- Oct 25, 2017
Well, we had some good times with E3 over the years.
Exactly. The desire to tell people how something won't affect you personally gets old.This is not about how it impacts viewers, this is about how E3 is transforming and the impact it’s having on it no longer being the show we’ve known for years. Geoff claiming he doesn’t feel comfortable with what he knows and refusing to attend (not just refraining from hosting) is very telling.
Someone on the first page made the same comment as yours and I simply don’t get what the point was/is.
The thing is, Sony DOES have a problem with spending millions on a trade show because they already host their own one, Destination PlayStation (which third parties like Activision and EA also attend), much earlier in the year when it's apparently more beneficial to sell games and their plans to retailers. Sony have been publicly down on how E3 has turned into this trade, media and public show mess and have apparently been pushing for it to follow Gamescom's lead but there are other publishers who want it to stay a trade show so the ESA are trying to serve a lot of different interests and, I guess, lack the leadership to just pick one. And when you remember the ESA's idiotic plans for E3 from the leak last year (celebrities, etc) then I really do think Sony just doesn't see the benefit of spending so much time, money and energy on it when hosting their own show would probably be far more effective.It barely is though. MS holds their own event in their own theater and, while they will probably have some small Mixer floor presence again, they are really not taking up a huge amount of floor space like they used to.
The ESA needs all of these publishers and manufacturers more than they need the ESA. The ESA has been ineffective in terms of protecting the interests of the video game industry (and by that I mean the shareholders in these companies), against legislation (see stories like this https://kotaku.com/u-s-senator-introduces-bill-to-ban-loot-boxes-and-pay-1834612226 ), unionization (https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2020-01-07/major-union-launches-campaign-to-organize-video-game-and-tech-workers ), and other regulations/business practices that might cut into their profits. No one at Sony or Activision is going to speak and up say "We're not happy with how you're letting these unions try to interfere with our businesses", but you know those conversations are happening behind closed doors.
Sony, Activision, MS, and EA have no problem spending millions on advertising and trade shows. It's part of the business. They just don't want to support the ESA because they don't feel like the ESA is pushing hard enough against these things that are going to cut into their bottom line and they are expressing their displeasure by not contributing to, what has been, a cash cow for the ESA.
That's my take anyway. I don't think they're happy with the direction the ESA is going in. I'd love to hear what someone like jschreier, with a bit more industry insight and knowledge, might be able to chime in with about this.
Believe me I'm not saying I'm anti-union, or anti-lootbox legislation, but these companies sure as hell are and if the ESA isn't going to be a strong voice for them on these issues, then I don't see them continuing to support the ESA. What was the last big lobbying effort the ESA did that truly had long lasting benefits for the video game industry? I know they fought hard to not have mature video games regulated by the goverment in favor of setting up the ESRB, but since then, have they really been effective at all in protecting or promoting these companies interests? I know they have some hand in reducing copyright infringement, but is it worth it for companies the size of EA to pay an association like the ESA to do that on their behalf? Wouldn't it make more sense to just hire a lawyer and that's his job?
Also, none of this really explains why Keighley doesn't want to go this year.
Tbh, this is the reason I didn't watch Geoff last year. I don't want to listen to Boogey or any other YTber. That's why I stick with Giant Bomb after the show.
I just want to watch the East Allies react live on stream. Feels like I’m in a room of my gaming pals and reacting along. Plus there’s no dumb company mouthpiece talking in out of touch corporate speak or random people in the crowds shouting nonsense disconnected from what’s happening on stage. This is just personal preference, but I enjoy the tightness of a direct with trailer after trailer instead of EA or Ubisoft wheeling out some dev working on a new title and having them tell their life story on stage before showing a 90 second trailer.
He ran judge's week which is a pretty big deal (the press being able to play a lot of what is going to be revealed / some stuff that isn't behind closed doors the month before). It was the only way a lot of them found current E3 bearable.Maybe i'm ignorant, but Geoff Keighley was a very small part of E3 for me. His Coliseum shows were good, but they didn't define the week - i'd watch them later after digesting the real news. As far as I know, the PC show is still happening, and Xbox will be there on June 13th. There will be lots of news and probably a proper console reveal. So Geoff already had his console reveal at TGAs, he probably feels as though he has an 'out'.
The many Corp plants in the audience turned me off any live events.
Seriously how bad that the master of shills the Doritos pope himself would pull out? I don't want to hear any "influencer" shit because we know damn well Keighley is known to celebrate controversial "influencers" himself.
I went a few times between 1997 and 2002. It was the only place I could meet Peter Molyneux pitching his latest game, or stumble upon a small table with a lone Bungie dev pitching the latest Marathon title, and in the next hall see famous skateboarders and BMX riders doing tricks on a huge half pipe. E3 at its best had both spectacle and a humble indie bent. Maybe the industry has just changed too much since then, but the new ways studios are trying to showcase games don't feel exciting to me.I don't want to romanticize it too much, but it's tragic to see E3 implode into this festering shell of itself (by its own hand primarily).
For the better part of three decades I've dreamed of one day getting the chance to go. I couldn't help but fantasize about sitting in the pressers and walking the floor at its peak. I would go to the Sony E3 Experience thing in theaters every year, desperate for even the smallest semblance of that energy. Even if the reality of attending was miserable and I hated every second, I still wanted to one day say I went. But, clearly, that E3 is already dead.
It's a shame, but... what can you do? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yup. I've been following it for years, waking up at about 2-3AM to see the live conference here in Europe. It's become somewhat of a tradition, and it's really sad to see it go.
I definitely think directs are a good format. I just like both. I watch easy allies react after the conference.I just want to watch the East Allies react live on stream. Feels like I’m in a room of my gaming pals and reacting along. Plus there’s no dumb company mouthpiece talking in out of touch corporate speak or random people in the crowds shouting nonsense disconnected from what’s happening on stage. This is just personal preference, but I enjoy the tightness of a direct with trailer after trailer instead of EA or Ubisoft wheeling out some dev working on a new title and having them tell their life story on stage before showing a 90 second trailer.
I just think after years and years of E3 I’m kind of fatigued by it? It’s cool if it stays and cool if it goes. I understand why people will miss it though.