 | |||
|
|
|
|
|
 |
E3 2007 Revamp: Industry Comments August 01, 2006 John JCal Callaham |
|
 |
|
| |
Summary: JCal hits up developers, marketing folk and publishers, from Scott Miller and Tom Ohle through to Feargus Urquhart, to get their comments on the E3 changes coming next year. We get everything from sadness about the booth babes to theories about how America's current troubles are affecting the biggest electronic game show in the world.
 Introduction | Page:: ( 1 / 9 ) |
I have attended every E3 since 1997 and I can tell you from personal experience that it was and still is the highlight of my every year as a journalist. It wasn’t just taking pictures of all the various booth babes (although that’s certainly fun) but the whole idea of the expo that’s appealing to me. Basically every video and PC game that was going to be released in the next 12 to 18 months was on display and you got to chat with the people who made them. What writer that covered the video game beat wouldn’t love that?
[image]
| <% print_image("01"); %> | <% print_image("02"); %> | <% print_image("03"); %> |
As it turned out the first year of the show’s existence was also the first year that the Internet started to get mainstream attention as well. As a result the kind of media that covered the expo changed tremendously over the years. While the first E3 was covered mostly by print journalists, this year’s E3 was about instant blogging and direct Internet feeds from the show floor. In short if you were a game journalist and you were not at E3, you had a big hole to fill that week.
So why mess with such a huge event now, especially when the next gen consoles from Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony are just launching and ushering in a new growth period for the industry? In interviews Monday for GameSpot and Game Informer, ESA president Doug Lowenstein stated that it was time to move on from what he called the “spectacle” of the E3s of years past. He denied reports that the major publishers had decided to pull out of the current E3 set up, saying in the Game Informer interview, “Honestly, it’s just people making stuff up.”
[image]
| <% print_image("04"); %> | <% print_image("05"); %> | <% print_image("06"); %> |
Instead the event is currently being imagined as a three day program, with hotel locations and an attendance of around 5,000. Lowenstein said that he still feels that there will be events such as large press conferences for the three major console makers Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo but that there will no longer be any huge exhibitors’ booths. Finally the new E3 will actually be held in Los Angeles in July, rather than May, which should allow game developers more time to finalize and bring demos of games that are closer to the final products than the admittedly “smoke and mirrors” demos we have seen at many an E3 booth in the past.
The final word (for now) is that rather than being outright cancelled (as one certain online publication continues to claim it is) E3 is being retooled for just a press-retailers event. There something to be said for having an event that puts the focus of the world on your industry and for the past 12 years E3 did that and this new E3 could still continue to serve that purpose. There are also other benefits for having such a trade show as well, even a reduced one. Let’s look at the good and the bad for E3’s downsizing.
| The Good | Page:: ( 2 / 9 ) |
The Good
A good comparison in terms of the number of people at the new E3 would be the attendance at the pre-E3 press conferences for Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo in the past. The number of media at those events number 2,000 to 3,000. Add in another 2,000 or so for the actual publishers and developers who show up in those meeting rooms to show off their games and you have reduced the number of attendees by 10 fold.
[image]
| <% print_image("07"); %> | <% print_image("08"); %> | <% print_image("09"); %> |
Publishers can actually show off their games to the press: While the major publishers will always hold their own press events, the new E3 will allow them to show solidarity to the entire industry without having to deal with a lot of extra junk like noise, fancy exhibits and other distractions. Getting game journalists in one place to see all of your upcoming titles benefits everyone and it also allows the ESA to promote the industry as a whole.
Indeed we have seen a few smaller publishers over the years hold their E3 exhibits at hotel rooms rather than on the show floor as a way to both save money as well as avoid the huge noise factor. If the new E3 is going to be similar to those independent efforts we wouldn’t mind it one bit.
Other events will now get more attention: E3 has been such a huge event that most publishers have waited until the show for their really big announcements. With a smaller show, there may not be the need to wait for major game reveals at E3. That means other events like March’s Game Developers Conference, Germany’s Game Convention in August or event Penny Arcade’s PAX could become places where major games and hardware are revealed. Since many of these events are also open to the public as well, that means that the average fan could go to these events and get to see the games that normally would be first introduced at E3.
