Breaking news, more info tomorrow...
Quote:Updated: Sunday, 30 July 2006
EXCLUSIVE: E3 FINISHED
By Colin Campbell
Senior industry sources have revealed to Next-Gen.Biz that the E3 industry event, in its present form, has been cancelled for next year and the foreseeable future.
Image The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) shindig has been a staple of game industry life since the mid-1990s. However, we understand the larger exhibitors have jointly decided that the costs of the event do not justify the returns, generally measured in media exposure.
Publishers believe the multi-million dollar budgets would be better spent on more company-focused events that bring attention to their own product lines rather than the industry as a whole.
Well placed sources say the news that larger exhibitors were pulling out had prompted urgent meetings among publishing executives. They decided that, without the support of the larger software publishers and hardware manufacturers, there would be no point in continuing.
ESA president Doug Lowenstein will likely announce the news some time within the next 48 hours, possibly on Monday. It's possible that the ESA will seek to limit the damage by organizing some form of lesser event in May, but it's clear that the days of an industry event attended by all the major publishers, spending big money, are gone.
Calls to ESA staff are not being returned at present.
http://next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com...8&Itemid=2
That's like cancelling Christmas!!
:bummed: Well, so long, best time of the year.
I know, this is not good news... :( I know that E3 is supposed to be for the media first, but if only the professional media gets to see things, like they seem to be suggesting, and without any of the show... where would that leave impressions from people who AREN'T part of IGN's staff? Gone? That'd be a big loss for gamers...
Wh-What? No, they...they can't DO that to us! Have they no souls?
They sold their souls cause they didn't make a profit.
And could this possibly mean...THE END OF GAME GIRLS?
it actually makes sense. If I spent 10 million bucks or more for heavy ads, propoganda, etc - rented the floor space, had a 30 minute/hour long keynote and recieved nothing but negative press and people quoting the mechanics of an upcoming game as a joke while echoing its hardware's premature failure I would be inclined to say "next year, we're spending this time and money on nude saki parties at Kutagari's house".
For serious, can you imagine spending a ton of money on having something for E3 just to see Nintendo steal the show and have very little to no coverage of your product at all? I think the thing to do is have shows that are platform specific, ie spaceworld. Although the same thing can be accomplished by releasing a large press kit on a server and let the press have at it. E3's so-called 'press' doesn't really have any real impact; even the most established hounds get 10 minutes of playtime on something and have detailed descriptions like 'I didn't understand - I wish i had more time on it - I think it could be really good or really krap, we'll keep you posted!'
Atleast a platform specific show would give the press more time to play specific games and get something better than a 5 second clip, a two paragraph review and 3 grainy pictures but wait! OMG, teh 5 second clip is DIRECT FEED (for Insiders)! I mean, it's just stupid really.
E3 hasn't been cancelled, but they have evicted all gamers from the premesis. Remember: if you're not a member of the professional gaming press who will write what we want people to hear, we don't want you around!
http://ve3dboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=24516408
Quote:To better address the needs of today's global computer and video game industry, the 2007 Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3Expo) is evolving into a more intimate event focused on targeted, personalized meetings and activities, the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) announced today.
"The world of interactive entertainment has changed since E3Expo was created 12 years ago. At that time we were focused on establishing the industry and securing orders for the holiday season," said Douglas Lowenstein, President of the ESA, the trade association representing U.S. computer and video game publishers and the owner of E3Expo. "Over the years, it has become clear that we need a more intimate program, including higher quality, more personal dialogue with the worldwide media, developers, retailers and other key industry audiences."
The new E3Expo will take shape over the next several months. As currently envisioned, it will still take place in Los Angeles, described by ESA as a "great and supportive partner helping to build E3." It will focus on press events and small meetings with media, retail, development, and other key sectors. While there will be opportunities for game demonstrations, E3Expo 2007 will not feature the large trade show environment of previous years.
"E3Expo remains an important event for the industry and we want to keep that sense of excitement and interest, ensuring that the human and financial resources crucial to its success can be deployed productively to create an exciting new format to meet the needs of the industry. The new event ensures that there will be an effective and more efficient way for companies to get information to media, consumers, and others," said Lowenstein.
Additionally, the evolution of the video game industry into a vibrant and expanding global market has led to the creation of major events in different regions, such as the Games Convention in Leipzig, the Tokyo Game Show, and company-specific events held by Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, and others around the world. As a result, Lowenstein said, "It is no longer necessary or efficient to have a single industry 'mega-show'. By refocusing on a highly-targeted event, we think we can do a better job serving our members and the industry as a whole, and our members are energized about creating this new E3."
Additional details about the new E3Expo event will be forthcoming in the next few months.
Just as long as we get the massive flood of news about new games and systems, then I don't mind all that much.
