Yet More Interviews

John Williamson: President, Zombie Studios

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

I'm sure it is a valid business decisions, but no one was forcing the publishers to build bigger and bigger booths or give away more and more SWAG. It reminds me of professional sports. No one is holding a gun to the GM's head to pay $20 million for a guy hitting .212, but they do, if no other reason than because "everyone else is", then they complain they are losing money. A reined in E3, maybe stay open 1 extra day and charge general admission for the fan boys, but still a single large show would be best for the industry.

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?

Yes, I do. It was the one unifying event we had. And its absence will be felt in lack of mainstream coverage for our industry. E3 was broken, it was impossible to actually conduct business on the floor, and the show seemed to have devolved into catering to the fan boy, rather than industry professional, but the solution seems a bit draconian.

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?

No, that money was earmarked for tradeshows, and they aren't going to take the million dollars they would have spent on the booth and instead spend it on 4 more months of development and a new AI programmer for your favorite game. That money will spent on other PR type events. There are lots of people on the payroll to make sure that happens.

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?

GDC is already growing quite fast and the show floor is quite large now. The signal to noise ratio is better than E3. I imagine that some of the E3 excess will move to GDC. GDC will never be as big as E3, but it will get bigger faster now as a result.

Mike Fehlauer: Business Development, Penny Arcade

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

E3 was initially a press/trade event that grew into a quasi-public extravaganza. The show was beginning to neglect the business side by catering to the PR/public side--the noise at the show makes it nearly impossible for games buyers to negotiate with publishers' sales teams. Over the years E3 developed incompatible objectives, and that's why publishers started to question return on investment.

So I don't think it was so much the amount spent, but rather the efficient use of that money. Money spent on a giant sound system and playable kiosks is wasted on game buyers/business people, and money spent on air-conditioned meeting rooms and sound-proofing is wasted on the public. By refocusing on the business side, the show becomes much more attractive and is a better, more efficient use of money.

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?

Not at all. From what I understand about the ESA statement, E3 will continue to have a press component. All the announcements will still be there, they'll just be made without the use of humongous speakers and booth babes. Perhaps instead of having a single giant press explosion, publishers will be able to maintain a certain level or press presence throughout the year.

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?

As I mentioned above, I think that money will be re-allocated and the overall spend maintained. I expect more advertising, and an ever greater presence at other game industry shows like GDC and PAX.

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 agree with the ESA that E3 needs to focus on being an industry-only show where retail buyers and press can sit down and meet with publishers and manufacturers and talk business. But again, there is also a need for a dynamic show where the industry can make a big splash and show off its wares to the public. Those two separate objectives are ideally served by two separate shows.

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

Honestly, I think E3's refocus benefits the entire industry: developers, publishers, manufacturers, retailers, press, and consumers. An industry-only show focused exclusively on business will allow more to get accomplished at less cost.

With E3 focusing exclusively on business, publishers need a well-attended, established show where they can get in front of the public. In other words: a show like ours, which is focused on publisher and developer interaction with gamers.

Each show perfectly meets the needs of its intended exhibitors and audience. There are no wasted dollars. Everyone wins.