[image]
| <% print_image("10"); %> | <% print_image("11"); %> | <% print_image("12"); %> |
And what about the bad about downsizing E3?
| The Bad | Page:: ( 3 / 9 ) |
The Bad
The amount and type of press at the new E3 will be cut down considerably. It’s hard to imagine the G4 TV cable running a whole week of coverage of the new downsized E3 from a hotel room location. Having the new E3 will certainly give journalists more access to games but it makes for less exciting spectacle for the mainstream press. Expect a lot less attention for the new E3 from outlets like the major TV networks, newspapers, magazines and web sites. CNet Networks, the parent company of the largest gaming web site on the planet Gamespot.com, reported in their most recent financial results that page views to Gamespot went up 32 percent while covering E3 last May compared to E3 2005. It’s hard to imagine that kind of attention being given to a cut down E3. Of course, less hits on major gaming web sites next May due to a revamped E3 will affect advertising revenue on gaming web sites.
[image]
| <% print_image("13"); %> | <% print_image("14"); %> | <% print_image("15"); %> |
LA will be hugely affected. Even though we don’t like LA, we can’t ignore the fact that people do live there and they all need to make a living. E3 has been by far the biggest convention held at the LA Convention Center every year and during the five days of E3 related events every May the 60,000 + visitors to the city generate tens of millions of dollars into the local economy. Even though the event will stay in LA it certainly won’t be the huge all-encompassing event as in the past. Without that kind of money coming into the city, there could be some people who could suffer such as downtown restaurants, taxi drivers, and more.
It just won’t be quite as fun: Yes, for us in the media, a smaller and revamped E3 would make our jobs easier but secretly I think we kind of like some aspects of the E3s of the past. The parties that we can’t get invited to, the celebs that show up to promote a game product and the booth babes that are the subject of many a web site’s galleries (including this one) are all a part of the show we have grown accustomed to. Having an event that’s just in meeting rooms doesn’t really sound like a celebration or a party on the surface. We’ve read complaints about the so called restrictions that the current E3 has but we don’t buy it. A retrenchment to a meeting room format would actually be more restrictive and less spontaneous.
So what will become of E3, and indeed of the entire industry, with this new version? It’s hard to say since we suspect even the ESA doesn’t have all the answers but perhaps the new version of the expo shows that the industry is finally grown up and has decided that the games, rather than the expensive shine of exhibits, parties and booth babes, should be the focus. I’m not sure what the final form will actually look like but I look forward to seeing how this new E3 will rise from the ashes of the old and I look forward to heading on that plane in July to see it. It won’t be the same...but then again, not much else is these days.
[image]
| <% print_image("16"); %> | <% print_image("17"); %> | <% print_image("18"); %> |
So what has the industry reaction been like to the downsizing of E3? Here is a sample of the responses we have gotten so far. By the way, FiringSquad attempted several times Sunday and Monday to contact the ESA for comment via phone and email and aside from Monday afternoon’s press release they have not responded to our inquiries. Several other representatives of major publishers either did not respond to our inquiries or choose not to comment to us.
| Interview Part I | Page:: ( 4 / 9 ) |
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.
[image]
| <% print_image("19"); %> | <% print_image("20"); %> | <% print_image("21"); %> |
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.
[image]
| <% print_image("22"); %> | <% print_image("23"); %> | <% print_image("24"); %> |
| More Interviews | Page:: ( 5 / 9 ) |
I think this is indeed the case. The expenditure for "a strong" e3 showing is huge. Also, look at this in the context of a consolidating industry i.e. fewer real publishers... The top firms scan get their own events into play and people will be there. It is not like media will need to go to 10 events anymore:-)
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?
The impact will not be too large. It will take some time to settle if true - but something will be worked out to fill the vacuum.
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?
Some will just save money and get better EPS figures... Weight this in light of recent cost cuttings at many publishers (Take Two, Activision and EA all did cuts). Frankly, it would be a lot easier for me in their shoes to cut back on the millions for e3 vs, the millions needed for next gen dev.
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?
When ECTS faded, Leipzig bloomed in Europe (London was expensive and Germany less so). So... eventually something will come in. GDC is already a mini E3 for publisher-developer stuff and middleware guys. CES may be the place for large games. However, it is not like 20 titles from each publisher would get attention there.
