Should E3 Be Opened Up to the Masses?

June 14, 2010 -

File this one under "didn't we just have this argument?" But what the hell, with E3 kicking off this week and companies like Microsoft, Ubisoft and EA holding press conferences today, now is as good a time as any to argue about opening up E3 to consumers. That's just what Dan Ackerman of C|Net does this morning in an article entitled "A modest proposal: Open E3 to the public."

Ackerman glosses over the recent shaky history of the event - where many wondered if the trade show would survive at all - and how it has moved from place-to-place, how it is affected in the age of a well connected populace through live blogs and video feeds, and how the whole "doing business and making deals" has been trumped by making news. Here's the main thrust of his argument:

The E3 show has survived pit-stops in Santa Monica and Atlanta, a near-desertion by its participating companies, and a couple of years of minimal attendance -- but just barely. Since E3 already looks and feels a lot like a fan event such as Comic-Con, why not throw open the doors to the public and make it the World's Fair of video games? It's an open secret that the halls have always been crowded with snuck-in friends and fans, so why not make it official? Do that, make it a destination event, and charge for tickets at the door, and we'll never have to ask if E3 can survive again.

And as a compromise E3 organizers who want press and buyers to come can simply create a back room area like GamesCon does every year. Then maybe they can stop charging publishers - especially small ones - millions of dollars. On a side note, I liked the show best when it was in Atlanta.

Posted in

Comments

Re: Should E3 Be Opened Up to the Masses?

Why open it to the public?  We get all the information about the new games, anyway.  We practically get live coverage, thanks to the internet and blogs.  So, again, why does the public want to be there?

For the experience.  People wanting to go view and play short demos, get their ears blasted by a constant drone of music and spokespeople, and to go act like creepy losers with the booth babes ("Hur hur, you're wearing a chainmail bikini!  Can I take my picture with you so I can prove that I got close enough to touch a girl?").

But you don't need E3 for all that.  There are several conventions year round that let's you do the exact same thing.  PAX, for one.  I think the media needs one trade show all to themselves, so they can get right to business without fighting their way through crowds of otakus.

Re: Should E3 Be Opened Up to the Masses?

If crowding is a major concern, then cap the number of tickets.  Pre-sell with announcements going out to past attendees/major media outlets/etc. and let the chips fall where they may.  It doesn't make any sense to have an event this major and a big "keep out" sign to fans who aren't also fortunate enough to have a good job in a relevant sector.  If it's about press, then have a room full of suits and a press release -- but the layout and overall feel of the entire event is very much the sort of thing you'd expect for an all-out convention.  If it's only about deal-making or announcements, then why all the demos and giveaways and booths that make gamers drool with frustrated envy?  Don't dangle this stuff in front of us and then tell us we're not allowed in!  And keep it in LA so I don't have to travel to get there :D

Re: Should E3 Be Opened Up to the Masses?

Opening E3 to "the masses" is what nearly killed it in the last decade, because the big companies decided that what "the masses" wanted was loud music piped everywhere and line-ups long enough to test the patience of even the most ornery British queuer.  What we really want is what we've got right now: journalists and bloggers doing the busy work for us so that we can check up on it at our leisure, and big ol' presentations streamed through cyberspace.  Mr. Ackerman appears to live in a bubble that was vacuum-sealed in 2003 when E3 was the only game in town, rather than the industry-first show that coexists with the likes of PAX and GDC.

---
Fangamer

---
Fangamer

Re: Should E3 Be Opened Up to the Masses?

It would be nice if parts of it were open to the public. Then again I had a chance to see the event in Leipzig and passed due to the high cost. Then again that included a all night dance party and food....

I mean if people want to pay to go see it let them, it doesnt have to be free.

~Weatherlight~

~Weatherlight~

Re: Should E3 Be Opened Up to the Masses?

I would love E3 to open there doors to the hungry public, but I doubt that will ever happen.

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

Re: Should E3 Be Opened Up to the Masses?

I sincerely doubt that opening E3 to the public would reduce the cost for small publishers. It's already a packed hall - there isn't any empty presentation space at E3. A reduction in cost might accompany a move to a larger venue but even that is doubtful - the big names (Sony, Microsoft, Activision, nVidia, AMD) tend to buy up large chunks of room simply because they want to be the dominant figure on the showroom floor.

The event is already "open" in an information sense. There are 24-hour video feeds of what's going on, videos of specific items such as press conferences and games, and anything not shown behind closed doors (ie: anything the public might be able to see if they could get into E3) is covered by several credible news sources. The only reason to allow the public into E3 would be to give them an early hands-on of upcoming technology, or for the swag. I can't think of any real benefit to either.

Re: Should E3 Be Opened Up to the Masses?

There are pros and cons for letting E3 open to the public.  However, I think the pros would outweigh the cons.

If you open E3 to the public, then you reduce the cost for publishers to display there (realize that the cost for the publishers is what caused E3 to try a minimalistic approach a few years ago which nearly killed it), and you create even more publicity by having more people see your new product.

