PAX versus Min-E3. Round one. FIGHT!
The logic goes: the giant void left where E3 used to reside will need to be filled. On Sunday, our first response was to write, "If the ESA doesn't manage to get the big guys back on board, another organizer will step in within the next 18 months with a show that will take E3's crown as the king of gaming trade shows." Could this dark horse expo be Penny Arcade's gamer-centric PAX? Gabe writes:
"With a projected attendance of something like 13 thousand people and exhibitors like Nintendo, Ubisoft, Microsoft and ATI PAX is in position to pick up where E3 left off. Apparently we're not the only ones who noticed either."
He contributes some other thoughts on the possibility noting that they've encountered a great deal of interest in exhibition space for PAX '07. With many of E3's biggest critics (like Greg Costikyan) wondering why the ESA didn't "throw the 'trade only' restriction out the window, open it up to actual gamers, charge them enough to make big bux for the ESA, ramp up attendance from 40k to 100k plus, and make it an event where publishers market to consumers as well as the trade," PAX does seem exceptionally well placed to capitalize on the failings of E3. If PAX evolved into something much larger, it could risk losing the personal touch the pair strive for, but it could resuscitate the not-yet rotting corpse of our fair E3. We'll be there regardless, how about you?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Richard Mitchell @ Aug 3rd 2006 2:48PM
How about me? Pleez!
Richard Mitchell
Xbox 360 Fanboy
Laxcat @ Aug 3rd 2006 2:51PM
Personally I think PAX will be a good solution for all these people yelling and screaming about the "failings of E3."
However, all the people that have beef with the ESA's decision seem to be the people that had no businessat E3 in the first place. You are the people that have been making game journalists crazy when their trying to get actaul work done. E3 is for people in the industry to get together and share thier stuff with the media and each other. If you're not in one of hose two groups, but want to get your geek on with thousands of others, then PAX is where you should have been going anyway.
PAX is for gamers.
E3 is for those in the industry.
Neither has ever proclaimed anything different.
PS, I am not in the game industry, in any fashion, and have never been to E3.
apoc06 @ Aug 3rd 2006 2:56PM
I know DigitalLife is in NYC, but how about more East Coast conventions? There are gamers over here too, y'know?
wakusei @ Aug 3rd 2006 2:56PM
One of the appealing aspects of PAX is that it's for consumers, by gamers. Opening the doors for more people would be an excellent development in the grand scheme of things but it would be pointless if it was just another venue for the excesses of E3.
If the big companies were losing money at E3 they'll lose money at PAX unless the structure of these events changes.
Ryan @ Aug 3rd 2006 3:10PM
I cannot think of anything worse to happen to such a beloved convention. It would inevitably outgrow itself and become as cold and impersonal as E3 ever was.
cynic @ Aug 3rd 2006 3:10PM
@ wakusei
Well, there is the whole point that a booth at OldE3 cost millions of dollars, while a booth at PAX 06 were 1500-7500 bucks.
The big companies lost money at E3 because E3 was hugely expensive. PAX isn't.
Cabrill @ Aug 3rd 2006 3:15PM
I went to E3 of 2004 as a Gamestop employee (although I'm also a software engineering major in college with aspirations of game development) and this year will be my first PAX. I've been registered since early 2006 when I learned that Gamestop employees were no longer welcome at E3, for the sole reason of seeing the new and upcoming games, seeing where the industry is going, etc. The card games are just icing on the cake, but I see the giant LAN party as sort of pointless...who wants to haul their PC rig several thousand miles to play PC games with people you've never met? You can do that right now without the hauling, it's called: the internet. So yeah, apart from the role playing/card games PAX to me is all about seeing the latest and greatest video games, and perhaps a chance at sneaking a peak at the stars of the industry with my heart fluttering with the thought of one day joining them.
J. McNair @ Aug 3rd 2006 3:28PM
Of COURSE they're losing money. The entire POINT is to lose money. You spend the money to generate buzz and interest in your product to (hopefully) secure good previews and future purchases.
The problem with E3 is that some were losing millions and then not getting the favorable buzz they would have liked. We're talking the cost to develop an entire AAA game from initial pitch to gold master for a booth, presentations, "special" events, and after parties.