[image]
| <% print_image("25"); %> | <% print_image("26"); %> | <% print_image("27"); %> |
Pete Hines: Public Relations Manager – Bethesda Softworks
First, can you comment on the argument that rising costs in exhibiting and planning for E3 has cause this retrenchment of the show?
It’s certainly not cheap to exhibit at E3. We’ve felt for a while that the biggest issue was less with the costs and more with the attendance. It had gotten to the point where it was a little too loose and out-of-control for my tastes. From my standpoint, the cost complaints I’ve seen were more the result of everyone trying to outdo the other guy. It’s not like it’s mandated for anyone how big their booth has to be or how much they have to spend on a party. Our approach has always been to do what we feel is necessary and let the other folks do what they will.
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?
Since we don’t know the show will look like next year at this particular moment, I think it’s hard to say. When you get really big it attracts more attention on a national and worldwide level. There’s certainly a chance that if you cut back a good bit on the size of the show and who can attend, your interest will get cut back as well. At the same time, the industry itself is only getting bigger and more popular regardless of what E3 does. So if there’s a main show each year dedicated to video games, I would still think it’d get a pretty good amount of attention no matter what.
Do you think your company and others 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?
Again, it’s hard to say because I don’t know what the show will be like at this point or what we’ll be doing. Certainly if it gets scaled back to the point where fewer press folks are showing up and we aren’t seeing all the folks we used to see, then we’re going to have to spend additional resources to reach those folks in some other way. But marketing and advertising to the consumer is different than getting your game in front of retailers and buyers and the press so they can see firsthand what you have.
There’s still a need for that, a need to get products out in front of a lot of people who cover the industry so they can see what it is you’re doing instead of reading about it or watching some clips on the Internet. As a guy who has attended more than once as both an exhibitor and a member of the press, E3 still has meaning and value. It just needs some improvements.
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.
Honestly, I don’t really know. I can’t see it being temporary unless whatever gets tried in 2007 is a disaster and folks say “go back to the way it was!” We’ll see. Or, it’ll scale way back and then folks will start one-upping each other again and we’ll be right back to where we are now in 5 years.
Finally, is there anything else that your company wishes to say about the retrenchment of E3?
It’s going to be interesting to see what the long-term effects of this are going to be.
[image]
| <% print_image("28"); %> | <% print_image("29"); %> | <% print_image("30"); %> |
| Yet More Interviews | Page:: ( 6 / 9 ) |
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.
[image]
| <% print_image("31"); %> | <% print_image("32"); %> | <% print_image("33"); %> |
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.
[image]
| <% print_image("34"); %> | <% print_image("35"); %> | <% print_image("36"); %> |
| Even More Interviews | Page:: ( 7 / 9 ) |
The competition at E3 is getting fiercer especially as the next generation games are all competing to push the envelope further. The next generation development alone is quite expensive, and preparing your games for exhibition at E3 can be a slight distraction for the production process. While E3 provides some good visibility for the presented games, it to some degree also mandates their presence, especially for larger titles. In this sense, I can understand if especially the largest publishers feel that the production of many of their games is negatively affected by this cycle, and the overall marketing rewards are limited, as it is harder for most games to standout it in such a crowded environment.
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?
I do think the E3 has been a big publicity flagship for the games industry. It’s the closest kind of a media event compared to the rest of the entertainment industry that the casual public can relate to. It’s hard to predict whether the lack of E3 would affect the market negatively, it probably would to a certain degree. It would definitely be a shame to see such a promotional event disappear from the mainstream media.
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?
I believe the same money would ultimately be used for marketing in different ways. Most likely the larger publishers will put more money into sponsoring their own events. This makes sense for them, as it allows them to present their own titles with more time and attention allocated for them.
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 hard to predict the future of these events. However if E3 would not be there, especially the smaller developers would have to find other venues for exhibiting their work, and gaining more media attention. The other technology & entertainment events could be good candidates, as they already collect a large number of people together and allow for a decent exposure.
Finally, is there anything else that you wish to say about the retrenchment of E3?
I think the games industry needs more mainstream events like E3. Comparing to other entertainment industries like the film or music, the games industry doesn’t still publicize especially the industry behind the games to the general public as much. For example, there are a number of high profile awards ceremonies for the other entertainment sectors, and it would be exciting to see something equivalent happen for games and their developers.
