10 reasons why E3 went kaput

by Blake Snow { Jul 31st 2006 at 8:05PM }

The breakers of the story, Next-Gen, have compiled a list of 10 reasons why they believe gaming's largest conference collapsed, or at least got a major downsize. Colin Campbell writes: "It may be called E3. It may feature some people looking at games in a big room. There may even be some free drinks. But it ain't going to be E3." Here are their summarized reasons:

Poor ROI for game makers
Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony and EA said "enough" (see number 1)
Games coverage takes place 24x7 now instead of one month only (here's looking at you, Joystiq)
"Winning" E3 doesn't mean jack for business
Rise of publisher sponsored events
Common sense: There are better ways of spending money (see number 1)
The internet is faster than any "news" conference
High cost and the $20 sandwich
Resource hog (The Herculean Effort)
Small is the new big

What do you think was the deciding factor in the conference's demise?

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Brandon @ Jul 31st 2006 8:14PM

I think the biggest factor is that they wanted to destroy my chances of ever going to one.

fwacce @ Jul 31st 2006 8:15PM

G4TV killed E3 with their lame skits and coverage. Everyone knows it.

Neil @ Jul 31st 2006 8:29PM

Gamestop employees killed E3.

sizer @ Jul 31st 2006 8:31PM

Seriously? I think people got pissed off that they spent millions (or hundreds of thousands) of dollars to set up a booth at E3 and all anyone wanted to do was play with the Wii.

Also Sony must have been screaming pretty loud and blaming everyone else for the way they screwed up.

MoJo @ Jul 31st 2006 8:36PM

NEDM can't even save E3 now!!! ( lol, E3 )

Zeromaru @ Jul 31st 2006 8:39PM

It's not worth the effort. People are fickle.

Take the whole Wii vs PS3 of this year's E3 for example. Forget price, launch lineup, upcoming titles, features, online service... Forget all that. The "winner" of E3 was whoever had a more impressive show. Assume that the winner of the show will also be more successful when the console launches. People will buy whatever left the most recent impression on them, and May is a long ways away from November, and the Tokyo Game Show will be before then. Why waste their money at E3 when it's not going to make a difference? Have their own, much smaller, cheaper show. That way their competition can't steal the show from them.

Hannibal @ Jul 31st 2006 8:41PM

I'm thinking that Microsoft is probably going to make millions from this E3 with so many people going from "wait until November" to "that's too expensive, I'll just get a 360."

SyxxtySyxx @ Jul 31st 2006 8:42PM

#10? I gotta tell my girlfriend! ... if I had a girlfriend, hehe

Mike @ Jul 31st 2006 8:46PM

As soon as they toned down the booth babes, I knew it was done for.

Zsavior @ Jul 31st 2006 8:47PM

Truthfully I think ego killed it, alot of game makers and One well know console maker brought their offerings and instead of people Oooohing, and ahhhhing they went "That's It?".

I also believe it is the fault of Sites like Joystiq, which didn't give any side fanboy press. What the game industry wants from E3 is the intended audience to come and give good press no matter what comes out. The problem is VideoGames have gotten to a point where just showing up is not enough, you have to wow people. The problem is the video game industry believed wowing people had to do with himbos, and booth babes, rather than creating original games and content.

E3 was the industries superbowl, it was their world series, to cancel it because alot of various companies pride were hit is seriously a step backwards. While E3 was big enough to reach conventional PrimeTime TV it also hurt many of the companies when they felt they weren't getting the press they assumed they would get.

My take on this is good luck, if they think lessening their coverage, and taking their ball and going home will help them hide,and hype a crap game they got another thing coming. All it does it make blog sites more hungry to see whether or not your system, and or game is really worth the wait. Now it will be a coveted act to destroy a highly hyped game/system that is just crap before another site can do it. Especially in the summer drout. You ever see PrimeTime news in a slow new week, lets just say looking at water was dangerous one year because there was nothing really to report, the same will happen with video game coverage.

