View Full Version : E3 2007 Revamp: Industry Comments
JCalCGM
08-01-2006, 06:12 AM
FiringSquad gives our own opinions on what happened to cause the Electronic Entertainment Expo to implode and retrench for 2007 and also posts the opinions of a ton of industry insiders including 3D Realms' Scott Miller, Gearbox Software's Randy Pitchford, Rusty Williams of Flying Lab Software, Feargus Urquhart of Obsidian Entertainment and more. Check out the article right here (http://www.firingsquad.com/features/e3_2007_revamp_cancelled/default.asp). Here is a snip:
Scott Miller: CEO, 3D Realms
I seriously think this is much overdue and the best thing for E3. It was a circus, with too much show and too little substance. I would love to see practically everything move to backroom demos, with no interactive displays (though gameplay movies on screens is fine). And I would love to see the noise level heavily restricted. And for press passes to tighten up.
Bottom-line: Nothing sells a game better than a backroom enclosed showing with a captured audience. Publishers would be best off showing the majority of their games in this way, not the filler like all of those DOA TV show and movie licenses.
Kamalot
08-01-2006, 07:23 AM
I'm torn. On the one hand, I like the media frenzy around E3. On the other hand, I can't see how it would be good for a development studio to put all this effort into a show when they should be worried about making games.
Overall, I think this is one way to cut back costs. No big booth. No booth babes. No marketing push. Next Gen is far too expensive.
Plays4Pants
08-01-2006, 07:54 AM
If the industry can't afford a spectacle then i'm wrong. Games aren't going to die in 20 years...they'll die in 15.
SuperMonkeyFighter2
08-01-2006, 07:59 AM
What a shocker ... a quote from Scott Miller
Abednigo
08-01-2006, 08:03 AM
Tycho from PA thinks it's a good thing too.
bean19
08-01-2006, 08:05 AM
Tycho from PA thinks it's a good thing too.
Yes, but for very different reasons than this asshat. This story and the number of interviews they have. . . just HUGE. The fact that the editor/writer led with a Scott Miller quote. . . just dumb.
Also, tons of research and interviews here. I think it would have been interesting to see someone at Firing Squad write this as a legitimate story with more numbers, etc. and submit it as a feature to Newsweek or some other mainstream company. They do a Pulitzer level of research and then a college student level of writing.
The Continental
08-01-2006, 08:19 AM
Scott Miller manages to say something sensible only to ruin it by throwing in a jab at other games in the end. I can only chalk it up to bitterness towards products that shipped within a 10 year development cycle.
bean19
08-01-2006, 08:22 AM
Scott Miller manages to say something sensible only to ruin it by throwing in a jab at other games in the end. I can only chalk it up to bitterness towards products that shipped within a 10 year development cycle.
I think DOA refers to the common-use of this acronym "dead on arrival" (meaning still-born) - not "Dead or Alive".
megaman
08-01-2006, 08:35 AM
Does smaller e3 mean no more big revelations?
The Continental
08-01-2006, 08:43 AM
I think DOA refers to the common-use of this acronym "dead on arrival" (meaning still-born) - not "Dead or Alive".
Yeah, I'm aware of that, but he's still shitting all over licensed games, several of which have almost shrugged off the label in recent years. Riddick, King Kong, and a few others have had respectable showings, a fact made all the more impressive given the limited development time alotted to licensed titles in order for them to release with the movie/show tie-in.
Anyway you cut it Miller is a dick.
thecrazyd
08-01-2006, 08:47 AM
Who cares what Scott Miller has to say? Stop giving that shit the limelight.
hideouslywrinkled
08-01-2006, 08:54 AM
Tycho from PA thinks it's a good thing too.
Which isn't shocking... I'm not about to suggest that Tycho and Gabe are greedy (because there is plenty of evidence to the contrary –– they definitely seem like good guys), but they stand to gain a lot from this change.
PAX (since it happens in August) could easily become a great place for publishers to announce and demo new products. Best case scenario, it turns into a kind of gamer's Comicon.
I personally think that would be a good thing.
Sloth
08-01-2006, 09:03 AM
I think Randy is right that money is going to be spent. If anything publishers are going to be spending about the same amount of money attending multiple smaller events instead of just one big one. I don't think its going to be any more efficent or cheaper without the old E3.