[image]
| <% print_image("37"); %> | <% print_image("38"); %> | <% print_image("39"); %> |
First, can you comment on the argument that rising costs in exhibiting and planning for E3 has cause this retrenchment of the show?
The rising costs are an argument, but the crumbling video games market is an even stronger one. We’re facing the sharpest decline since NASDAQ crash probably. So everyone now looks into cutting the costs. Moreover, the last 2-3 years were “more of the same”, without any breakthrough achievements. Everyone knew about them quite some time in advance, like in the case with presentations of next-gen consoles. So it was inevitable that some people will lose their faith in the show. After corporate giants finished trimming their staff, the next step in minimizing the spending would be to lower the participation in various media events. The evolution of this could be a decrease of the overall media support level.
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 was something of a relic of the US Game Industry of the Nineties, with all the glamour and clamor of a big consumer’s show added to the usual gamedev people bravado. It is out of place today, in a country which is waging incessant wars and suffers from the largest trade deficit in the known history. There will be an impact, but not such a big one. Many great companies have their own consumer’s shows anyway, and the smaller ones are more interested in making deals. The organizers promised to keep this part intact. Perhaps the US gaming enthusiasts will be the ones who suffer the most. Maybe there will be a smaller event for them in the near future, but nothing like E3. For media people, this will be a mixed blessing. On one hand, they do not need to compete so fiercely during the show and pay so much for E3 attendance. On the other, they will miss a lot of good times and findings at the show.
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?
The money “saved” from E3 will leak into the most crucial parts of the today’s publishers budget. That is the development of next-gen titles and the research into venues alternative to retail. Such people as EA have more than enough advertising as it is. Even if the original intent was to spend more on the direct customer’s approach, other equally important issues will appear as soon as the funds become available. So there will be an overall increase in advertising and marketing, but the lion’s share will go elsewhere.
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?
The situation in the game industry is dependent on a lot of outside factors, some of them cannot be taken into account now. When average people start caring more about gas, and fuel, and bread, they will pay less attention to the computer games. One thing is for sure, we have to cope with far smaller development budgets on the projects which are much bigger than before. This is something to be thought over at the next GDC. Surely E3 cannot be just “replaced”, no matter what.
Finally, is there anything else that you wish to say about the retrenchment of E3?
The obligatory dressing of booth babes at the last show was an ominous sign. Perhaps they should’ve ordered them to wear fatigues! ;)
[image]
| <% print_image("40"); %> | <% print_image("41"); %> | <% print_image("42"); %> |
| 3D Interviews! | Page:: ( 8 / 9 ) |
Tom Ohle: Founder, Evolve PR
E3 has always been a major expense for exhibiting companies. For many smaller developers and publishers, it’s among the most significant marketing and PR expenses; it’s often their only chance to get their products seen by a ton of media outlets. Factoring in staff travel and expenses, they’re spending tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of dollars for a small booth in Kentia or a meeting room. It’s a lot of money to be spending on a single event, but you just can’t demo your products to as many editors at any other event.
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?
I don’t think it will impact the attention the games industry gets. Gaming is deeply engrained in mainstream society and is continuing an upward trend in that regard. As far as I understand, the “new E3” will essentially be less over-the-top and more focused on effective business, including effective demos to media. As long as editors in mainstream/consumer media are still able to attend the event, their coverage shouldn’t suffer; if they’re sensationalizing and glamorizing the whole event, though—and if that’s why readers follow it—then I suppose they may cut back on coverage. I hope it doesn’t come to that, though; gamers will still want to learn about upcoming games.
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?
I think the budget usually earmarked for E3 will be distributed to other marketing or PR efforts. Companies always seemed to have the money to spend on a massive booth presence; I don’t see any reason for them to not have that cash in the future (other than rising dev costs, I suppose). I’d watch for an increase in spending on press junkets and other editors’ day-type events.
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 pray that GDC doesn’t turn into what E3 had become; that event needs to remain focused on development. Other than that, I think the aforementioned events may draw additional attention, but they won’t replace E3. The best part of E3 was the fact that you had all of these lower-tier websites and fan-oriented outlets that saved up all they could to send a small staff to E3. It was their one chance to meet their PR reps face-to-face, learn about upcoming games and really get a feeling for how exciting the industry can be. If the new E3 still allows those outlets to attend—while cutting out the droves of unqualified attendees (the dreaded Exhibits Only badges)—it’ll be a great venue for those outlets to remain involved in the industry, and conversely, for publishers and developers to reach the same audience.