Basically, the publishers want 1. to save money and 2. more control. This could put an end to half-baked, glitchy demos and "closed door" screenings to get the real news. They could just show a REAL demo to gamers and journalists when it's really ready. On the other hand, this could cause the industry to become less open and transparent. Events controlled by the big publishers could dwarf and marginalize indie developer events.
Then again, indie developers always find ways around such things.
JohnMazz @ Aug 3rd 2006 3:37PM
Something hit me while reading this, It reminds me of the argument between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. E3 was a big, lumbering, overpriced beast of burden. It got too big for its own good, and imploded to its possible death. It was run by the elite ruling class while the peons weren't invited. Up comes PAX, a gamer-created, gamer-supported, and probably most importantly, gamer-centric conference that is smaller, streamlined, and able to dodge and weave to match the ebb and flow of the changing gaming industry.
The gaming industry has become a battle between David and Goliath lately. The big ogre of a company dominate for a time until they get too big to move, then the small, nimble company/conference/media organization comes in and plunks a rock right in Goliaths skull.
minus_273 @ Aug 3rd 2006 3:37PM
[enter PSP fanboy mode]
Since Joystiq will not post the trailer to 50 Cent: Bulletproof G Unit Edition (for the PSP)...here we go.
http://www.gamespot.com/psp/action/50centbulletproof/news.html?sid=6155157&mode=previews
[end fanboy mode]
Sorry, I couldnt resist copying the text from one of the dumbest posts i've seen on joystiq. The loss of e3 means there is one less things for fanboys to cry about...
audioeric @ Aug 3rd 2006 3:49PM
I think the David v Goliath thing is a bit much. It's not a thing about Elite classes, like a Yacht Club or anything. It's about the business wanting to show their stuff to Journalists and other industry people while keeping down crowd sizes.
I think advertising PAX as a place for consumers will be great, but I'm sure you'll only see polished demo's, which means you want see the demo's as early as you would see them at E3, and you definitely will not see the ones they show at E3 behind closed doors.
I do agree with #2 that the only people that have a huge problem with it are people that shouldn't have been there in the first place.
eric
Jeff @ Aug 3rd 2006 4:19PM
"The gaming industry has become a battle between David and Goliath lately. The big ogre of a company dominate for a time until they get too big to move, then the small, nimble company/conference/media organization comes in and plunks a rock right in Goliaths skull."
???
You mean like the way that small nimble Sony knocked the mighty Nintendo off its perch? Or the way the tiny little indie manufacturer known as Microsoft is now poised to do the same to Sony?
Or maybe you're talking about how Electronic Arts was finally put out of business? Oh wait, that didn't happen at all. In fact, EA just announced growing revenue and profits.
I can't really think of a single example that supports your argument. And I can think of a lot that say just the opposite. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer in the game industry. And the companies that win are usually the ones with the most money to spend. In fact, E3 is no more because the big companies no longer felt like supporting it. If anything, it is a testament to their power that they can cause entire trade shows to collapse on a whim.
As for PAX, again, it's nothing and it'll *be* nothing without the support of the major players. A bunch of indie games may be enough to draw 13,000 people, but until you get EA showing off the latest Madden for PS3 before its release, it's never going to be anything but a niche show. But it takes more than that. E3 was, quite simply, *everything* that was going on in the western game industry in a single snapshot. PAX could never hope to compete with that.
I would love to see a TGS-style show in the US. But to get that, somebody is going to have to think big and have the money to match their ideas. They're going to have to convince all the publishers - big and small - to jump on board. And they're going to have to have the organizational chops to pull off an event that draws 200,000 people or more. That's not going to be easy when you're basically starting from scratch. The ESA would have been wise to convert E3 into such a show - they could have - but they instead obviously went in completely the opposite direction.
epobirs @ Aug 3rd 2006 4:28PM
If PAX becomes THE public event, it will necessarily have to lose some of the personl touch but it has the potential to become far bigger for the PA guys. Right off the bat, rather than have it become a monster event that becomes insufferable, it needs to be quarterly in different parts of the country. Have the existing north-west event, and add a north-east, south-east, and south-west venues.
