

    Is it just me, or did the article have absolutely nothing to do with the E3 question in the summary? I was expecting an article on E3's success/failure/survivability, and instead I got a Wii-Sports love-fest.

    • Wow, you actually RTFA?!
      • by nschubach (922175)

        Heck, I just read the first two and last three paragraphs, looked a the photos and gleaned enough information from those to determine: The article seemed to me to be slanted toward Nintendo. ;)

        • by 7Prime (871679)

          I agree, the article was crap. However, I think Nintendo won E3 still the same, but because it actually paid attention to hardcore gamers this time around, instead of just ignoring them and appologizing for it later. Honestly, I haven't seen any attention given to WiiSports Resort, and everyone I've talked to thought Project Natal was a complete joke. Metroid, Golden Sun DS, and Super Mario Galaxy 2 did it for me. Sony had "Trico" (unfortunately leaked early), and Microsoft had just about nothing (save a po

    • by PrescriptionWarning (932687) on Friday June 05, 2009 @01:13PM (#28225615)
      yes, they had a wii-mote in their pants. no they're not happy to see you.
    • by Painted (1343347)
      Agreed, the author clearly "knew" there was one winner, Nintendo. Personally, both the MS and Sony info was far more compelling. Having the article be 80% "boo-yah! Nintendo" and 20% "oh yeah, there were some other companies there too" makes a complete lie out of both the headline and the summary...
      • by Rogerborg (306625)
        And yet, it spookily echoes the real world profits. Yeah, profits, I went there. I'm so all about the 1998.
    • Remember, the media throws things like, "Who won E3?" into their headlines in order to grab readers. No one actually wins or loses the event. The media is here to report the news and, at times, give their opinion of an event. Some things you'll agree with; some things you'll disagree with. Some do a good job of summarizing; some do not. However, the point of the article is to give you information while giving you another perspective to take into consideration while forming your own.
  • PAX is unlike E3 (Score:5, Informative)

    by trevorrowe (689310) on Friday June 05, 2009 @12:14PM (#28224791) Homepage
    I live in the Seattle area and have attended the last 4 PAX events. PAX won't replace E3. Don't missunderstand, PAX is probably much more fun of an event than E3 ever will be. PAX is for the community of gamers, not for the publishers and developers. Sure, there is some spill-over, but PAX is overwhelmingly a gamer convention.
    • I don't even know why people ever thought that a convention for game makers and retailers would be suited for game players or vice versa. Some overlap where the gamers can interact with the people who make their hobby possible, sure. But it sounds like E3 had turned into a circus where it was impossible to get any real work done.

  • Press conference videos of the big 'three' (Microsoft,Sony,Nintendo) are here:

    http://e3.gamespot.com/press-conference/microsoft-e3/ [gamespot.com]

    Microsoft won it for me, big time. Do not miss the project Natal introduction in Microsoft video (even with Steven Spielberg, pretty amazing stuff).
    • by nutshell42 (557890) on Friday June 05, 2009 @01:12PM (#28225587) Journal
      Project Natal is useless and the way everyone's going gaga over it is ridiculous.

      It's in no way precise enough for precision input (just look at the breakout demo). It's not bad but lacks that last bit that would make it useful. Add the lack of a button-containing controller (oh yes, you can just use gestures...well, the demo of the UI and the paint stuff shows why that doesn't work. You have to flail around like crazy for everything) and the fact that many people have neither the space nor the physical ability for kickboxing in their living room and you will realize that Natal Sports is gonna be like Wii Sports. Timing games with a few exaggerated gestures for the casual demographic.

      I don't go gaga about celebrity appearances and imho the voice acting in the Alan Wake demo was just awful (pity, I *really* looked forward to that game). The one moment of brilliance in MS' press conference was the Modern Warfare demo. Holy shit I need that game.

      OTOH Sony's blinkendildo could actually be useful if their accuracy claims are true. It might enable RTSes on consoles that don't suck or table tennis where you can actually put some spin on the ball. I'm also a sucker for Last Guardian (kitty dragon ftw.) but the PSP Go didn't deliver (too ugly, too expensive).

      I couldn't care less about Nintendo.

      • by whiledo (1515553) *

        Yes, but still... [penny-arcade.com]

      • by nschubach (922175)

        I'm in total agreement with just about every point you made. I just don't think the technology is there to be able to do what Microsoft claims (without some frustration and oddity.) If they do manage to get it working flawlessly, I'll be surprised but I'm not holding my breath.

        Is it just me or is there an abundance of overly zealous and wishful thinking people in the past year or so? Obama, Microsoft Natal... it's like someone put the world on "uppers" and they all think that somehow magic things will ju

      • by webheaded (997188)
        Pretty much the same here for me. All I see from the guy at wired is a bunch of gushing over more shovelware. Microsoft's conference was ho-hum and I guess the camera thing is cool but I think Sony really kicked ass.
      • by rbarreira (836272)

        Project Natal is useless and the way everyone's going gaga over it is ridiculous.

