Writing
E3 - Industry Insiders' Insight - Co-written by Desire Garcia, Published by N-Philes, Aug 8, 2006
When the Entertainment Software Association announced that Electronic Entertainment Expo would undergo a dramatic change next year, many people's jaws hit the floor. In fact, the surprise wasn't limited to gamers; many in the industry were left scrambling, trying to figure out exactly just what had happened. The dust still hasn't settled and many people don't know what to think. There are so many ways one could slice this E3 "restructuring".
From one perspective, there are the publishers. They spend a crazy amount of money each spring in order to draw attention to their booths, hoping to capture the attention of gamers. Then there are the developers who work like mad so that publishers can impress passersby, or so that they can impress publishers enough to pick up their games. There are the retailers looking to see which games they should order come fall. Then there is the media. Those big industry media types will send practically everyone they can to spend every waking hour (and then some) working so that they can claim to have the best coverage. Then there are those smaller media outlets that just want to have fun, to meet people, and to bring their communities closer to the action. Lastly, there's everyone else, from the online bloggers with an audience of one, to the kid who works in a games store, to those with fake company business cards, who are only in it for themselves.
Together, all those people formed a crowd of over 70,000, with 400 exhibitors in May 2005, the biggest year in the history of E3. For this year, the ESA imposed stricter regulations that brought the number of attendees down to about 60,000. Supposedly, the biggest players in the industry, namely EA and Activision, didn't feel that the change was significant enough, and threatened to pull out of the event completely unless radical changes were imposed. With a new name, E3 Media Festival plans to be open to about 5,000 invited guests in 2007.
"There was a time when the concept of E3 was a good one," an industry insider tells N-Philes, "a tradeshow where game publishers could preview their upcoming titles for two key audiences - retail buyers and the press. In theory, it should be a win-win. Unfortunately, in recent years, its turned more into a 'lose-lose.' At least that's the case for the medium and smaller publishers, who couldn't compete with the mini-mall-sized booths created by the larger publishers. Once many of the key press stopped covering the entire show, there really was little reason for the bulk of the exhibitors to be there."
E3 as it was favored the largest publishers, especially the hardware manufacturers. After all, they are usually the ones who have the high profile titles that everybody wants to hear about. The majority of the press tend to spend the first two days of the event at the large booths, playing the titles on the show floor and relaying their gaming experiences to the ever faithful reader. However, every media outlet knows that someone else is covering the same things, so by the third day, they want to seek out the hidden gems and all the other promising games that shouldn't be overlooked, mainly those found in Kentia Hall.
Would this formula change with the new format? The press will get to spend more time with and learning about the high profile titles, and they will still try to find hidden gems, but there isn't anything to suggest that all games will get equal coverage. With a smaller event, we'll likely see less exhibitors vying for the spotlight. And if the larger companies offset a concentrated showing at E3 with a company-specific event, much like EA's Summer Showcase or Nintendo's Spaceworld, the smaller companies are still at a disadvantage, since they don't have the resources for big press events.
It is true that game coverage has seen its fair share of problems as E3 has grown.
"It's no secret that the big publishers spend millions on their booth set-ups and choose to announce or unveil their flagship products at the show. Unless you're working with a major franchise or the best IP around, it seems like everything gets lost in the hub bub," another insider shares. "It's too big. I mean editors can barely make it through the madness to pick up a press disk. This announcement will obviously have some massive ramifications throughout the game industry and folks will need to re-evaluate their strategies for that quarter and certainly refocus budget."
That said, E3 is one of the only events where virtually anyone can get a booth to show off their product. With the downsized Media Festival, the smaller guys might be squeezed out of the event.
"EA, Activision, Sony and others will continue to get the coverage and write ups they covet with or without the show," one E3 insider notes. "Smaller dev studios and companies are the ones that will feel the burn more so then anyone else. Where else could a no-name company show off a game and get every major media outlet and publisher to notice their product? Shows like GDC and others must really step up and start to include smaller dev houses and companies into the mix, and court the big publishers and media outlets to their venue."
We still don't know exactly how E3 will be changed, but clearly there are voices in the industry that want games coverage to change more than anything. Having a new format might allow for the media to fine-tune their attack plans in order to cover as many products as possible. Inevitably, this becomes easier when less products are shown, and when there are less people clogging the halls and company booths.
Having a more intimate E3 means that companies don't have to spend nearly as much money setting up elaborate booths and giving away so much swag.
Having to spend less money is always a good thing, but will that saved money go back into game development? For the industry heavy weights, that may be a possibility (provided that it doesn't go to lining pockets as bonuses for the higher-ups), but one effect of E3 becoming a smaller event is that many of the other industry events take on larger importance. Unless a company already attends these other events that get coverage, as much of the larger gaming companies do, them being more important means that companies will have to spend more money in order to participate. That extra funding might go beyond what money will be saved by making E3 a smaller event.
"[We] attend events like Game Developers Conference, Tokyo Game Show, The Leipzig Games Convention, D.I.C.E, and Game Connect: Asia Pacific. These events compliment a hectic schedule of international travel, meeting with publishers at every stop to discuss new opportunities and progress on existing projects. Whatever happens with E3, this process will continue," said a president of a game developing company.