Finally, is there anything else that you wish to say about the retrenchment of E3?
I’m all for the evolution of E3. In the last few years, it’s become increasingly difficult to cut through the noise—quite literally—to conduct effective business at E3. That said, I’ve generally been fortunate enough to work with companies that saw the value in holding behind-closed-doors demos. If that’s what the new E3 is—quiet meeting rooms where it’s easy to trade information between developer/publisher and media/buyer without having to scream—I’ll applaud the ESA for doing something we’ve all been waiting for.
[image]
| <% print_image("43"); %> | <% print_image("44"); %> | <% print_image("45"); %> |
Joseph Lieberman: PR Manager, Tri Synergy
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 a ridiculous media circus for years. Smaller publishers pretty much got pushed out of the picture while larger publishers wasted millions of dollars trying to prop up products bound for failure. The system was broken and it is about time someone fixed it.
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?
It may have an impact, but if that impact is equal to the cost that E3 has produced across the entire market I would be surprised. I am sure sites like Firing Squad will come up with their own way to build some hype around products that deserve it rather than products that just spent a few million dollars hiring and building a live stage act for three days of strobe-lighted fun.
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?
We exhibited at E3 in a closed booth. I am not sure what will become of that money, it will probably be used to do exactly what we did at E3 only in a more one on one setting with our partners.
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?
In any market where there is an opening someone will seize it. I’d personally prefer to see the GDC grow a little bit in terms of a place for more business to business activity as opposed to training and development with a random show room.
Finally, is there anything else that you wish to say about the retrenchment of E3?
While I don’t know that I speak for Tri Synergy as a whole, personally I say it’s about damn time someone stopped the excessive waste and over-hyped garbage that came from LA in May. LA has enough over-hyped and wasted garbage without our industry’s help.
[image]
| <% print_image("46"); %> | <% print_image("47"); %> | <% print_image("48"); %> |
Randy Pitchford: President, Gearbox Software
First, can you comment on the argument that rising costs in exhibiting and planning for E3 has cause this retrenchment of the show?
Every year, the ESA confronts a gravity of influence from the people who spend money into the show about the kinds of things that need to be improved. I don’t think there is a single person that is writing checks for their appearance at E3 that wouldn’t welcome ideas that allow objectives to be achieved for less money. Today we have a statement from the ESA that states in clear terms that part of the motivation of adapting the expo is to provide a “more efficient way” for ESA members to use E3 to achieve the objectives of the show. Efficiency is about cost and benefit.
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 is an important event. Adaptations that help ESA members better achieve the objectives of E3 for less cost is a good thing for our industry. I think our industry will have showcase events of all types, including events like E3, for many years. These events will be designed to bring attention to the entertainment our industry creates. I’m confident that the events will continue to accomplish their objectives, but will always strive to evolve towards the smartest ways of achieving those objectives.
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?
Money tends to get spent. If less money is spent on E3, it will be spent on something. There are a lot of things to spend money on.
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?
There are a lot of events for publishers and developers to share their games and their plans. E3 has been the biggest, of course! For a long time to come, there are plenty of objectives for the big shows to exist. But, there are other approaches, too. Many folks are starting to get quite successful at creating their own events where journalists can focus on a few specific titles. As I type this, there is a group of European journalists at Gearbox getting an exclusive look at the next-generation game Brothers in Arms: Hell’s Highway for PS3, 360 and PC. That kind of thing happens all the time in our industry. There are other “big” shows. There are other intimate venues. There are choices…
Finally, is there anything else that you wish to say about the retrenchment of E3?
I’m looking forward to learning more about E3 2007 and am excited to be a part of it!
| Last Interviews | Page:: ( 9 / 9 ) |
I think it’s obvious things have gotten out of control; E3 was no longer just about selling games, it was about extravagance per square foot: from who has the biggest speaker stack to who can draw the biggest movie star. The fact that the show now uses every square foot of the L.A. Convention Center, and even spills onto the street, shows it has gone beyond being a tradeshow to more of a circus.