        100% agreed! It's like everyone turned off their brains and started preaching "Natal is the future of gaming".

        People don't realize that what makes the Wii remote work is the combination of motion controls, IR aiming and buttons/analog stick for things that motion doesn't do well. Essentially Natal will turn every game into something similar to the worst Wii software, which doesn't use motion judiciously. Either that or they'll

  • I'd say... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Darkness404 (1287218) on Friday June 05, 2009 @12:24PM (#28224919)
    I'd say no one "won" E3. Nintendo's releases were "meh" at best, sure the new Metroid looks good, but Wii Sports and the rest of the "Wii" series are glorified tech demos. The multiplayer Mario game looks sort of OK, but it reminds me too much of LoZ: 4 Swords which wasn't that great. Sony shot itself in the foot with a UMD-less PSP, and their motion control like most things by Sony will be a decent implementation... But far too expensive and supporting only a few games (just look at how little the Six-Axis controller is used). The new motion control for the 360 looks interesting, but like most things done by MS, its going to have a terrible implementation.

    I'd say everyone "lost" at E3, other then perhaps the new Golden Sun DS game I won't be buying anything demoed unless they get really, really, great reviews.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Wii Sports and the rest of the "Wii" series are glorified tech demos

      Wii Sports and Wii Play are still widely played among the people that I know. Wii Fit is extremely well selling. Wii Music is the only flop that I can see off the top of my head from the "Wii" series. All told, even if they are just "glorified tech demos," they're still more popular than any game that I can think of on the other systems. Between that, the new Metroid, and a co-op version of their most popular game on their systems, they had something for everybody this year. I would say that 3 games which a

      • Sure, but there are a lot of people who play solitaire on Windows computers. Yet its not really that much of a game when compared to, say, Halo or Oblivion. Sure, they will be hits but as a loyal Nintendo fan for many years I can't help but feel disappointed. I played Mario rather than Sonic, defended the N64 from Sony fanboys, even got a Gamecube on release day, along with waiting till midnight to get a Wii. Nintendo has almost abandoned its true fans. The last real hardcore Nintendo game was Brawl for the
        • by sdsichero (859332)
          What do you mean by "[solitaire is] not as much of a game when compared to, say Halo"? It is possible that Halo will be around in 100 years, but I am pretty sure solitaire will be. Don't get me wrong, I love my videogames... but sadly I am also one of those who cannot dedicate large chunks of time to one nowadays. I see Nintendo still working on their IP (Mario, Metroid, Zelda, Excite, etc) and trying to build new ones (Sports, Brain, Pikmin, Chibi Robo)... Of COURSE I wish they could do more, but I'd ra
    • The multiplayer Mario game looks sort of OK, but it reminds me too much of LoZ: 4 Swords which wasn't that great.

      I'm guessing you haven't played Four Swords Adventures for GameCube. That one was a full-blown adventure game compared to what came with the GBA Link to the Past, which was essentially a mini-game. It even includes a really fun battle mode.

      New Super Mario Bros Wii will probably be closer to the second Four Swords, so I expect it to be a lot of fun...

  • by BaShildy (120045) on Friday June 05, 2009 @12:24PM (#28224929) Homepage

    All of us on the floor who were making deals, and making important contacts all won this year as opposed to last year where it was very difficult to meet everyone due to how spread out it was.

    E3 in its current form is far more likely to succeed than its previous form. Booth babes and glam weren't the only things brought back this year. E3 was slowly becoming Gamestop-fest where more than 50% of the attendees were game players as opposed to game makers. The ratio was far better this year, with all of the infrastructure that was lacking in the E3 Santa Monica model.

    • by whiledo (1515553) *

      Basically, PAX defeated what E3 was trying to become. It was trying to mutate into a gamers convention, but it was only doing it half-heartedly because it also needed to be a press/developers convention. They were seeing some success (in terms of attendance, at least) with this, until PAX came around and provided a full-on convention for gamers. This pretty much stole the market that E3 was lurching towards serving. As your post shows, this will turn out to be a good thing for E3 The Press/Developer Eve

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by BaShildy (120045)

        Exactly, this is a win-win situation for publishers/developers and gamers as they each get their own dedicated conventions. E3 and GDC were losing focus and trying to do too many things at once. Now its very clear what each convention represents.

