E3 gettin downsized...
polycounter lvl 17
ESA to downsize E3?
Industry sources bolster reports that E3 may undergo changes; details due from ESA Monday.
By Curt Feldman, GameSpot
Posted Jul 30, 2006 10:09 am PT
GameSpot has learned that tomorrow the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) will announce changes to the format and scale of the Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3), the game industry event that typically draws in excess of 60,000 attendees and includes over 400 exhibitors.
On July 28, the Web site of UK trade magazine MCV reported discussions had taken place between the ESA and E3 exhibitors which addressed the future of the annual trade show. GameSpot spoke with informed game industry sources late Friday and Saturday and learned that the show would radically shrink in size and move from its usual Los Angeles Convention Center (LACC) venue to a smaller location.
Sources said that rather than fill the 540,000 square feet of the cavernous LACC, the show will take place at a location that would support exhibitors in meeting room space only, with companies showing their wares to a select group of attendees numbering in the hundreds rather than thousands.
One reason behind the downsizing of the show can be attributed to the dollar cost of the event to exhibitors, including the demands on companies to assign large numbers of staff to focus on the show, expenses associated with travel to the show, and the added expense to polish game builds and demos to be shown to attendees.
While the largest of E3 exhibitors could support their own marketing and promotion of upcoming games, the smaller companies which rely on the attention that E3 generates may have no recourse other than to market their games independently. But a smaller E3 would impact more than the game industry: the local hotel and related entertainment and service industries in Los Angeles take in more than $50 million during E3--the estimated amount attendees and businesses spend over the course of the three-day event.
One source added that the new format of the show may actually result in a more productive environment to demo games to the media, although they stopped short of full disclosure: "My lips are sealed until after the weekend," the source said.
An official statement from the ESA outlining the changes will be released on Monday, numerous sources said. E-mails to the ESA for comment were not returned at press time.
le link - gamespot.com
While reducing the number of attendees is great(playing more than a dozen games over the span of 3 days would be nice) I dont know what the new attendee criteria will be and if it'll rule out myself and others
Even though E3 was super crowded, I enjoyed it a lot.
Industry sources bolster reports that E3 may undergo changes; details due from ESA Monday.
By Curt Feldman, GameSpot
Posted Jul 30, 2006 10:09 am PT
GameSpot has learned that tomorrow the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) will announce changes to the format and scale of the Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3), the game industry event that typically draws in excess of 60,000 attendees and includes over 400 exhibitors.
On July 28, the Web site of UK trade magazine MCV reported discussions had taken place between the ESA and E3 exhibitors which addressed the future of the annual trade show. GameSpot spoke with informed game industry sources late Friday and Saturday and learned that the show would radically shrink in size and move from its usual Los Angeles Convention Center (LACC) venue to a smaller location.
Sources said that rather than fill the 540,000 square feet of the cavernous LACC, the show will take place at a location that would support exhibitors in meeting room space only, with companies showing their wares to a select group of attendees numbering in the hundreds rather than thousands.
One reason behind the downsizing of the show can be attributed to the dollar cost of the event to exhibitors, including the demands on companies to assign large numbers of staff to focus on the show, expenses associated with travel to the show, and the added expense to polish game builds and demos to be shown to attendees.
While the largest of E3 exhibitors could support their own marketing and promotion of upcoming games, the smaller companies which rely on the attention that E3 generates may have no recourse other than to market their games independently. But a smaller E3 would impact more than the game industry: the local hotel and related entertainment and service industries in Los Angeles take in more than $50 million during E3--the estimated amount attendees and businesses spend over the course of the three-day event.
One source added that the new format of the show may actually result in a more productive environment to demo games to the media, although they stopped short of full disclosure: "My lips are sealed until after the weekend," the source said.
An official statement from the ESA outlining the changes will be released on Monday, numerous sources said. E-mails to the ESA for comment were not returned at press time.
le link - gamespot.com
While reducing the number of attendees is great(playing more than a dozen games over the span of 3 days would be nice) I dont know what the new attendee criteria will be and if it'll rule out myself and others
Even though E3 was super crowded, I enjoyed it a lot.
Replies
That has to be the dumbest thing ever...
edit: the 60k people who attend make up meanenglessy small fraction of the customers base, most still get the news from gaming sites so its really not worth it to make it grand for the 60k people.
Its not stupid really. Actually it sounds like they try to make it cheaper for the small developers and its a good thing.
[/ QUOTE ]
if thats true then why did it say: "the smaller companies which rely on the attention that E3 generates may have no recourse other than to market their games independently."