The other great resource that is spent, and perhaps wasted by E3, is time.
"I'm glad E3 is ‘gone'," said an insider, "because it meant nothing but frustration for most developers and journalists. Don't get me wrong, I liked meeting with people like you guys, but it meant three months of the worst stress ever, and we didn't benefit much from it. Developers [have to stop working on games] because they have to work on the ‘E3 version,' which isn't work that goes into the actual final game."
Every year we see content and sometimes full game ideas that are never released. By removing the stress and central importance of E3, developers can spend their time preparing the final builds of games. In turn, this means less delays and possibly games being released in the summer. However, E3 is an important ground for developers to get feedback not only from the media and peers, but also from gamers who will ultimately buy (or not buy) their products. Having E3 in the summer, and having other venues to show off products, certainly works to the advantage of developers in that sense.
Some of those small players liked the old E3 format because of its central importance on the industry.
The stress is seen by everyone months before E3 even begins. Setting up meetings, preparing demos, designing booths... Some wouldn't mind working harder to get their products out there if it means removing that dreaded E3 prep period, which usually starts after Christmas.
"I'll miss it, it was fun," notes one source, "but I don't think it will change my business much. Might have to work a little harder for access to some people without E3 but that's more than balanced by not having to worry about getting ready for E3 so I'd call it probably a tie."
Some of those small players liked the old E3 format for one simple reason: it attracts the attention of those outside the gaming industry, of those who don't read up on the latest games-related news throughout the year.
"I've always liked E3 because it focused positive, mainstream media attention on the video game industry in a very powerful way," said another insider. "It would be a shame to lose that." That sentiment is echoed throughout the industry, as noted by another developer, "I guess my take is that the industry does need a large yearly event that draws attention to itself. I also think this attention reaches outside of your typical gaming press and reaches the mainstream. When else does the games industry do that? I think it would be a shame to lose that, but who knows.... maybe what comes next will be even better."
Pushing E3 to become a more business-friendly and mature event might actually help gaming as a whole as far as mainstream press is concerned. Booth babes certainly add something to the atmosphere (see past article link here), but they also add to the perception that gaming is about immature teen males killing things and blowing stuff up. More one-on-one time means that the mainstream can get a better understanding of the medium, and even get a glimpse of titles that don't feature violence or sex. By giving importance to other events like TGS and Leipzig, mainstream might even start covering games outside of the E3 timeframe.
"It's no secret that the only time folks look at the gaming industry is during E3 and during holiday," comments one E3 attendee.
Perhaps one of the best things about E3, whether you love it or hate it, is the social setting that it creates.
If you followed N-Philes' coverage of E3 over the past couple of years, you probably noted that we met up with people from other media sites and had a good time. For smaller outlets like N-Philes, the Wiire, and Planet GameCube, that don't have centralized offices, E3 represents the one time where everybody can get together and interact without a keyboard. Without a centralized event of great importance, some of that will be lost.
"E3 is almost like the gaming version of prom, " one insider joked. "Every company shows off their best, hoping to impress that one special outlet in hopes of getting the cover. It's a sweet dance, that I'm really going to miss."
Is scaling E3 back by up to 90% of what it once was the solution? One insider sent in this comment:
"While I am personally saddened by the decline of E3, from a business perspective it makes perfect sense."
In many ways, the "old" E3 is like an omelette. It mixes the white, the pure reason for E3, being business for media, developers, publishers, and retailers with the yolk, the "show" put on for gamers, who are the cholesterol that clogs the whole event. What the industry really needs is something a little more over easy, a way for everybody in the industry to do business while allowing the bloggers and Gamestop employees to demo upcoming games.
"Shows like PAX must step up and offer the fun and mayhem that E3 once was known for," commented one publisher. "By separating the fun and the business side of the E3 show, the game industry could perhaps benefit from this decision."
Thankfully, technology is getting us there. This year, Microsoft used Xbox Live as a means to bring gamers closer to the action by allowing them to download E3 demos and trailers directly to their Xbox 360's. There is no reason why similar living room experiences can't be had with the Wii, DSL, PS3, PSP, and PC in the future. Third parties, for example, could use such a set-up to get their games and information across to the games in a way that not even the most seasoned reporter could. With less people running around huge convention centers, the media could get that one-on-one time they need to learn more about all the games on and off the floor. Gamers could then find out more about the games that they truly care about and not just the big titles that already get all the buzz. The primary reasons for tens if not hundreds of thousands of people to actually go to E3 suddenly no longer apply.
It is pretty much unanimous that E3 was in need of a change. Nobody knows whether this change will be for the better, but one thing is certain. The Electronic Entertainment Expo began as a small event that grew every year. The E3 Media Festival too will start small. Whether or not it is successful the first time around, the ESA will fine-tune the event, and it will ultimately, hopefully, become a productive event where the industry can worry less about "winning" and focus more on what really matters: hot deals, good games, and great times.