About the only thing that is going to change is less publicity as most people are not going to track down information as it is is disperesed over the course of a year.
E3 was a big event that consolidated information. If you wanted to stay abreast of new games you jsut waited for the E3 info dump. Now customers are going to have to work to get information as it is put out year around.
dojoteef
08-01-2006, 09:23 AM
One thing I dislike is that people are latching onto GDC as a possible alternative to E3. If that happens, then there were be a similar outcry after a while. GDC is for developers to get together and discuss game development. Yes it has a show floor, but it is fairly small and not the focus of the conference. I would hate to try to get to a lecture only to be inundated with gamers seeking a sneak peek of the latest game.
cppcrusader
08-01-2006, 09:42 AM
One thing I dislike is that people are latching onto GDC as a possible alternative to E3. If that happens, then there were be a similar outcry after a while. GDC is for developers to get together and discuss game development. Yes it has a show floor, but it is fairly small and not the focus of the conference. I would hate to try to get to a lecture only to be inundated with gamers seeking a sneak peek of the latest game.
That's exactly what I've been fearing the last couple of years, even more so now that E3 is changing. The last couple of years the average gamer has become more aware of GDC and some big announcements have been made there as well.
During this year's GDC, which I wasn't able to attend, I had a friend who rabidly waiting for news of the keynotes. He's a guy that's used to the up to the minute, live blogging, live video feed coverage of E3. He just didn't get that GDC is not like that at all, and I spent a good hour trying to explain this to him.
I had heard there was an influx of "guy with website" types there this year. Hopefully they all saw what GDC is and don't return.
danhoo
08-01-2006, 10:16 AM
That's exactly what I've been fearing the last couple of years, even more so now that E3 is changing. The last couple of years the average gamer has become more aware of GDC and some big announcements have been made there as well.
During this year's GDC, which I wasn't able to attend, I had a friend who rabidly waiting for news of the keynotes. He's a guy that's used to the up to the minute, live blogging, live video feed coverage of E3. He just didn't get that GDC is not like that at all, and I spent a good hour trying to explain this to him.
I had heard there was an influx of "guy with website" types there this year. Hopefully they all saw what GDC is and don't return.
Toss me in the "please don't ruin GDC" group. GDC is supposed to be a great place for developers, not gamers (although often developers are gamers, but that's an aside). The expo is really mostly companies selling tools/content for game development, not actual games. And, as pointed out, the rest of the conference is really where the interesting stuff is.
If the big guys start using GDC as their soapbox for hype-filled pointless "announcements", that'll suck.
The internet has continually eroded E3’s usefulness. The cost effectiveness of E3 has always been fairly questionable, but now presentation and networking can be handled online, it’s certainly less effective than a physical presentation/meeting, but it’s far more cost effective and convenient (since it can be done at any time, not just once a year). E3 has been obsolete for years, IMO.
If the big guys start using GDC as their soapbox for hype-filled pointless "announcements", that'll suck.
Honestly, I’ve felt the GDC has been turning into E3 for some time, I think it’s already been mostly ruined.
The internet has continually eroded E3’s usefulness. The cost effectiveness of E3 has always been fairly questionable, but now presentation and networking can be handled online, it’s certainly less effective than a physical presentation/meeting, but it’s far more cost effective and convenient (since it can be done at any time, not just once a year). E3 has been obsolete for years, IMO.
E3's afterparties were supposed to be good for networking. It's hard to network online. But yeah, there are other events in which to network so it really doesn't matter so much, but networking definitely isn't something you initiate online.
Captain Awesome
08-01-2006, 11:48 AM
Scott Miller? That's like a virgin giving sex advice.
E3's afterparties were supposed to be good for networking. It's hard to network online.
Agreed on both accounts, but I was referring more to being on the floor and the benefits that come from that. The stuff that happens ‘in the wake’ of E3 will just be moved to another gathering (ie more GDC afterparties) or will not change much (the bulk of industry insiders would still attend even a severely scaled down conference).
It was a circus, with too much show and too little substance.
Is he talking about E3 or 3D Realms?
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.