E3 Santa Monica cost ESA $5 million in fees
by Alexander Sliwinski 
{ May 20th 2008 at 12:30PM }
Kotaku speculates that the increase, as well as the decision to hold E3 in Santa Monica, may have been the reasons LucasArts and Activision/Vivendi jumped ship from the ESA. The ESA says membership dues were lower in the past because of income generated by E3, but revenues dropped significantly when the ESA board (made up of executives from publishers) moved the venue last year.
Not only was Santa Monica's E3 bad due to its invite-only policy (meaning publishers got to decide who came and who didn't), it was also horrible for journalists to cover -- not good for a "media and business summit." Thankfully, this year E3 will be back in one spot at the LA Convention Center. We're still waiting to hear what Activision/Vivendi has planned.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
syrik zero @ May 20th 2008 12:34PM
Does that mean I can go now?
NATO_Duke @ May 20th 2008 1:02PM
...You can hold E3 in my garage for say...$100.00! Not like that many folks will be there anyway. :P
1234 @ May 20th 2008 3:25PM
Going to E3 used to be on my Todo before diying list...seriously,tho it wasnt one of the most important things in it,it was in it.
Old E3 was cool,awsome,big,impresive and the absolute biggest videogames event,after it was "Nerfed"...not so much.
Who knows if these un-nerfing will bring it back to its former glory,it seems its better than before but still worse than how it was originaly.
The bad E3 and its secondary effects can harm the industry,if media doesnt like it then theres no use in it for publishers and they leave,then the industry decays.
Zootittles @ May 20th 2008 1:09PM
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/07/25/disney-press-conference-fails-audience-participation/
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/07/19/watch-activision-alienate-E3-audience-with-jamie-kennedy/
I NEED MORE FAIL FROM THIS YEAR'S E3.
marauder800 @ May 20th 2008 1:29PM
It sounds like E3 is going to lose all relevance at some point.
MuToiD_MaN @ May 20th 2008 2:23PM
E3 stopped being relevant for game makers when it became a hype generating tool first and a business gathering second. And it stopped being relevant to the Internet when they prohibited booth babes. Don't mind me, I'm just talking out my ass on a forum.
Jdaman @ May 20th 2008 2:08PM
Will someone tell me what makes an invite only E3 a bad thing?
gb @ May 20th 2008 2:40PM
For example: A site gives a not so favorable review of a game and the publisher of said game is on the "invite committee".
I'm sure there are hundreds of other examples. It is bad for the little guys or anyone not in the "inner circle"
Jdaman @ May 20th 2008 2:47PM
@gb sure but I dont see why that matters. A publication should be getting their viewership from its reviews or whatever. If their readers find value in it and they are shut out by publishers readers can complain to publisher, or give more love to publisher that did not lock out the website.
I mean this is just games reporting and not games journalism. Publishers control how information gets out, hell seems like most of what i read is rephrased Press Releases these days anyway.
I dont think being invite only is worth getting bent out of shape. The only thing that really matters is the game and its quality. If the site of your liking does not get an early copy of the game wait until they buy it at retail and post a review. Simple as that.
gb @ May 20th 2008 3:03PM
It is incredibly difficult to get a readership without access to the information. This is the internet. We demand information now, not 2 weeks after the game is released.
Reporting on games costs money and losing page hits and ad revenue to another site because you did not get invited kinda sucks.
Poisoned Al @ May 20th 2008 7:36PM
I'm I the only one who sees the cock and balls in that picture, or are there other perverts out there too?
ThornedVenom (Harley Quinn Defense Force) @ May 21st 2008 4:04AM
It's funny considering that E3 was downsized primarily to reduce costs.