Not necessarily right away. Each expansion has to prove itself. Starting with an event in LA or near Silicon Valley would be accessible to a lot of small developers and a big number of possible attendees for whom driving up to WA is too far. For us here in LA, hauling up to the Silicon Valley area isn't too bad a trip, even driving alone. And vice versa for those gamers in the north of California.
It may be selfish of me but I think it can be argued that somewhere in California would be the natural first expansion of PAX. With a north-east venue, New York or Boston being the next.
A bigger question is whether the guys would want to take all of this on. Even after hiring some full time people for the day to day grunt work it would still take over a good chunk of their lives if they're to keep it something they want attached to their names.
BigRed @ Aug 3rd 2006 4:28PM
"but I see the giant LAN party as sort of pointless...who wants to haul their PC rig several thousand miles to play PC games with people you've never met? You can do that right now without the hauling, it's called: the internet. "
Um... its the same as any other Lan. People bring their computers to socialize with other like minded people and play games with them at a lower ping than you can get online.
Its much more fun being able to yell insults and stuff across a room/isle.
Plus you get to show off your casemod, hardware, cool new thing, etc.
Blax @ Aug 3rd 2006 4:34PM
I have a solution to PAX being overcrowded; stop making stupid news articles about it replacing E3. To replace E3 it would need to be a press-show, but PAX is just for the gamers, it won't ever take E3's place, though it may end up being the largest gaming event in the world (I'm guessing by next year).
Cabrill @ Aug 3rd 2006 4:54PM
@14
At any other LAN party it's confined to 10-100 people that you either know a fair majority of, or if not, it's in an atmosphere that encourages conversation and friendship. A room with thousands of people is not conducive to meeting new people, or for that matter even being able to find the people you are playing against at that particular moment unless you spend the majority of your game time making comments such as "Hey, I'm a capricorn, I like anime, and I'm looking for a cute girl to chat with. If someone wants to meet the person who just pwned you all, I'll be next to the coke machine in a red shirt."
I dunno, it obviously appeals to SOMEONE for there to be so many participants but I find the impersonality of it to be no more interesting than playing random strangers on the internet. As for the casemods I'd just walk around shaking my head at how bored someone must be to spend so much time decorating something that is never even looked at during the event for which it exists: gaming. Unless you're easily distracted by shiny colors in your peripherial vision your case means nothing when you're using it. It's the same as hotgluing neon strips to a car...except at least then people outside your car see it as you use it. No one's going to be staring at your case while they game. Am I mistaken?
epobirs @ Aug 3rd 2006 4:59PM
One big difference is the business models.
E3's primary income was from the exhibitors. Only a small fraction of the attendees paid admission. (The technical term for these people is 'suckers.') The revenues were driven by high booth space prices and services to exhibitors.
PAX is attendee driven with revenues tied directly to attendance. Booth space pricing is far less murderous and many companies that are accustomed to many small events every year already have a portable booth design for that purpose. (A lot of the big E3 booths don't lend themselves to re-use and that makes that much more expensive.)The big companies could do several PAX events a year and still spend nowhere near their E3 costs, while many smaller companies could limit themselves to when PAX came closest to their region.
It would be nearly impossible to do something comparable in attendance to TGS in the US. Drawing in 200,000 gamers from across Japan isn't difficult due to the size of the country and extensive transportation options. Massive exhibitor expenditures at E3 made it possible to have huge expensive venues. Doing that with a PAX would be difficult without entrance prices going shyhigh. Having multiple PAX events regionally would be more viable for the US.
Brian @ Aug 3rd 2006 5:35PM
I would love to have a major industry trade show in my backyard.
MetaHuman @ Aug 3rd 2006 5:45PM
So we shut down E3's major activities to have them heaped upon PAX which, alongside the suggested possibility of sacrificing the "personal touch" that is Penny-Arcade. E3 could have been spared with a little responsibility on the parts of what are apparently the scapegoats:
--Publicity to much on big names. They should actually turn their attentions to smaller devs, instead of one waiting to catch attention before ever getting coverage. How many updates and features (including cover features) were there on Zelda, Gears of War, etc. and how many were there on something like Tom Fulp/Synj's Castle Crashers/Ye Olde Sidescroller? There may have been a couple updates but they came from official press releases, rather than media inquiring about the game or its developers.