The cons is that it minimizes time with the press, but there are definitely ways around that.  Back room areas for the press or special badges that give them priority at display booths.  Another con would be is crowding, but increase the price of tickets and sell fewer of them (and people would pay for a higher priced ticket.  It's E3, afterall).

So, should they open E3?  I think in the long run it'd be more beneficial to them.  Unless they want to start anouncing big new things at other public shows (aside from the Tokyo Game Show, which is for press and public alike, and is quite successful), then trying to say that other shows are open to the public just doesn't have the same impact.

Re: Should E3 Be Opened Up to the Masses?

I hope not. E3 is a trade show for the industry, and it's already a packed showroom. Opening it up to the public would destroy what E3 was originally meant to be. Besides, fans already have Blizzcon and PAX (East and West Coast).

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Will Code Avarice's Paranautical Activity make its way back onto Steam?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Neo_DrKefkaI'm upset at all parties but a cue to replace one bad apple for another does not solve the problem. Perhaps I expect to much out of #GamerGate because the early streams were about progress & solutions now they are about a persons ego talking about drinkin10/23/2014 - 1:35pm
prh99Honestly I've never liked Gawker, and considering their own behavior the self righteous indignation in the wake of GG rings a bit hollow. If my email causes them to lose money I will not feel even a twinge of guilt.10/23/2014 - 1:00pm
Papa MidnightNeo_DrKefka: Till outlets such as IGN and GameSpot so much as even acknowledge the mere existence of "GamerGate", I highly doubt it will affect their modus operandi anytime in the future - near or otherwise.10/23/2014 - 12:26pm
Neo_DrKefkaWhat GamerGate is essentially doing whether people like it or not its going to change the gamingmedia but inturn its also going to replace some outlets & practice the same wrongs they claim they fought against. Its happening already look at TheRalphRetort10/23/2014 - 12:18pm
Neo_DrKefkaIf a company claims it supports the Klan or another offensive organization than the advertiser needs to make sure they're brand is not tainted so they pull they're ads. One side does not determine the right to determine what is universally offensive.10/23/2014 - 12:14pm
Neo_DrKefkaActions have consequences however. If you do a Bioware and insult EA's customers would you be suprised if they lost advertisers and customers? Advertisers are not giving money to charity to they putting ads to make money.10/23/2014 - 12:13pm
Matthew Wilsonwhile I disagree with people pushing pressure on advertisers, consumers do not have many other options to show there disagreements with a article or writer. if people are going to do it, it should be for somthing much worse then that guy did.10/23/2014 - 12:10pm
Neo_DrKefkaNow they are about KingofPol & InternetAristocrat making streams that are bait and switch Streams that claims they are about GG but are about them getting drunk and them making fun of Autistic people10/23/2014 - 12:09pm
Neo_DrKefkahttp://tinyurl.com/nhlbgq8 These people some of them are using GamerGate to prop there careers up. GamerGate streams used to be about ideas of change and solutions to problems.10/23/2014 - 12:09pm
Neo_DrKefkaI believe the message of #GamerGate but I do not believe in the Cult of Personality that has formed. Where sites like TechRaptor gained exposure and they are a great site. Sites like TheRalphReport are using this movement for there own personal gain.10/23/2014 - 12:05pm
ZippyDSMleeSo has the whole GG thing become toxic to the point its time to move on yet?10/23/2014 - 11:54am
prh99As for GG, I am surprised they haven't pulled out every 4chan spawned mob and script kiddie's favorite tool, LOIC to DDoS their foes. Or maybe they did and I missed it.10/23/2014 - 11:38am
BillIn his article Max says "I've been told that we've lost thousands of dollars already, and could potentially lose thousands more, if not millions."10/23/2014 - 11:25am
BillJames, do you think new advertisers won't bring this up when negotiating Ad rates? From a business standpoint, if I were to advertise on Gawker I would point to this and be pretty firm on lower rates.10/23/2014 - 11:21am
prh99Had my say, what they do after that is their business. Though calling your current advertisers "craven idiots" and "pusillanimous morons" probably isn't all that smart if you are going to complain about lost revenue from pulled ads.10/23/2014 - 11:18am
james_fudgeand when they do they will innoculate themselves from this stuff before the deal is even signed10/23/2014 - 11:02am
james_fudgewhen you do that much traffic you can always replace advertisers, guys10/23/2014 - 11:02am
prh99I helped him out and emailed Gawkers advertisers with the message "This is how Gawker covers you when they disagree with you". Not necessarily as support for GG but he is just down right insulting. 10/23/2014 - 10:48am
BillI think he got rolled twice. They made him mad enough to insult a possible advertiser. Other advertisers are going to notice this. It may be cathartic for him, but it's not good business.10/23/2014 - 9:17am
Billhttp://gawker.com/how-we-got-rolled-by-the-dishonest-fascists-of-gamergat-164949657910/23/2014 - 9:14am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician