So there'll be more conventions to cover -- at least they'll be smaller and less stressful. Sure, E3 was fun after the 8-6 workday I had the three days of the show. I got to hang out with friends, talk to people I only get to see once a year and other stuff like that. But the workday was very little playing games like most would think. It was a lot of running around, trying to get 5 minutes with a developer or someone official and, even though you have an appointment, getting pushed back because a more important media outlet showed up (and no, I'm not really still upset over what happened to me -- it has happened to many others too). Granted, I'm now associated with a new site that is bigger and is associated with a big name in UGO...but I'm still happy about this.
The size of the show made it hard for the smaller game sites to do anything and only the few big names could get any real work done because of their name. With less shows, maybe more work will be able to get done with less stress overall. Falaanla Marr fucked around with this message on 08-01-2006 at 04:11 PM.
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Talonus said this:
Bigger companies like MS, Sony, EA, and Nintendo are expected to have a big preference. They have to have big areas to show a larger number of games, while smaller companies only need to show a a few games at most. While they didn't need to spend in the eight figures, they still needed to spend a lot to show everything that was expected of them. On the other hand, they could spend maybe six figures max for a smaller show or press conferences.Also, don't forget the dev commitment that is required. April is basically a dead month for gaming companies as they prepare for E3. For a larger company, this means they have to coordinate many more projects for the show. It's it a hell of a lot of work for the big guys.
Yes yes, they had more stuff to show than a smaller developer and require more space. But that also means more product, which means more total revenue so that should not be a hamper to them. But that doesn't mean they require more glitz, which is where the bigger cost comes in. The complaint seems to be they feel they have to outcompete each other to draw in the press. Well, that's complete bs. The press want the stories no matter how much glitz is around. I'd be willing to bet they could cut down their cost by at least half, if not more, if they simply concentrated on displaying the merchandise and leaving out the girls, the shows, and all the other crap they have to "lure" the press their way. And by doing so they might even cut down the attendance factor they don't like and have only the serious press attend to get the scoops, which is what they say they want.
They will still require a large amount of space even at the smaller shows and the developers will still have to coordinate dates to have stuff available at these smaller shows. Simply dropping E3 doesn't seem like a good solution to me. I agree with Mooj that there will be a replacement E3 in the future, so they aren't solving anything.
Did I not say that the gaming industry would be looking for a new place to show off?
Did I not specifically name PAX?
I don't care what Gabe says, the industry just lost their place to show off and they're looking for new grounds. If they don't get PAX, they'll just find something else.