I hope hope the various game companies enjoy the wolves they unleashed, GDC is not a big show for games, CES I don't even think anybody said anything special, and now they kill out E3. So good luck with trying to spin the press, and don't be suprised when your games still don't get the response you try to create.

Martin @ Jul 31st 2006 8:52PM

God, this is just like grade school all over again.

playing basketball with another kid. Make 5 shots in a row. other kid "This sucks! I'm losing, I am going home, and you can't use my ball to play!!!"

The point of my post. Don't you think it is interesting that this happened right after Sony had a really bad E3 showing???

Adam @ Jul 31st 2006 8:52PM

E3 has been pretty silly for the last few years. anyone who has been knows it's a massive clusterfuck of kids from retail stores.

The amount of money spent on E3 could be better used for more effecient marketing or hell...even the game they are promoting.

Plus I would like for information to be revealed when it happens, not bottled up for E3.

Jeff @ Jul 31st 2006 9:05PM

"Don't you think it is interesting that this happened right after Sony had a really bad E3 showing???"

Um, no?

Because, you know, there were E3's before Sony attended them. And there would be E3's without them again, if they were the only exhibitor grumbling about things. The only difference would be they'd look like the odd man out.

No, *nobody* was happy with E3. It was just a big, expensive industry jackoff. There was no point to spending all that money and everybody knew it. It just became a series of one-upsmanships, and everybody saw what happened to Sega and Nintendo after they supposedly "won" a whole bunch of E3's with the Dreamcast and GameCube and finally figured out that the whole exercise was just one big-ass waste of money that benefited nobody but a bunch of fanboys.

TGS makes sense. TGS is open to the public; people go there and play games and then turn right around and buy them. They also buy all sorts of toys and other merchandise right there at the show. Publishers actually make money.

But E3? E3 was pointless. Almost as big as TGS but with nobody attending that even cares about buying any of the games on display. Those who did care just got them free anyway - they're industry, after all. Meanwhile, these booths cost millions of dollars and whole marketing departments are devoted to nothing but putting on a big E3 show. Something had to give, and it finally did.

Good riddance, really. If the industry at some point decides to do a proper game show - with the *public*, and that's actually *fun* - then I'll be right there with them. I'm not saying this out of spite, either - I've been to two E3's. The first was kind of interesting, but the second just made me realize how insane and stupid the whole exercise was. It was a massive show searching for an audience. And the only real audience it had was sitting at home watching videos on the internet and then bitching on sites like joystiq about what they just saw.

My point? Oh yeah. It wasn't just Sony.

Henry Pham @ Jul 31st 2006 9:09PM

"Small is the new big"?

*sigh* If only the same thing could be said about my penis...

Greg @ Jul 31st 2006 9:10PM

maybe nintendo and microsoft got fed up with sony stealing every damn thing that wasnt pinned down...Their swag next year will probably be some Xbox merchendise with the logo crossed out and PS written on it.....

vaylen @ Jul 31st 2006 9:22PM

They should take the money they were spending on E3 and use it for a REAL award ceremony for video games, unlike the lame ones they have been doing. The ESPY's have shown that you don't need to be in movies or TV shows to put on a good awards show. If the money that was getting used for E3 went to a gala like this, the people in the industry could create some SERIOUS buzz for the best games every year instead of the whimper they have done with their previous attempts at awards shows. They can make it like the Super Bowl, where there are events oustide the auditorium for the public to get into so the event can transcend just the industry insiders.

Dux @ Jul 31st 2006 9:27PM

I think Sony and Microsoft killed E3! They were jeaolus of the 4 hour lines in the Wii booths!

FEEZY @ Jul 31st 2006 9:29PM

Well, at least im glad that E3 ended with a big bang. thanks to Wii. Heck, even the Ps3 and 360.

T-Man @ Jul 31st 2006 9:30PM

"E3's before Sony attended them."

umm no, first e3 was in 95. Sony has been to them all.

