Home › Blogs › Humphrey's blog

Downsizing of E3

Mon, 07/31/2006 - 6:38pm — Humphrey

News broke today and yesterday that E3, the biggest and most expensive entertainment show of the year will be downsized...big time. From 60,000 attendees, to only 5,000. Also instead of holding it in the big convention centers, it will be held in local L.A. hotels.

Yes it will save money for many of the developers, no more multi million dollar booths to grab attention. A more discriminating and selected public. No more Wal-Mart employees who pass by the video game section getting passes for them and their friends.

However I see two problems with this change in E3:
1. Cheerleading effect. I feel that if the selections get too selective for who can attend each conference you might see what we see at many political rallies today: The only ones invited are the cheerleaders and the naysayer’s are left out in the cold. Why invite the media to your press conference if you know they will give a negative review to you?

Extreme yes, but if they are allowed to be that selective I can easily see it happen.

2. Increase in membership fees. According to a interview with Gamespot, ESA president Doug Lowenstein says the following:

"GS: Okay. And we've heard that some ESA members were willing to pay up to $5 million apiece in order to allow the ESA to recoup money lost from exhibitor fees...

DL: I don't know where you guys hear stuff like this. What is clear is that by moving from a trade show which funds the ESA to an event that doesn't, we're going to have to have an alternative source of funding for the ESA. That will be [membership] dues. Since nobody's actually decided what the dues are--because we haven't made any number of critical strategic decisions about how much money we actually need over the long run--for people to be talking about how much money they were or were not willing to spend is really kind of stupid.

GS: So they haven't been charged dues in the past?

DL: No, there are dues, but they're pretty nominal right now. They'll be considerably higher going forward. But there are plenty of companies who said that they are more than willing to step up to pay significantly greater dues revenue to fund the critical work that ESA is doing in piracy and government relations at levels far beyond what they're paying right now. "

This increase in membership fees worries me. It will decidedly hurt the indie developer by pretty much requiring that they shackle up with a big publisher. To be frank, I doubt that many of the big publishers will take the chances that indie developers are willing to take.

Could this be the death of the Indie developer? Heck no. But it will stifle some of them and the creativity they could have accomplished on their own.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 08/01/2006 - 11:56am — Ombwah
Ombwah's picture

an interesting note re: dues and indy devs

Just how much are the dues mentioned above going up? Will that, by itself be a new barrier to entry? Will we only see risk-averse productions from already megalithic studios from here on out, as the venues open to the smaller studios get smaller and less hyped?

Maybe the bigger companies 'leading the move away' from E3 are in part influenced by a feeling that these smaller companies 'ride their advertising coattails' into the press by being present at these events at all.

Tue, 08/01/2006 - 7:19pm — Snipehunter
Snipehunter's picture

Stifles competition at the big boy level too, doesn't it?

If the only way to get some coverage at E3 is to pay the self-proclaimed "considerably higher" dues, doesn't that limit new publishers trying to make a mark, as well? Ombwah and I worked at Jaleco Entertainment while it was trying to become a publisher, and they failed in no small part because the cost of competing with companies like EA was already very high. E3 was a great way to get noticed for these guys - because while the press was there to see EA and Microsoft and Sony, they had time to come see Jaleco and its products, too. So even publishers were "riding those coat tails."

Now new publishers will have to hold their own events, and/or shell out a shitton of money to the ESA for membership plus E3 fees plus room rental at the show, etc. If you ask me, the net result is that we're going to be stuck with EA, Ubi, Sony, etc. for a very long time. Don't expect some new and hungry publisher to pull a Sony PlayStation style revolution, it's too expensive now.

The mediocrity will continue...

Thank the stars for digital distribution. At least there are SOME avenues for new and interesting things to happen.

- Snipehunter

Tue, 08/08/2006 - 8:16am — Humphrey

And i was right

And i was right

From Gamepolitics

"E3 Cancellation - What the Little Fish Were Told

If you were Larry Probst, CEO of Electronic Arts, the news about E3's shift to a more "intimate" format might well have been delivered to your palatial estate by a very proper English butler carrying a silver tray bearing a personal note from Doug Lowenstein.

But then again, Probst didn't need to be told. In fact, it's a good bet that he dictated the change to Lowenstein. From news reports, it's pretty clear that EA wanted E3 dead - the glitzy, panoramic E3 we had come to know and love, anyway.

What, then, of the small exhibitors, those lonely occupants of Kentia Hall (seen at left), the Los Angeles Convention Center's basement equivalent of a Siberian gulag? Here's what E3's small-time exhibitors were told by the ESA:

"Dear Valued E3Expo Exhibitor,

As you may have read in the enclosed Press Release, the 2007 E3Expo has been officially cancelled. As the industry has evolved and matured over the past 12 years, the needs of the exhibitors and key attendees have also changed. To address this change, the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) has announced a new event tentatively scheduled for July 2007.

Details of the event have not been finalized at this time, however our vision and goal is to create a more intimate climate for personalized meetings and product demonstrations. The ESA will announce additional details and information in the ensuing weeks and months.

We would like to take this opportunity to extend our sincere and profound gratitude for your past support of this event. It has been exciting and rewarding to see the growth and significance of this industry mirrored on the exhibit floor of the E3Expo through the years. We look forward to many more years of industry growth, vitality and opportunity.

Yours sincerely,
Mary Dolaher
Vice President"

GamePolitics received a copy of the ESA letter from a Kentia Hall exhibitor. Such firms stand to lose the most in the E3 reshuffle. As Jospeh Olin, President of the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences told GameSpot recently, "Thinking about "winners and losers," the smaller, specialty companies who introduce their products at E3 in Kentia Hall... will find it more difficult to reach 'buyers' or to create buzz about their products or services."

E3 thus ends, in the words of T.S. Eliot, "...not with a bang, but a whimper.""

Tue, 08/01/2006 - 1:07pm — Humphrey

Excellent point in that last

Excellent point in that last message. Sure there is alot of noise and big lights at E3, but there are also many chances for smaller developers and creators to get their names to the general public by riding the millions odf dollars spent by the bigger companies.

Like all of the crazy/zany peripherals for games, or even games them selves. Would Guitar Hero be as big as it is now without major semi-free advertising it got from E3?

One point has been made many times in the recent few days since the announcement. Many of the big companies have already started to move away from the venue as a first time to show off their stuff. Most already have pre-E3 conferences and expos just to show off the stuff that will be on the sales floor.

Frankly? I'm torn on what they should do. To many people who should not be going are going to the event, far too many. Also they are speding alot of money that they really do not need to. Especially on the extravagant booths they create. But i still stand by what I sauid above. It's great for the big developers, but realluy hurts the small ones.

We have heared alot from the big people in recent news stories. I would love to hear from the people at the small studios and others who are not tied to a big producer. What do they think?