Don’t get me wrong, I love a good circus and I have thoroughly enjoyed all the E3’s I have attended. From an industry point of view, however, it does seem to have lost some focus, and gained a larger price tag. They’ve really brought it upon themselves: if the booths and displays have gotten too expensive, developers should focus on the games and not the flash.
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, absolutely. I believe this hurts smaller game developers and publishers more than it does the larger more established groups. E3 is a great platform to be heard, and a great place to be discovered. The Kentia hall, which is generally where smaller projects end up, is a great place to scout upcoming talent and at see creative ideas that fall outside the mainstream.
I do not think the E3 changes will lessen the attention either game market will get from consumers, but it certainly does alter how developers and publishers compete for consumer and media attention.
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?
I think they will be forced to spend that money to market their games to the media in other ways. They’re going to have to host their own media days (like some do now) or find some other creative way to get the media together in order to get a focused look at a product or product line-up. I doubt anyone really saves money by moving away from E3 as it is now; those monies will definitely get allocated to something else marketing or media oriented.
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 someone will look to do something; some studios and groups will definitely look to fill the E3 vacuum. What will be missing in the any new leaner meaner E3 format is everything else the show provided for the Entertainment Industry; E3 was our reunion. It’s a place devs can catch up with previous co-workers, it lets us play a friend’s games, when otherwise it would all be under an NDA. Since I started coming I have been able to use it as my own temperature check on different game types and industry trends. I think developers love to share in a controlled environment like that. It lets them “strut” their stuff to their peers.
I hope these aspects get considered when they determine what will be done with E3 going forward. At a minimum, something else will be born of this: if all the stuff I mentioned above is lost, the entire industry is going to miss it pretty hard, and hopefully come up with a replacement. This is the game industry; there must be some creative folks out there
Finally, is there anything else that you wish to say about the retrenchment of E3?
Well, with how volatile this industry can be, we needed an anchor every year, and E3 was that anchor. If it gets changed too much, another one will arise
[image]
| <% print_image("49"); %> | <% print_image("50"); %> | <% print_image("51"); %> |
Rusty Williams: CEO, Flying Lab Software
First, can you comment on the argument that rising costs in exhibiting and planning for E3 has cause this retrenchment of the show?
If the games industry can’t handle the rising costs of one trade show, it’s hard to imagine how it’ll be able to afford building next gen titles.
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 is just one (admittedly big) blip in the gaming world. We have many magazines and web sites covering video games even in the months without E3. I don’t think its absence will change anyone’s perception of 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?
E3 is a show targeted towards the retail distributors and the press. Hopefully, the money that would have been spent at E3 can be used to market directly to gamers. With digital distribution, marketing directly to gamers becomes more important, which is why we’ve always had a minor presence at E3, and really focus on PAX, a show that is for gamers by gamers.
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?
Events like the Penny Arcade Expo and channels like the Xbox 360 Marketplace are already bringing the latest demos to real gamers around the country who could never attend E3. I expect those kinds of events to multiply and that exhibitors will rely on volunteer street teams, small, reusable booths, and minimal staff needs to support those events.
Finally, is there anything else that you wish to say about the retrenchment of E3?
We've had a great time at E3 over the years and will miss having such a crazy experience every spring. But between GDC, DICE, AGC, PAX, GenCon, and other shows, we don't lack for opportunities to A) meet the press, B) meet the public, and C) shmooze with our friends and colleagues.
[image]
| <% print_image("52"); %> | <% print_image("53"); %> | <% print_image("54"); %> |
Feargus Urquhart: Co-Founder, Obsidian Entertainment
First, can you comment on the argument that rising costs in exhibiting and planning for E3 has cause this retrenchment of the show?
Publishers have been spending a ton of money for the 15 years of shows that I've been going to, so while it probably costs more than it did, including adjusting for inflation, I don't think it is drastically different. Before Obsidian, I worked for Interplay for close to 12 years, so I was exposed to the publisher side of trade shows for a long time. Interplay's big booth debuted at CES in January of 1994. A few years later, in it's largest configuration, it was on a 8000 sq. ft. area of the show floor, was two stories, had 8 meeting rooms, a large lunch area and was able to demonstrate games on close to 50 computers or consoles. It took a week to setup and needed a staff of 40 to 60 people per shift during the show just to keep it running efficiently. At the time, Interplay wasn't even a top 5 publisher and was investing that sort of money and resources into trade shows almost ten years ago. So, I think the argument that E3 has gotten more expensive recently is not completely accurate.