Gamespot has an article with reactions from various industry people about this.
All but one of them fully support the ESA's change. The exception? He proves why it's still needed...
Quote:Ken Levine, cofounder, Irrational Games:
Like most things, it's probably good for the big boys and probably bad for the little guys. If you've got a bunch of games to show, you can host a giant event, fly in journalists, give them good food, have the Spice Girls reunite, etc., and spread all those costs across all those big games. If you're a small publisher with just a couple of titles, well, then you're kind of hosed.
I'm just surprised this didn't happen sooner. Some of the biggest games at E3 had very low-key presentations. We were fortunate enough this year to have a great response to BioShock, and we were just showing it off in a tiny little room on a medium-sized television. I'm sure that didn't make some of the big guys spending zillions of dollars on the same show floor very happy. I'm sure there are big players wondering, "Why bother? We'll just do our own thing where there's no competition."
I think the biggest loser is the "universal awareness of the games biz" in the sense that there's no longer a single event for the mainstream press to wrap their head around. It was sort of like an annual holiday where the "Live at Five" anchor-bots talked about the game industry for five minutes. I always thought that was good for a laugh.
And here's the rest of the article. Be prepared for PR spin...
Quote:Spot On: Industry reaction to the new E3
Console makers, publishers, developers weigh in on word of a downsized summer showcase for gaming.
By Staff, GameSpot
Posted Aug 1, 2006 3:26 pm PT
The Electronic Entertainment Expo is undergoing a metamorphosis, but it remains to be seen whether the event that emerges in July 2007 will be a beautiful butterfly or a Kafka-esque nightmare. To get a cross section of opinions on how the shake-up will impact the industry, GameSpot News went to a wide array of representatives from companies large and small, from developers to publishers to analysts to advocates. Here's a sampling of their reactions to the news.
Microsoft:
We are very supportive of the ESA's decision in providing a new vision for E3. Over the past 12 years, the industry has grown and matured, and it's great to see the show evolving to meet the needs of the industry. The show continues to provide enormous benefits from a key media, retailer, developer, and partner standpoint.
Nintendo:
Nintendo is forwarding all E3-related questions to the ESA.
Sony:
For the past 12 years, [SCEA] has participated in [E3] and has used it as an opportunity to communicate to the industry and consumers our vision for gaming and entertainment...As an ESA member, we support the board's decision to pursue other types of events that can better address the needs of our industry and further its growth.
Larry Probst, EA CEO and chairman: (in an investor conference call today)
We fully support the decision that was made by the ESA board. We think it makes good business sense. We see that as the appropriate evolution of the E3 event. And in terms of cost savings, it will save us multiple millions next year.
Activision:
We support the ESA's decision to evolve E3 into a more intimate event.
Capcom:
Capcom is fully supportive of the ESA and its board, which we have representation on. Currently, we are fully committed to all ESA activities, including E3.
Sega:
Sega has been, and will continue to be, a supporter of E3, and the value that it brings to the video game industry. As E3 has grown, so too has the fragmentation of the audience in recent years, making it difficult to derive the value that was originally intended. As the industry continues to mature, so, too, will our industry events in order to compensate for this growth. We are excited to be a participant in the next iteration of the show in 2007.
Ken Levine, cofounder, Irrational Games:
Like most things, it's probably good for the big boys and probably bad for the little guys. If you've got a bunch of games to show, you can host a giant event, fly in journalists, give them good food, have the Spice Girls reunite, etc., and spread all those costs across all those big games. If you're a small publisher with just a couple of titles, well, then you're kind of hosed.
I'm just surprised this didn't happen sooner. Some of the biggest games at E3 had very low-key presentations. We were fortunate enough this year to have a great response to BioShock, and we were just showing it off in a tiny little room on a medium-sized television. I'm sure that didn't make some of the big guys spending zillions of dollars on the same show floor very happy. I'm sure there are big players wondering, "Why bother? We'll just do our own thing where there's no competition."
I think the biggest loser is the "universal awareness of the games biz" in the sense that there's no longer a single event for the mainstream press to wrap their head around. It was sort of like an annual holiday where the "Live at Five" anchor-bots talked about the game industry for five minutes. I always thought that was good for a laugh.
Michael Collins, executive vice president of LA Inc, the Los Angeles Convention and Visitors Bureau:
The move-in time for these exhibitors has been extraordinarily long, so for the month of May, a very large part of that high-demand sales season has been blocked. Now we can put that high-demand season back in the marketplace. I think no question about it, it is going to be a loss, especially for '07 and maybe for '08, but I doubt much beyond that. It's not good news. It's not the kind of thing we would like to have happen. But the extent of which it is a loss is not clear.