[ QUOTE ]
Its not stupid really. Actually it sounds like they try to make it cheaper for the small developers and its a good thing.
[/ QUOTE ]
if thats true then why did it say: "the smaller companies which rely on the attention that E3 generates may have no recourse other than to market their games independently."
[/ QUOTE ]
They can show directly to press who will redistribute it to the part of customer base that really matters (read the millions of people who read them) not to the meaningless part who visits the show (read the 60k people currently).
Seriously, it was my goal to get to an E3 one day. Now apparently they're shooting that down and taking away what E3 is.
the local hotel and related entertainment and service industries in Los Angeles
[/ QUOTE ]
At least someone's thinking of the local hooker population's welfare!
In my experience, e3 is the major catalyst where dev teams really push hard to get their demo up to the level they want it, since it's going to be shown to so many people. It's a great culmination point, and it's usually when you know if you have a potentially great game, or serious issues.
I think PAX will eventually take over as the expo of choice for gamers.
Then all the good stuff that's being hyped up that year are all behind closed doors or at the end lines that last for the entire day.
For 3 days all you do is walk around, bump into other sweaty nerds, and take a peek at the occasional booth babe or female industry worker.
You also collect a lot of hand outs from the booths that you eventually throw away a week later because none of them are ever useful. You do get the occasional cool bits.. like posters and keychains.
It's actually better, in a way, to just sit infront of the computer during E3 week and just download videos. At least you can do something else while your video is downloading, rather than sitting in line for 8 hours.
The only thing that really makes E3 worthwhile is that it gives you a reason to meet up with old co workers and industry friends.
As for the smaller games getting edged out - smaller games get completely overshadowed in the din of E3 and I would think they'll be better off in private meeting rooms or just foregoing the event.
http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3538&Itemid=2
Sounds worse than just a downsizing:
http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3538&Itemid=2
[/ QUOTE ]
I saw that article too and nearly threw a fit until the last paragraph...
ESA president Doug Lowenstein will likely announce the news some time within the next 48 hours, possibly on Monday. It's likely that the ESA will seek to limit the damage by organizing some form of lesser event in May, possibly even with the E3 brand, but this will be no more than a fig-leaf. The days of an industry event attended by all the major publishers, spending big money, are gone.
but yeah...
I think the fact that E3 was the only rock solid deadline that most of the games industry have to adhere to (to get a demo polished) will be a loss in way. When your team does a crunch, puts together all the rough peices of the game in time for E3 I think it can definately help with development. You get a good idea of the final product and all the fresh team members get a taste of what will be expected of tem at the end of development.
Normal deadlines can be delayed but E3 waited for no one
Honestly, I think LA's a rather sucky place to be holding something like E3 anyways. I kind of like the suggestion someone jokingly made about moving it to Austin, TX.
That may not be an accurate description, but that was the feeling I got. If a new leaner, more focused E3 can rise from the ashes of its obese forbear, all the better.
BTW GDC in SF sucked balls! If they move it to SF for good then count me out for any more GDC's.
Anyways, I'm in the minority again, but I thought GDC in SF was a blast.
I don't see how you can possibly think that.
$50 million in revenue to the local area is a HUGE econimical impact. Taking that away is not a good idea.
And while this might be good for small developers, I think they should make an entirely new convention specifically for small developers. Maybe E3 (squared) or something of that nature. As crowded, hot and smelly as E3 is - it's an amazing experience. I love going. It's not just the games - it's the whole atmostphere of it all. It's an event, just like a concert or movie. It's pure entertainment that should never be watered down!
Sad, sad day.
On a more personal level, I've never been able to afford to go to E3, and the idea that it's not going to be the beast I've been wanting to see when I eventually do have the means to get there is a bit sad.
Indy games have always found ways to prosper. Digital distribution is key for indy developers. We were only about 15 people strong at 5000ft, but we managed just fine.
As I said before, I think that smaller developers should get their own, less-fancy venue. Slimming down the mega-event that IS E3 just makes it pathetic.
both of those are equally as mad as E3.
TGS especially.
oh yeah i work for an indy developer, almost forgot....
umm e3 blows anyway, only good part is meeting up with friends and getting totally fucked up beyond belief, and 3 days off work... other than that it blows. goto gdc, its the real games conference, e3 is all hype.. my only hope is that gdc wont start turning into the new e3..
Eh? You have to look at both sides, Milla. If the hotels lose to much revenue and shut down, that affects the economy. Less jobs, less income, lower property value, etc etc.
Indy games have always found ways to prosper. Digital distribution is key for indy developers. We were only about 15 people strong at 5000ft, but we managed just fine.