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?
I think the overall impact of E3 in the mainstream press is pretty huge, however the way we have usually been depicted on the 11 o'clock news is as something "weird". The movie industry's biggest night is the Academy Awards which gets 3 to 4 hours on TV and while the music numbers are often entertaining in the wrong way, it is an elegant display of their industry. The big presentation of our industry is all the flash, boob babes and loud music. So while we may get less press without a big E3 that might not be completely a bad thing.
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?
I would guess the money which publishers save at E3 will initially go into more PR and Marketing, I think that a fair amount of it will go to creating even more elaborate Pre-E3 events, since the reaction by the Marketing and PR Departments will be that they aren't getting the coverage they need at E3, so they need to maximize the coverage they get from the press at these events. In the long run, it's hard to say. Some of it might be saved, but it's more likely that it will go into more promotion. Products needs to sell more individually every year and one of the ways to make that happen is more Marketing and PR.
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 really hard to say if it will be temporary or permanent. One of the big reasons for trade shows was to have a place where the Sales departments could sell and the Marketing and PR departments could get the latest info and hype out on their games quickly. The Sales forces really don't do much selling at E3 anymore and with the advent of the web based game mags, people have access to the latest information on the games they are interested in the day after that info becomes public. I heard some people say that they got a better feeling for E3 this year by just going to the gamesites.
Finally, is there anything else that you wish to say about the retrenchment of E3?
I do have a couple of concerns when it comes to E3 going away and that is the effect it will have on international attendees and the gamers. E3 provides a big reason for publishers to fly out people from their international offices and since all the games were going to be in one place many of the international journalists come as well. Most of the Neverwinter Nights 2 interviews I did at E3 this year were with journalists outside of the US. Without E3, there might be less of them coming out which could hurt the international nature and acceptance of our games and industry. That impact might also be felt by the international offices not all flying in at one time and meeting and spending time with their American counterparts. Once people have met and spent time in person, business always has a habit of going more smoothly.
As for the gamers, when I was younger in 1993 and 1994 (before I had to attend 15 or 16 US Trade Shows), I couldn't wait to get to go to CES and E3. If E3 does shrink drastically or even go away, I think the biggest disappointment will be with people who just love games. It's the place where everyone gets to see the latest stuff and get excited about it, criticize it, wish you were playing it already, wishing you had the time to put that feature in your game and just get to hang out with other people that love games the way you do. So in that respect, it would be sad to see E3 go particularly if nothing replaced it.
Morten Brodersen: CEO, Third Wave Games
First, can you comment on the argument that rising costs in exhibiting and planning for E3 has cause this retrenchment of the show?
Cost definitely has an impact but I don't think it is the primary reason. Because of the intense magazine and online coverage of everything from new games to new technologies and hardware, there seems to be less real news revealed at E3. The last time I went to the show, I didn't see anything that I hadn't seen before online.
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?
Games are truly main stream now. Go to any bookstore or news agent and you will find 20+ magazines covering the games industry. Go online and there are literally hundreds of dedicated games websites covering everything from games and technology to the latest hardware and in-detail reviews. So it may have an impact on mainstream media but not on the overall evangelizing of games. Let's face it, more and more people play games instead of watching TV. Which is excellent by the way!
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?
The money will be used in other ways instead. Each biz will decide whether they will have the biggest ROI (return on investment) going to E3 with a big stand, going to E3 with a smaller stand + spend money on media coverage or spend all of the budget on other coverage.
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 in importance. More and more publishing deals are signed at GDC for example. So maybe long term GDC will grow and E3 will shrink until the events are somewhat level. It makes sense to have a number of different events spread out over the year and geographically around the world. Instead of one big bang once a year, a number of smaller bangs keeping the engine going.
Finally, is there anything else that you wish to say about the retrenchment of E3?
I personally hope E3 will continue going strong. There is nothing quite like it and the enthusiasm and cheer boldness of the event helps stimulate the whole industry. But I am not sure that a big E3 makes sense from a biz/ROI point of view