Jamil Moledina, executive director of the Game Developers Conference:
This is definitely the smart move for E3 in delivering targeted value to publishers. Connecting with the right people in an intimate, static-free environment is a critical element of any game industry event and is, in fact, a key principle of the Game Developers Conference. The ESA will be releasing more details over the next couple of months, and my expectation is that by trimming away the more extravagant elements, you're going to see a highly distilled publisher-retailer event.
Jason Della Rocca, executive director of the International Game Developers Association:
At this stage, we can only speculate at what the restructured event will really look like. It is important to note that publishing companies constitute the membership and board of directors of the ESA. So, they are ultimately deciding for each other. Change is usually a good thing...
Michael Pachter, analyst with Wedbush Morgan Securities:
I think that the right way to look at E3 is to step back and ask yourself why we have the show in the first place. From the publishers' and the developers' and the console manufacturers' perspective, the reason they have the show is to generate positive press about their products. I'm not sure that there are 60,000 people who matter in generating positive press. I think there are 5,000 people who matter, and then 50 million who matter because they actually buy the products. I'm not sure that next incremental 55,000 who show up really influence opinion making.
I think you can downsize the event and accomplish the same goal. If the reason for the show is to promote your products to industry decision makers, whether they be retailers or the media or investors, then you should be able to do that by limiting attendance to the media and your investors and your retailers...Professionally, I get just as much out of meeting the companies individually and doing a little half-hour demo with everyone I care about.
I think that's patently obvious that we're going to lose [the spectacle of E3]. But if you watch the 11 o'clock news during E3, they don't show anything. The news is "The video game industry has its annual trade event," and they show these guys walking around dressed as Spock or whatever. I guess that makes the public is aware that there's an event, but it doesn't make anybody go buy a game. And certainly you've never, ever seen mainstream coverage on ABC News that says the game of the year was BioShock.
Evan Wilson, analyst with Pacific Crest Securities:
It's difficult to say exactly who wins and who loses, because we don't know what the final incarnation of E3 will be. However, there is a significant expense associated with the publishers' show floor presence at E3, and they likely feel that the investment was no longer paying dividends. This change was likely driven by them, and so they must be considered a winner even if the changes end up not being beneficial.
Game fans clearly lose if this results in less access for game journalists. E3 was a fantastic event for game-to-game comparisons and progress updates. It drummed up a lot of buzz at a time that usually sees a lull in the release schedule. E3 was also a marquee event for the financial community, although it is unclear if that will change.
Tom Ohle, director at Evolve PR, which represents developers including Stardock (Galactic Civilizations II: Dread Lords) and CD Projekt (The Witcher):
For the last few years, it's become increasingly difficult to get business done at the show, as the number of "exhibits only" badges have been on the rise. It's been a lot of, "Hey, do you guys have some posters?" instead of useful business.
A few industry factions will be hit relatively hard by the loss of E3, including smaller developers and publishers, as well as lower-tier media outlets. The smaller developers and publishers--including some of Evolve's clients--see E3 as the most important media event of the year; it's the only time they can show their products to a ton of editors over the course of a few days.
The lower-tier media outlets have counted on E3 as one of the only chances they have to get face time with publishers. It's unfortunate, but a lot of PR reps will simply ignore those lower-tier outlets completely without having met them face-to-face; and by doing so, they'll likely increase the dependence on top-tier media and the competition for highly visible coverage.
Overall, though, the loss of E3 shouldn't really impact major publishers too much; they have the money to schedule frequent media tours or large-scale editors' days.
I'm all for the emphasis on private meetings, but that could have been done without scaling back the show so much. I do think we need some sort of large-scale media event. E3 was a good place to network and reach a lot of media, from international television networks down to fan site operators.
John Welch, president and CEO of PlayFirst:
I hate the crowds; they get in the way of checking out the specific things we need to see in between meetings. Business always gets done behind closed doors at E3, not on the show floor. With a more intimate conference, we might be able to actually hold a conversation on the show floor.
Joseph Olin, president of the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences:
Nothing I have seen or heard would lead me to think that the leading ESA member companies, who are the ones who initiated this evolution, would abandon an event that will still command an incredible amount of coverage from retail partners and the media. ESA companies still want a successful E3, it's just that the benchmarks for defining success are being recalibrated to reflect how business is done today and for the next few years.
Again, thinking about "winners and losers," the smaller, specialty companies who introduce their products at E3 in Kentia Hall or surrounding properties will find it more difficult to reach "buyers" or to create buzz about their products or services. And from the opposite side, I imagine that the other trade shows--Leipzig, Tokyo, GameCity--on an international level, and certainly shows like GDC and even the Academy's D.I.C.E. Summit have the opportunity to pick up support and interest from other members of the interactive-entertainment community and media.