        PAX - For the gamers, Concerts/Fan Events, Game Announcements and Betas.
        E3 - Vendors, Publisher Press Conferences, Developer networking, Private Meeting Rooms, Lineup annoucnements
        GDC - Process sharing, Education, Job Fair, Tech Demos

        None of these conferences are

  • What industry? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Culture20 (968837) on Friday June 05, 2009 @12:27PM (#28224967)
    Pretty bad summary. It was like a past-tense German sentence (apologies to native German speakers), where I didn't know the verb until the end of the sentence. Until PSP and Nintendo were mentioned, I didn't know they were talking about a computer gaming conference. The second to last sentence made my mind race (Controller-less interface for Windows/Office? Neat!). Then I came down to earth; oh, just console gaming.
  • I have a Playstation 2, the Eyetoy camera, and most to all of the Eyetoy titles. I was assuming that Nintendo's next generation would pick up the no-controller torch, but it looks like it's going to be Microsoft. I, for one, will probably give them my money and do the nerd walk of shame back to the car with the box. So far my newest console is a Wii...

  • PAX != E3 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pcgabe (712924) on Friday June 05, 2009 @12:57PM (#28225375) Homepage Journal

    The question is, after the attempts to scale it back to a much more exclusive event has E3 managed to escape obscurity and defeat at the hands of up-and-comers like PAX?

    E3 is about games.
    PAX is about gamers.

    They're fundamentally different, and not really in competition with each other. I'm not sure where the submitter even got this question; E3 battling obscurity isn't mentioned in the article, nor is PAX, nor other expos at all.

  • Was a bit suprised that it seems like in the article he goes with Nintendo.. for me I think Sony and Microsoft showed technology that surpas anything Nintendo has. Most of the news and excitement seems to be for one of those two, not Nintendo.

    Nintendo's new hardware was last E3's Motion Plus and a Vitality Sensor (wtf?). I'm not saying it was all bad, the new Mario and the new Metroid games sound VERY impressive, almost enough for me to buy a Wii again. But I think the winner would have been Microsoft or

    • Was a bit suprised that it seems like in the article he goes with Nintendo.. for me I think Sony and Microsoft showed technology that surpas anything Nintendo has.

      That's a load of BS. With the Motion Plus addition, the Wii controller is every bit as accurate as the others. The only difference is it's an add-on.

      No one company had surprising huge announcements. At least Nintendo's announcements are guaranteed to be quality (ie SM Galaxy) and Vitality Sensor is at least innovative and new to gaming.

      Natal is not new or innovative. It's an Eye-Toy camera with a mic on it and it cna expect about as much success as the Eye Toy.

  • I feel fairly strongly that Nintendo has dropped the ball with their motion technology. They certainly had a great idea and it has helped reshape gaming, Microsoft's and Sony's motion control systems are evidence of that. However, they failed to capitalize on the technology. Too many of their games, while fun, were limited in scope and felt a bit too much like tech demos. Too many third party games were crap. And I think in too many cases the controls felt forced, like there was an obligation to feature mot

  • So, I think I can answer the question if they have obtained obscurity.
  • Microsoft unveils their Wii market grab Sega Activator clone which can, at best, only achieve Eye-toy like success.They unveil "awesome" facebook and twitter integration while not mentioning they have to do this because they're the only console without a browser and therefore lack the freedom and choice of the others.

    Sony unveils a new PSP, something people have been talking about for nearly a year so it's not be surprise and they unveil a load of predictable games. Anyone really surprised that there are
    • I'm not stalking you, but Facebook integration will be in individaul games, as in send your friends a challenge, and it can update your wall when you get achievements, etc. Having a browser built in doesn't get you that.

      I'm jonsing for Crackdown 2, and have been for like 2 years. About time. However, there's nothing sadder than the Beatles out there talking about being "androids" and how the Beatles rock Band has "great graphics." Ew.

  • The thing about PAX is it's a consumer marketing show. It's a great show to generate buzz for not a lot of money. But it's not a show where deals are going to be made. EA isn't going to ink a deal with a major retailer a swank suite at PAX. E3, sure.

    On the other hand, since I'm not in the industry I'd much rather go to PAX vs E3.

  • To be blunt, you guys are delusional. E3 is at least twice as important as all other events combined. It basically works all year long as a marketing device and the industry loves it. Every game magazine and web site runs months of pre E3 speculation and sneak peeks and rumors. The coverage takes up at least twice the amount of space in pages then any other event. Then for months afterwords the announcements are talked about. There is no better place to announce a new title or accessory if you wan
    • E3's relevance is receding. This year is a desperate attempt after two years in the wilderness. E3 is an old paradigm. Sure it was the king of the North American game design/publishing world for over a decade, but in terms of size, it's second fiddle to PAX now. Next year there will be TWO PAX events, one on each coast, which will turn PAX into a direct point of contact for (I would wager) more than 100,000 people a year. PAX is the new paradigm, reaching people directly, virally, and relevantly with no mid
  • I don't see how anyone could come to this conclusion, and it seems like no one but GeekDad actually has. Almost every other outlet covering E3 pointed out how much better both Sony and MS' offerings were than Nintendo's, on pretty much every front. Most have declared Nintendo the clear "loser" of the E3 showing, for giving us nothing better than more of the same tired first party games, and completely bullshit peripherals (Wii Vitality Sensor, anyone?).

That does not compute.

Working...