Interview Part I

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.

Chris Kirmse: VP Of Engineering – Xfire

First, can you comment on the argument that rising costs in exhibiting and planning for E3 has cause this retrenchment of the show?

Xfire was not part of the cause of the change of E3 this year, but rumors do suggest that the high cost was part of the issue.

E3 was the single biggest worldwide media even for the video and PC game industry, bringing in attention from a ton of both game enthusiast and mainstream media to cover the show. Without such a large event in the US for 2007, do you think that could impact the attention that the video and PC game industry gets from consumers and gamers?

E3 brought enormous attention to the videogame industry as a whole. Without E3, there will certainly be less tech and mainstream media coverage of videogames, as few individual companies can create enough buzz for a single event to deserve coverage. We think this is a bad thing for the industry.

Do you think the people who exhibit at E3 will save their money and spend less on marketing and advertising as a whole or will the money that was previously earmarked for E3 be used in other ways?

Games still need to be marketed; publishers need to generate buzz for their titles before they are released in order to sell their games. We believe the money will be spent elsewhere, both in traditional media but especially online, where game companies can target their ad spending very carefully through sites such as GameSpot and Xfire.

Do you believe that this retrenchment is just temporary or will other events in the US, including CES, the Game Developers Conference and Digital/Life, become bigger and more important without having E3 be such a big presence in the industry?

It's too early to say for sure, but the GDC is now the only must-attend event for virtually all developers and publishers world-wide. It is poised to become even more important than it already is.

Jeremy Soule – video/PC game music composer

First, can you comment on the argument that rising costs in exhibiting and planning for E3 has cause this retrenchment of the show?

E3 has been insanely expensive for many companies for a long time. I can say that at least two months a year of productive development time are lost by companies trying to put together a presentable demo that is usually discarded right after the show. Post "E3 fatigue" is also a factor. Teams are just too worn out after the show to do any real work. You have people that logged 100 hour weeks before the show missing two weeks of work afterwards.

E3 was the single biggest worldwide media even for the video and PC game industry, bringing in attention from a ton of both game enthusiast and mainstream media to cover the show. Without such a large event in the US for 2007, do you think that could impact the attention that the video and PC game industry gets from consumers and gamers?

If confirmed, I absolutely think the demise of E3 is not a good thing for games. Sure, the show may have had its excesses, but it was sort of a nuclear explosion of information about games. The reach of this show was truly global. It even carried its influence to other forms of entertainment. For instance, I had heard that Steven Spielberg was a fan of the show and that he had often been spotted walking the showroom floor.

Do you think the people who exhibit at E3 will save their money and spend less on marketing and advertising as a whole or will the money that was previously earmarked for E3 be used in other ways?

Marketing is very challenging in the current economic environment. I think that games are simply a part of the global consumer fabric. Games, movies and other forms of entertainment have often served as sort of a canary in the mine when it comes to the economy. The conflict in the Middle East and oil prices concern me. People will spend money on the essentials but will not hesitate to cut back expenditures towards entertainment items. Let's face it. If you're a kid working at Burger King and you just spent $40 filling your car's gas tank when you only had to spend $20 for the same amount a year earlier, that hit could influence whether or not you buy that new game.

Do you believe that this retrenchment is just temporary or will other events in the US, including CES, the Game Developers Conference and Digital/Life, become bigger and more important without having E3 be such a big presence in the industry?

I think the game industry will probably moderate its spending for a little while as E3 really was out of control. However, the larger issue is of course the US and world economy. Let's just hope things get better soon. A part of me wants to stay optimistic about next year. It's really a hard call but if I were running a publisher, I would have opted to participate in the show

Finally, is there anything else that you wish to say about the retrenchment of E3?

Well, the last show was fun. I didn't see any lack of enthusiasm for our industry. The companies that decide to support a show like E3 in the future are not making a mistake. I also think that there's no better way for journalists to cover games than to have them all in one spot. If anything, a world without E3 could really be a setback to game journalism. After all, what are the costs associated with flying 500 journalists in to see your game (and that's if they are even available)? Even if the cost is comparable to a booth, E3 is one hell of a party that will never be replaced.