July 23, 2008

E3 failed in more ways than it succeeded
By Michael Lafferty

Show is degenerating and lacking value

So many have, in the wake of the recent Electronic Entertainment Expo in Los Angeles, weighed in on whether the show was a success or failure. My turn …

Actually, the show was a bit of a mixed bag. There were positives, but when one takes into account what is supposed to be the scope of the event, the negatives were overwhelming. The ESA wanted a more intimate show – Ok, it was still spread out throughout the convention center, but instead of occupying the big halls (South and West), where one could actually spend an afternoon, morning or even all day visiting publisher after publisher, this year’s debacle was confined to meeting rooms that where scattered from one end of the LACC to the other. That is hardly intimate.

There was no enthusiasm, no energy that should be associated with the vibrant industry that brings imagination to life. This year’s show was dull to the point of boring. Yes, there were still good games to see, but altering the format, visiting their studios on media tours would have accomplished the same thing, only with deeper experiences with the games. The studio visits are more advantageous because instead of getting 25-30 minutes with a superb title like Fallout 3 in the Bethesda booth, a visit to the studios would likely mean more hands-on time, access to developers … in short, the kind of visit that means robust coverage, giving players and consumers not only a sense of the game itself, but also allowing for interview time with key developers.

The idea here, folks, is to give as much information as possible to allow you to make informed decisions about potentially purchasing the game. While past E3s did not offer much more, there was excitement, there was enthusiasm and there was a celebration of the industry. All that was lacking from this year’s event. It felt more like a fast-food drive-in. Get in, get something that is barely nutritious and get out.

One journalist stated that E3 was killed last year with the Santa Monica debacle. He referred to this year’s edition as the ‘zombie E3.’ I’ll take it a step further – it was the ‘vampire E3.’ It returned from the dead and sucked the life out of what should have been a great event.

It almost seems as though the ESA forgot what one of its purposes is – which is to promote the cash-cow that spawned it. Scuttlebutt had it that the ESA had stated no banner ads decorating the interior or exterior of the show, nor video display ads. What part of VIDEO-game industry does that show a misunderstanding for? This is a graphical medium. That is like asking a new band to promote itself without playing music; like asking an artist to paint without supplying either something to paint on or the materials to paint with.

Honestly, there was not even a sign out front of the L.A. Convention Center that said “Welcome E3!” If one did not know the event was taking place inside, there were no outward signs to state otherwise.

It almost feels like the ESA went through the motions without caring about the final product. And there is a lesson to be learned in that – if you can’t do something you value with enthusiasm that shines in the final product, then simply don’t do it.

It was nice to catch up with those within the industry that have not been seen in a long time, but that was not supposed to be the point of this. It was supposed to be an event where the spotlight was on the games and the industry. It has not been that way for a while now.

Last year, in the wake of what took place in the Santa Monica version, many called for an end to this event. Not only is the timing bad for the industry (much better in May, now it is bumping other events that certainly threaten to eclipse it), but the value of the event is lacking. Activision Blizzard declined attending, but still got media coverage by holding an off-site press conference. It seems that others may decline the invitation to an event next year, if there is an event. If the ESA was wise, it would would take a year off, evaluate what it does and if no one misses the lack of an event in 2009, then the answer to the dilemma of whether one should happen or not would be readily apparent.

There is a cliché about having an event and no one showed up (you know the one – suppose they had a ** – insert event there – and no one came?). When it comes to E3, can the realization of that be truly far away?

Share | Digg This | Glink It

---