??? @ Jul 31st 2006 9:37PM

{More comprehensive} gamer mags killed it!

dsub @ Jul 31st 2006 9:47PM

this is very true. Back in the early 90's when E3 first started, up until about 2003-2004 the vast majority of gamers looked towared monthly publications like EGM/Game Informer/Gamepro for games coverage. It used to be that if you wanted to find out about the happenings at E3, you had to pick up a copy of your favorite mag come June when they all did there big "post E3 issues" and the entire mag would be devoted to NOTHING but E3 coverage. Nowadays gaming magazines are 60% advertisements 20% worthless info about the lives of the editors, and 20% of actual REAL gaming news. The internet has really taken over for news in the industry, and this E3 cancellation/downsizing stuff only proves it to be true. I know all about what happend with E3 already, but it won't be until probably the September issues of EGM/Game Informer that it makes it into the magazines. However, I still find myself constantly renewing my subscriptions, not so much for the news, but basically just for something to read on the john. Oh well...here's to next year's E3 working out better for everyone.

Tim @ Jul 31st 2006 9:51PM

15. I think Sony and Microsoft killed E3! They were jeaolus of the 4 hour lines in the Wii booths!

And to think that the last time you're see lines that long for Wii..

HylianTom @ Jul 31st 2006 9:58PM

This all leads me to wonder.. to what extent will we see publicity efforts diverted to other events/venues? Will we see MS put more emphasis on its X-fest (or whatever it's called)? Will we see Nintendo's Spaceworld more often? And would third-parties be included in these festivities.. segregated mini-E3s?

I'm not sure how to feel about these prospects yet, but any change at this point gives me some reason to hope that the industry gets past this stupid summer dry spell/E3 publicity deadline schedule. More information spread-out over time, please.

Last thing: As a Nintendo fanatic, it warms my heart to know that the last non-toned-down E3 will be known as the one where the Wii ruled and the PS3 flopped. :D

J.Goodwin @ Jul 31st 2006 10:02PM

E3 HAS been the videogame superbowl. And having a booth at E3 was the equivalent of putting up a large superbowl ad campaign.

Word is that the majors were shelling out tens of millions to rent their space, design booths, hire exotic dancers, etc.

That's just nuts. You just can't justify that kind of money for the coverage you're getting. With that 40-50 million, you could do a major television ad buy, provide videos online and host demos via your digital distribution service of choice and still have money left over for the strippers.

32_footsteps @ Jul 31st 2006 10:05PM

Jeff, I know you've been on a tear about E3 of late, but you really need to take a step back for a moment.

First off, there was never an E3 without Sony. The first E3 was 1995, and the American version of the Playstation was unveiled there.

Also, I know you've been waving the banner that E3 as we knew it is dead... to be perfectly frank, I doubt it. I know the ESA is talking big abut a slimmed trade show along the same lines as in other industries. But they've been remarkably ineffectual at such proclamations in the past (yeah, sure, we'll make sure our booth stays under 100 decibels...). I think that companies will easily worm around anything that the ESA comes up with, and that the ESA will be continually impotent about it.

I don't have any specific proof - just that it fits the pattern of what has happened in the past. The leopard might in fact change its spots, but I'll believe it when I finally see it.

As for what actually killed E3 - quite simply, it's because the show was about spending more to show less. It's become an exercise to spend massive amounts on larger and more ornate booths, all the while putting more and more games in back rooms that only a very select few can get in. E3 by large already in a way existed like a standard trade show with boring rooms of small numbers containing all the actual good stuff. It just had this huge, bombastic, crowd-attracting facade that distracted most folks.

And unless the video game industry has really undergone a huge shift, we'll see it return to that. And mark my words, it'll more likely than not be one of the Big 3, despite their complaints, that will drive the return to the E3 of yore.

LaughingTarget @ Jul 31st 2006 10:26PM

This won't change anything. Companies spending a load of cash and getting nowhere with it, especially in the relatively young and mismanaged video game industry, will continue.