I guess the best thing we can all do is to continue to create forums that can showcase the incredible products and talented people who create games so that more people will consider video games and interactive entertainment as their first choice for fun.
A number of other publishers, developers, and industry figures contacted by GameSpot indicated they simply weren't going to talk about the changes.
Oh, this article is also worth reading...
http://www.firingsquad.com/features/e3_2...cancelled/
The Tokyo Game Show still exists though, and that's been as reported as E3.
There's a point to be made, but I will say this, the little guys will need their space.
There's always PAX, which isn't the same thing, but in a good way.
Actually, they added another word to the name. :)
Quote:The Tokyo Game Show still exists though, and that's been as reported as E3.
There's a point to be made, but I will say this, the little guys will need their space.
That's for Japan though, it doesn't help smaller American developers...
Lazy, you were exactly right up there...
(from an interview on IGN that I forgot the link to)
Quote:IGN: Historically, what has the value of E3 been to you and your games? Do you think a smaller event will help or hurt that?
DD: Silicon Knights has won many E3 awards in the past for Legacy of Kain and Eternal Darkness. However, our latest E3 was notably our worst and for us, it was a good indicator that the show had lost most of its value. I say this because I felt E3 had become less about the games and more about the show publishers put on during the expo.
One reason why E3 is dead is because companies don't want to spend money and then have people not like the games they show. Of course, in reality that's one of the main reasons why the event exists, but hey, let's not let facts get in the way, right?
Quote:IGN: From your perspective, has E3 been positive for the industry or have the costs outweighed the benefits?
DD: Initially the show was a great thing for the industry. However, as game budgets began to grow and attendance increased, E3 quickly lost its value. All of us at Silicon Knights feel that we have been much more successful when showing our games to the press at our studio rather than in LA.
Yes, yes, a tradeshow for a large and rich industry is less important than a tradeshow for a smaller and less important one ... why exactly? Oh yeah, it ISN'T less important!
I can see why it's going away -- the costs relating to E3 were just too high -- but trying to say that things are actually going to improve by getting rid of it is just absurd.
They could turn it from a building event into some sort of massive online extravaganza.
Think of it this way. A massive web site, perhaps done as a 3D downloadable app for wandering to "presentations" 1997 style :D, or just a traditional web page layout where one goes from thing to thing. Download demos, and with the new generation, that's doable for consoles too now, and try all the games out yourself. Watch videos on the site from various developers giving their little speeches on their games, and all of it can be done FAR cheaper.
It's one way to do it, but they may not want to work together for an event like that and just do it seperatly on their own sites, and from there the idea of doing it around the same time will fade. Eventually it's just "hey they released a demo, or an interview, let's check out both in this odd quantum event world where either one or the other has happened". You know, basically what we already have.
They cancelled the weak nuclear force.
This is very sad. But it makes perfect sense. Oh well, next stop Spaceworld!
P.S. Let it be known that Nintendo won the final "real" E3. :D
Quote:However, our latest E3 was notably our worst and for us, it was a good indicator that the show had lost most of its value.
Don't blame the Expo, Dennis.
As I said, spending all that money only to have people see how dissapointing your game is... saying "I'm happy that E3 is gone because such trade expos are bad and should go away forever, we should only ever show our games when they are ready and not before"... you're going way overboard there... (he said something like that in the next paragraph...)
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/723/723150p1.html
Here's the link to the full interview, read all of his silliness.
They should show their games occasionally to groups before it is "ready". The idea being that they can get criticized and perhaps change some things about the game.
Imagine if science worked like some of these artists think their business should work. "ALL the evidence isn't in yet. We should never have published our results because they just looked at it and criticized parts of it. We should only show them when it's completely finished." Of course, science is NEVER finished. It just keeps going and going, every now and then new tests are replicated with minor adjustments, all to constantly refine our knowledge. There is no such thing as "all the evidence", in the same way it is silly to say "let's wait until ALL the humans are born, all of them".
It's always good to show your work of art to a crowd so you can get some sort of opinion on what you are doing to see if you need to change something.
At any rate, e3 itself was really just a big burst of news. I liked it but at the same time, I could wait.
Quote:Imagine if science worked like some of these artists think their business should work. "ALL the evidence isn't in yet. We should never have published our results because they just looked at it and criticized parts of it. We should only show them when it's completely finished." Of course, science is NEVER finished. It just keeps going and going, every now and then new tests are replicated with minor adjustments, all to constantly refine our knowledge. There is no such thing as "all the evidence", in the same way it is silly to say "let's wait until ALL the humans are born, all of them".
It's always good to show your work of art to a crowd so you can get some sort of opinion on what you are doing to see if you need to change something.
Exactly, it's absurd. The world doesn't work like that, and he should know that... probably does, but is too annoyed to admit it. :)