Industry Leaders Speak Out on E3's Relevance

Following last week's E3 2008 Media and Business Summit, several industry veterans have weighed in on the usefulness of the conference, with many remarking that the show has outlived its usefulness.

However, Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences president Joseph Olin told Shacknews that no company wants to be excluded from E3, noting that the conference is still the largest annual gathering of its kind in the gaming industry.

"The venue itself, I don't think E3 is as exciting as the products that are within it," Olin added. "I think, perhaps [at] the old E3, the frame overpowered the print. And now, I think it really is the opportunity to focus on the work, which is the most important thing."

Olin's comments bear sharp contrast to remarks made by several industry leaders. Electronic Arts CEO John Riccitiello offered harsher words for the revised E3, which as of 2007 has shifted towards an invitation-only arrangement for attendees.

"I hate E3 like this," Riccitiello told the San Francisco Chronicle, as reported by MCV. "Either we need to go back to the old E3, or we'll have to have our own private events."

Oft-quoted Wedbush Morgan analyst Michael Pachter remarked that "the spectacle of E3 is dead" in an investor mailing, adding that publishers and console manufacturers must take action to salvage dwindling consumer interest in the annual show.

"The Los Angeles Convention Center concourse was as quiet as a college library during summer, with little to attract media attention," Pachter wrote. "The main game display area was similar in size to a school cafeteria (as compared to filling the entire convention center)."

The comments follow remarks made by 3D Realms CEO Scott Miller late last month, who said that the long-awaited Duke Nukem Forever would not be appearing at E3 because it was "irrelevant."

"It's just that we view E3 as irrelevant nowadays," Miller told Next-Gen. "In fact, I wasn't even aware it was coming up."

From The Chatty
  • reply
    July 21, 2008 8:10 PM

    Were booth babes banned? I didn't see any of the usually good pics.

    • reply
      July 21, 2008 8:15 PM

      Was under the impression they simply weren't needed. I know I saw a pic of a pair of girls for one studio, but that was all I've seen. Just doesn't seem to be as much of a need to draw attention to their booths anymore.

      • reply
        July 21, 2008 9:01 PM

        If I remember right is was because a bunch of new rules within the ESA starting with E3 '06. Afterwards then they changed the whole format. Considering TGS and Liepzig still do it, kinda wonder what the big deal is.

      • reply
        July 22, 2008 5:27 AM

        So, basically a bunch of nuns from the ESA banned it. Why not have naked women selling video games? I don't get it. Just make it 18 to enter and jack up the price of admission. It's not like the women would pose a health risk or anything. As I understand it, there's plenty of skin at porn conventions, and no one dies at those.

        • reply
          July 22, 2008 6:24 AM

          Very simply, they added a side show to the event that most people agreed was unnecessary. E3 was a trade show, specifically aimed at marketing games to corporate buyers for shelf space. The secondary pitch - hyping to gamers - came later and wasn't the main focus.

          The problem was that companies pouring huge amounts of money into the secondary purpose in the form of crazy booths, more speakers, etc which was taking away from the primary role of the show. It also pushed more and more games to show off the floor in private suites where publishers could control the environment (ie make sure people could hear the game, ask questions without losing their voice, etc).

Hello, Meet Lola