The pissing match is going to also continue. Instead of it being a showdown in the same building, the Big 3 are just going to put on their own shows, tossing around the cash and doing the one-upmanship, just in different places at different times. It will probably only get worse. After each show, the next will just add something bigger to it. We'll have a three layer compounding effect over a single year instead of the one layer compound between E3 shows.

It will just be the same story, different cover. Much like the games most of these companies are hawking these days.

Night Elve @ Aug 1st 2006 12:08AM

I truly think that George Bush has something to do here ¡¡¡

After all E3 was the perfect place to conjure terrorist plans ¡¡¡

the_game_master @ Aug 1st 2006 12:10AM

Why didn't that lame ass Comcast G4 channel give better coverages of the press-conferences from the top game hardware companies. Live press-conference footage would have been nice, instead most gamers had to cram to sites like Gamespot just to see. G4 a truely worthless piece of digital broadcasting.

Ben @ Aug 1st 2006 12:17AM

What good is a press event when the press is more-or-less irrelevant? The old expo format went the way of the old media.

Game companies figured out they don't have to setup a huge extravaganza to get their end users to look at screenshots of their new game. They can just email them to a blogger. When a game is interesting, people will find out.

lord madux @ Aug 1st 2006 12:53AM

next-gens list is pretty, well, um...soft. This blog takes a more, um, realistic approach:

http://ea-sucks.blogspot.com/2006/07/death-of-e3-winners-and-losers.html

Anything can happen in this industry once consoles reach 600 dollars. Sheesh.

lord madux @ Aug 1st 2006 1:14AM

for all these sites and 'journalists' crapping on EBgames flooding E3 with fanboys, remember one thing you toasted, i-am-so-important freaks:

EB EMPLOYEES ACTUALLY SELL THE GAMES-FOR CRAPPY SALARIES- SO CUT THEM SOME SLACK.

go buy your games from walmart then, so they can tell you that you should be playing what thier "moral" version of what a good game is. or maybe you can get better game service at Target or Sears. They are a part of this industry just as much as you cornball PR people and bad writers are. If someone was in front of you and you had to wait to see a game at the last E3, go cry to your momma you wussies.

So there.

Bob G. Smithe @ Aug 1st 2006 2:46AM

I think the companies whining about not making money at a closed event like E3 is stupid. If they opened it to the public and sold games at them they'd rake in the cash. You never see anyone from Comic-Con griping that they didn't make bank for their investment and the booths their are pretty large themselves.

This argument that people from Gamestop flooding the place is what killed it is just lame and a copout. What killed it is just the fact that it's an expensive who's got the bigger weiner contest. With a bunch of companies self-felating themselves and yammering about how much their shit don't stink.

Plus no E3 means no production slow downs on games, which means more games which means good for gamers. We'll still get our previews and screens from sites like this so it's all good in my book.

phipscube @ Aug 1st 2006 2:56AM

Cost too much money and the Internet being bang up to date to the point where E3 was almost out of date before it happened.

mono_eric3 @ Aug 1st 2006 4:51AM

I don't really see how the internet killed E3. I pretty much did no work at all while E3 was on because I spent all my time going through all the blogs reading about everything that was going on. I appreciate that the big conferences do not need to be so lavish if they are just going to be seen on a very bad quality youtube video, but its up to the organisers to capitalize on the use of the internet and generate revenue from it for themselves.

As for E3 being unimportant, I totally disagree. If you did a poll of what next-gen consoles people were interested in before and after E3 I think the difference would be pretty substantial. Its ability to compress all the major announcements into a short space of time allowed for some pretty wow moments (Wii Tennis) right in there with some pretty boo stuff too (PS3 cost more than a small house).

I see how the extravagance of some of the stands could easily put costs into the multi-million dollar mark, but none of the stories I read could really care less about the size of the stands - it was mostly about the games - which I thought was kinda the point.

The companies have overspent and lost themselves a vital marketing aid, but most of all the consumer has lost that couple of weeks where they can watch all the lastest videos and truly be a geek safe in the knowledge that there are a lot more doing the same.

If they can re-think the whole thing and not just ditch it this may be for the better, otherwise I see this as a lose-lose for both the companies and the consumer.

