Pretty much what has been said but in one place.
The show has come and gone, the keynotes were bland, the companies mainly stuck to old news and nothing really big came out of the show. So that leaves the question what happened to E3?
Each company came to show a different idea of how it should be handled: Microsoft used the show to showcase upcoming titles that would be released in 2007; Nintendo used to show to showcase their casual gamer games seemingly leaving the core gamer behind; Sony came to the show to showpiece gamers that the games are coming. In this regard all three companies were successful at what they came to the show to do.
Microsoft came to the show to show off their current lineup that would be releasing in 2007, they did cover a couple games they'll be released in 2000 date unveiling Resident Evil 5 is coming to the 360. They tried in court nontraditional gamers by hyping the coming game Scene It, which is coming to other consoles, and non-gaming items that are coming to their Live services. At the end of their keynoted left many saying that Microsoft dropped the ball, and there is no way that they could “win” the show. But they're keynote served to be more of a template and what the other two companies for going to do with their keynotes.
Nintendo's show came next and keynote address centered mainly on their nontraditional gaming titles, and how well they did the first year with the Wii, thus treating the keynote more like a press conference instead of the beginning of a game show. Leaving core gamers and some gaming press feeling the company has totally forgot about them. But the traditional press who attended left the show proclaiming Nintendo the best in the show.
Sony's keynote came last and then bearers were more like the keynotes from E3s of the past. They came and said the games are coming, they showed the games that many had questions about, but they still had no real announcements to make besides the redesign of the PSP.
So now why
The interesting thing about the question of why the show was like the way it was, is also the same reason why the ESA slimmed-down the show in the first place. E3 was originally the biggest game show on the planet. So it attracted crowds and other people that shouldn't have really been there, making it almost impossible to cover the games for the press. But because it was so big the gaming companies knew that any major announcements made at this show, would be talked about, hyped up, analyzed and reanalyze, by both the press and the gaming community.
But when it was slimmed-down long depressed to have time with the games it also had the detrimental effect of taking away companies he used to come to the show, but also eliminated it as the number one show in the world, lust making it so major announcements would be better received than other shows. To make a comparison between the old and new show, the old show was hosted in a building with three auditoriums each the size of about 2 ½ to 3 football fields in size not to mention the hallways and entrance ways and sidewalks, and roughly about 600 companies attended. (Most were hosted in the Katina Hall, or pulled for a join booth else where in the show.) The new show was about the size of GDC, who show floor was a little bigger than a high school gymnasium, and only 20 or so companies attended.
Also the timing of the show was bad, in a few weeks Lipzig will have its own game show. Also in October a show that was made to replace the spectacle of E3, posted on the original site of E3 would be making its debut. And all three major Council companies have already said they would be in attendance, making this show the better choice to release new information on next year and surprise announcements for what will be happening in the future.
There have been many suggestions on how the ESA could improve the show next year. Some of which are to eliminate the show completely and work with the companies so they can spread out their information over a few months so all titles can be guaranteed coverage. Another would be joining with the organizers of the E for All, to organize a compound show up where both access and spectacle could both be maintained which would make it something like the Tokyo Game show but have a separate place where the game press could easily get there hands on the games while the general public and “gamestop-types” can get there fix and bring something to hype about back home.
So in the next few months are going to be hearing more about what can happen in the future at the various game shows they’ll be posted around the world. What should have happened at E3 will now happen elsewhere make it necessary for the new E3 to be revamped again, if the ESA wants to have a show with any pull in the market. And the question on whether or not the new E for All will be treated like the old E3 will be answered in the next few months.
Topic: What happened to E3? (Read 1828 times)