As I said before, I think that smaller developers should get their own, less-fancy venue. Slimming down the mega-event that IS E3 just makes it pathetic.
[/ QUOTE ]
Given the location I don't think downscaling E3 will shut down any local businesses - they get flow-on business from every event held there, and I'm betting there are plenty. Keep in mind that there's a huge convention centre right there, which obviously has enough productivity to support that huge venue and the associated services in surrounding areas. I don't think one week a year is going to make or break that service industry.
And no, E3 doesn't have to look at both sides. Any business-owner stupid enough to rely on that one annual event without some kind of contract with it doesn't deserve that kind of consideration. E3 has no obligation to anyone but itself and its target market.
This isn't rocket science. The big developers got together and decided that the $3-5million it costs them each to show wasn't worth the return.
odd that they are saying its dead.
come one guys, screw indy developers. indie games blow ass anyway, people just want to play madden, cause its awesome, not some weird art faggery...
oh yeah i work for an indy developer, almost forgot....
[/ QUOTE ]
interestingly, this article from 2 days ago names EA as one of the main chargers for a smaller trade event:
http://www.mcvuk.com/newsitem.php?id=24196
As for GDC, I don't care for listening to lectures and sitting in seminars. I want to check out and play games. Lots of games.
Personally, I think they should have opened a smaller area for indie/low budget companies, in an attached or sectioned area. It could have been cheaper for them, but still offered traffic to those interested. I've never gotten to visit one, so I don't know how bad/good the experience was. I do wish I could have visited it once during these last few years. I'd love to see something like that appear closer to me in Michigan
The downside is that people will be less likely to be interested. If EA holds a concert/game pavilion somewhere, even if it is free, I'm not going. But at E3, I'll at least walk through their booth once to check it out. Plus, people are not going to fly across country for it either. They might take their shennanigans across country like Nintendo likes to do, like say along with the Warped Tour or something. But again, this is catering to the wrong crowd.
Don't get me wrong. It was inevitable. I've been to E3 8 years, and last year I didn't even want to go. It became too bloated, crowded, lines (which never happened in the old days), private screening rooms (again which never happened), and more. I think that there still needs to be an event LIKE E3, but it definately needed to be changed. If it hadn't changed, I probably would have never gone again (And it seems like I missed out on the last one. oh well).
So to sum up. This is both good and bad news in a semi-wishy-washy way.
[ QUOTE ]
What I don't understand is that all of the major publishers/console makers are going to start hosting their own smaller press events and I'm guessing smaller conventions opened to the public. How is this saving them money? It leaves more onto them, they must rent out a space, set up their kiosks, hire people, supply food/drinks, hire entertainment (bands/etc). They already do all this anyways, and have to pay for it all. The only difference is that they will be in charge and can do what they want. The costs will most likely be the same, or even more.
The downside is that people will be less likely to be interested. If EA holds a concert/game pavilion somewhere, even if it is free, I'm not going. But at E3, I'll at least walk through their booth once to check it out. Plus, people are not going to fly across country for it either. They might take their shennanigans across country like Nintendo likes to do, like say along with the Warped Tour or something. But again, this is catering to the wrong crowd.
Don't get me wrong. It was inevitable. I've been to E3 8 years, and last year I didn't even want to go. It became too bloated, crowded, lines (which never happened in the old days), private screening rooms (again which never happened), and more. I think that there still needs to be an event LIKE E3, but it definately needed to be changed. If it hadn't changed, I probably would have never gone again (And it seems like I missed out on the last one. oh well).
So to sum up. This is both good and bad news in a semi-wishy-washy way.
[/ QUOTE ]
What blows my mind every year is how people line up for an hour to see 5 minutes of carefully edited post processed on-rails game footage.
Not to mention the mob lining up this year for Paris Hilton forcing me to detour to get out.
Expos like PAX will take over for presenting new games for the public.
[/ QUOTE ]
I hope not, I went two years ago and the lack of hygiene alone was overwhelming.
It had become so overcrowded with fanboys who had nothing to do with the industry that it was hard to walk around.
In addition to this, we always had crunch time to deal with the E3 build of the game. The fact that we had to expend all these resources to create a throw-away demo for e3 was just a waste of time and money.
Publishers pour millions of dollars into the show and get little or nothing back.
You know I will miss the show, because of friends, the excitement, and what it meant to the industry for so long. I support the decision to change the format.
Expos like PAX will take over for presenting new games for the public.
[/ QUOTE ]
I doubt that highly, because PAX isn't a gaming expo. It's essentially a geek and nerd expo.
e3 in Atlanta back in 1997
[/ QUOTE ]
Best E3 Ever.