Pax East 2017 has come to an end and it's time to give a review of Nate's experience at the convention. He played some really interesting indie games. Attended some panels, and even met some really cool people.
Andrew says: "But in all honesty, if someone has already decided to take time out of their day to watch your press conference, then chances are they’re already fully prepped for a reveal of games, not a dancing panda"
I am sure the ESA will have something to say about this. Also much harder to network and evaluate games without a trade show. I have followed several of the online events and they pale when compared with being there, seeing the booths, trying the games hands on, and above all; asking questions.
I think ESA was funded by these console makers and publishers so when the console makers stop attending and publishers started doing their own ESA doesn't have much say. I for one liked E3 it felt special having everyone there showing their games. So far none of the digital shows have come even close to making the same impact
playstation event was sony's best attempt and could have grown
I think some people think the conferences at these events is the end all be all of what these events are about. That's just not the case. They're the most visible part of these events to the general public, but beyond that, trade shows have their place. Conferences, and releasing trailers or some of these smaller web shows like inside Xbox, or SoP, are great for marketing, but they don't have the same kind of impact on getting the media to know about the game, and ask their specific questions, and get them excited about it so they'll cover it.
There's still a place for the trade shows themselves. This year has been disruptive due to world events, but the trade shows aren't going away, and online presentations are too prone to failure and having a message distorted. Heck, just this past week, MS has come under scrutiny on what should have been an otherwise great event. Instead of people seeing games that are coming, people are focusing on the poor messaging. that can happen at trade shows of course....like the pre-launch Xbox conference at E3 this year....but the press can usually be convinced to relay the message these companies want to send. People still may not accept it, but it is what it is.
@neutral
ESA is an industry wide lobby group that represents every aspect of the gaming industry. They were founded to keep government out of gaming, in response to Jack Thompson and his crusade to ban violent video games.
E3 is just an event they host, which is part of many consumer facing services they provide.
ESA can't force anyone in the industry to do anything. They aren't ineffectual, and they have influence, but they work for the industry. They are not run by the industry though, at least not directly, and can do what they feel is best, and one decision they made last year is the actual reason Sony backed out of E3, and even MS had disappointing words for the ESA decision on E3, although they still planned to attend until things went to sh*t.
E3 gained its stature because it was the first really big event of it's kind, and it played into some things that the industry needed way back in the day. An easier route to journalists(both gaming and regular), which were all print magazines or newspapers back them. A big event where many in the industry would attend so networking could be done in a world where game development was pretty spread out. Providing an outlet for the game companies to directly address the public(which actually came a bit later with the conferences). The last part was never an official part of E3 though, and about all that's changed now is that some publishers are just not spending the money to hold the conference. Many that have attended E3 were still going to do so.
I agree with everything said in this. E3 had its day in it's old format. It was great but the world has evolved and so should the event.
Long drawn out stage demonstrations and fluff to pad out the show need to be gone. Direct to device presentations can be every bit as good if they're done right. Going forward developers could release demos on services simultaneously to give the world audience the same excitement.
It has the added bonus of one more reason self proclaimed journalists are becoming redundant.
The writer of this article doesn't seem to know that E3 wasn't started as a public spectacle. It was where publisher reps could meet with developers from around the world. It was where hardware manufacturers could show their wares to businesses that sell gaming products. Journalists could sit down and interview people in person, as opposed to on the phone or through email. These things still need to happen. Talking with somebody in person and seeing something firsthand is better than watching a presentation or having a video call. You have people from all over the world meeting and forming business relationships, something that isn't possible with a streaming event.
E3 is more than announcements, something this article fails to recognize.
True, but the ESA wanted E3 to be more about the public attention, and wanted to focus in primarily on influencers.
Nowadays, E3 is too expensive for the devs that need an event like this to get in contact with publishers. GDC conferences are generally a better place to do that, or there are easier and quicker ways. It's rare you'd see some indie dev fishing for a publisher at E3 nowadays.
Publishers and other devs don't really need these conferences to network anymore. The internet provides numerous outlets which are more efficient. Hell, I probably could get in touch with every single dev and publisher, and everyone who works within that is relevant enough for me to need to get in touch with using all of three dev/industry networks that exist out there. If not directly, then within one or two levels of contact.
I agree that doing demos in person, and especially having a rep there to tell you what is their unique selling points(most important for the media) is something that's hard to do at scale without a conference. Single interviews aren't usually efficient for such things, although they're not so bad for some things, like console info like we see going on with digital foundry right now. In that case, it may even be a better way to do it.
E3 will continue on. Those things that happen now at E3 will probably continue to happen. But E3 has changed and adapted over the years to suit the industry and what it's needs are. For the most part at least.
We, as consumers only really see the consumer face of things. That's really all we have exposure to, and typically about all we should care about. I do believe that many have misappropriated the press conferences as what E3 is all about. But for most of us, that is the most relevant part of E3. In this regard, it's not unreasonable to think that said press conferences aren't really necessary anymore, and these digital events can be just as productive, and certainly less costly. That's about where I think this article's relevance ends, and unfortunately, because of this, it makes the whole article irrelevant, because they're focusing in on too narrow a view of what E3, or conferences like it, are all about.
Id still like to see traditional press conferences though, sure many were all just disappointing and full of cringe but its definitely had many of the best moments in gaming too.
Game developers talk about the challenges and benefits of crossplay in a panel at the PAX East fan show in Boston. Dean Takahashi moderated the panel.
Random Nintendo reports back from GDC and PAX East with hands-on coverage of over a dozen upcoming Switch games, including Mortal Kombat 11, Cuphead, SteamWorld Quest, and Sayonara Wild Hearts. Plus, a discussion of the Smash Bros. and Splatoon 2 North America Opens.