--E3 becoming a big party joke of a trade show. Actually make the companies take control of their plans. I heard Tecmo's booth once or twice in recent E3s had to be shut down because of an "out-of-control" party. Not to mention that almost anyone who just happened to have a badge could get in when it's a TRADE SHOW. It's for investors and corporate interaction. Being for games, fun is to be had by all but acts like 'banning' scantily-clad boothbabes were signs that the presenters really couldn't or wouldn't judge for themselves.
The problem isn't with E3 itself. It has to do with the presenters and the media, many of which will no doubt show up at PAX anyways.
It would be HUGE for the PA guys but I don't know if they would jump on such an opportunity without consider ing what was already wrong with E3.
Though I like Epobirs' idea of it being quarterly. That way companies can even consider having stuff to show during certain seasons (GASP! Summer!).
I'd rather just see E3 get in control of people serious and respectful on presenting products and represent the industry as something to be respected, and not party central. Avoiding the idea that the industry is a joke, as portayed in those lame college ads where teenagers can't believe they get paid to play games.
splash @ Aug 3rd 2006 6:56PM
I must be living under a rock. What is PAX?
BigRed @ Aug 3rd 2006 7:04PM
"At any other LAN party it's confined to 10-100 people that you either know a fair majority of, or if not, it's in an atmosphere that encourages conversation and friendship. room with thousands of people is not conducive to meeting new people, or for that matter even being able to find the people you are playing against"
Um... The Lan room at pax is limited to abouts 250 people.
Only people who bring their computers are allowed inside.
Next year it will be larger but I dont know where you are pulling this "thousands of poeple" thing from. There are thousands of people that attend but that has nothing to do with the Lan room.
I guess you have never attended pax before.
codemule @ Aug 3rd 2006 8:04PM
Comic-con will replace E3. Most major game companies already exhibit there and it's more than 110K consumers already. It also nicely coincides with the timing of the new E3 (July).
TC @ Aug 3rd 2006 9:29PM
Slightly off topic, but in the screenshot Ryu would actually beat the pants of Kung Lao and the rest of his gimpy hat-throwing, brown trowsered chums.
Jack @ Aug 4th 2006 12:28PM
Looked at the website for PAX...
1; its in Washington...not that there's a problem with Washington, but why not hold it in LA too...it's easier for a lot of people to justify Southern California in August than Washington
2; The schedule looks like a lot of discussions and presentations; without the "this is what's new" of E3... 90% of that stuff would be a 2 pg article on a blog somewhere
3; What is up with all the LAN-Partyness? seriously...I wouldn't go to this thing to play games I already have...I'd go to play games that NOBODY ELSE gets to play...if they had a Wii tournament...sure; but not Halo 2...
Basically; I think this will flop over as something cool for people in the general area; and a few media types; but really I definitely don't see this replacing E3; It really just doesn't seem like it's organized the right way.
SquallSeeD31 @ Aug 4th 2006 2:11PM
I really don't believe that PAX is intended to replace E3. We can discuss where we think the different shows are going, but it's going to be up to the PAX organization to make such a shift. I'm sure that there will be some exhibitors that are drawn to the style of PAX, but I don't believe that style is going to change.
PAX is intended to be a show by gamers, for gamers. So shall it be written, so shall it be done. With E3 as we know it in turmoil, do you really think the bad boys responsible for Penny Arcade are going to sell out to take over that attendance? Trust me, you'll /know/ when they sell out, you'll be sending your hate mail to gabe@tropical-island.sandy-beach.you probably won't get a response.
PAX will continue on according to plan as an intimate gamer-centric show. You come, you play games, you see a rock concert for gamers, you hear some game industry people talking about what matters to gamers, you go home having experienced Wangstock '06.
Salamande @ Aug 4th 2006 5:07PM
@Jack:
PAX is already on something like its third year. It's proven itself quite handily already.
B @ Aug 28th 2006 10:47PM
Everone keeps saying "PAX is a big lan party"...it isn't. It has a massive vendor area, which is very cool, and you get to see all the new stuff. 250 people IS NOT BIG...Try a BYOC with several thousand, like quakecon. Just being a nitpicker...pax is very cool, I like the concept, but please be able to tell the difference between what is a big lan, and what isn't.