: D

Ryan @ Aug 1st 2006 7:57AM

1) alot of the products sucked / were clones of each other and thus created little buzz.

2) It is hard to stay pumped on an impending product for a couple of years (read sony)

3) The industry is so big now that it is hard to stay focused on the several actually good games that will be comming out over the next year.

If they used E3 to debut products comming out like the week after then it would be huge.

I watched on the net Wii and PS3 events. And was stoked but now it is so many months later and now feel I can wait for the products to finalize, drop in price, etc.

Wow @ Aug 1st 2006 8:01AM

Oh noes! Let's blame ALL of this on EB/GS employees. All 250 that were invited this year. Let's pin this on the store managers that actually had a purpose there.

Wild Homes @ Aug 1st 2006 9:26AM

it was an untenable prospect, to make E3 successful as a showcase. no publisher with financial sense and responsibilities could feel good about interrupting their triple-A title's development so the game's E3 demo could be finished and housed in a preposterously loud, ornate, neon-lit booth to be enjoyed privately only by industry VIP types. from my vantage point, that seems to be the least efficient use of resources ever, and it's not surprising developers and publishers wanted an out. I can also imagine the sting of working very hard on, say, a PS3 launch title, crunching to put together a promising if rough demo, and heading to E3 with hopes of starting some buzz, only to find you've been given the spot on the floor right next to something like Heavenly Sword. it's a total crapshoot-- I'm perfectly ok with giving the guys making these games the opportunity to showcase them in scenarios designed to really highlight their work, instead of tossing everything into a sweaty fishbowl and hoping for the best.
I also agree with the people saying G4 killed E3. not because they _literally_ did, but after the endless stupid commercials hyping E306 LIVE week after week, two canned hours per day was just awful. even though I like Pereira (sic?), everyone involved in that steaming turd should've been summarily dismissed.

32_Footsteps @ Aug 1st 2006 9:54AM

Anyone else find irony that the blog post lord madux linked to as "more, um, realistic" just sits there and blames EA for it all? Yeah, I'm sure EA throws around alot more weight than the combined might of Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo.

I am wondering, though... how can people who have never even been close to an E3 act so certain about why the show died? I mean, blaming G4? E3's problems were already metasizing before G4 we a poorly-conceived gleam in someone's eye. Blame the retail drones flocking the show in droves? No, that's just a minor annoyance we media harped on forever (it also didn't help that by far they, as a group, have the worst manners of any attendee at the show). It still came down to the companies spending more on booths to show less and less.

It really is simple economics - if they spent X amount of dollars to show off 4Y worth of games in the past, why are they spending 4X dollars to show off Y number of games now? Wouldn't it just be smarter to go back to spending X amount?

Erik @ Aug 1st 2006 10:26AM

As for blame, here's usually a good list to go down:

- Terrorists
- Minorities
- Communists
- Nazis
- Inflation
- Global Warming
- Satanists
- Christians
- Role-Playing Games
- Politicians (or pick one)

As for me, I blame the fal of E3 on El Nino.

Justin @ Aug 1st 2006 10:50AM

i for one blame the internet.
and who let Wal-Mart employees get in??

Tomas @ Aug 1st 2006 1:02PM

whoever let retail/rental douchebags in so they can act like retarded asses with no social skills in true fanboy fashion.

bc88 @ Aug 1st 2006 2:32PM

As a writer and editor for an independant game news site. As well as a writer for a game studio. I couldn't be happier that E3 is over. I went this year, and it's a joke. 500 executives get to go and see whatever, whenever they want, while the independant journalist (who is also a customer), gets the shaft. Some people mentioned TGS earlier. I think that San Diego Comic-Con could become the next TGS in 5-10 years. Nintendo already thrown in a lot of support, along with most on-line game journalists.

And anyone that blames Sony or Microsoft, it was all three major developers decision (plus EA). I am glad Nintendo got best in show, but I'm also glad all three companies agree that E3 was a waste of time.