E3 has been neutured

[Saist]

http://www.theesa.com/archives/2006/07/for_immediate_r.php

Conventions been neutured with a rusty spoon.

[Rowne]

I'm not surprised.  The ESA, once known as the IDSA, claim to have good intentions but as far as I'm concerned, they've been a force of true evil since their conception.

Oh well, there are plenty of other game expo-type things, E3 isn't the only one and soon, it might not be the best of them even.

[RJ]

You know what this probably means? No more booth babes. 

[Aridas]

What are they going to kill next?

[Rowne]

They instituted an initiative for 'properly dressed booth babes' recently anyway RJ.  So the underclad ilk were tossed out on their bums at the latest E3.

I'm just glad that they've finally let up on retrogaming a bit Aridas but with those buggers, one never knows what they're going to turn their evil eye upon next.

[Saist]

I'm afraid I can't comment on RJ's post without getting myself into deep trouble.

As far as your post Rowne. I would agree, E3 isn't the only one and the forced shrinkage probably will encourage smaller and more regional shows. It would be nice to have a trade-show back in Atlanta GA, or maybe one in Columbia SC.

However, E3's strength was it's massive size, especially with the space afforded in Kentia hall. The trade show atmosphere is what gave Red Octane their big break with Guitar Hero. It's where NCSoft first picked up steam with Lineage.

As a game reviewer myself, and one recognized as press by the ESA, I valued the trade show atmopshere because I got to see wares that I may not have seen otherwise. For example I wasted an hour of Con-Time back in 2005 talking to some European publisher who was behind Soldner Secret War and Massive Developments AquaMark and Aquanox. I figured it would be worth a go to see what else they had, and it wasn't.  A non-trade show format may wind up forcing meetings like that. I'll get stuck with a publisher, developer, or manufacturer that may be worthless, but I may not know until I get there.

That's a death knell to the "average Joe" who doesn't have a huge advertising budget to host their own show.

Getting to be recognized press is also another problem that the "new format" will cause. E3 gave a lot of online journalists the opportunity to cut their teeth on a wide variety of publishable content. A smaller, more selective show, is going to cut a lot of the journalists out who haven't proved themselves.  That's going to make it harder for the independant game sites to work.

As far as the ESA being a true force of evil... I wouldn't go that far. I would, however, point at who the members are.

http://www.theesa.com/about/esa_members.php

Names like Electronic Arts, Microsoft Corporation, Sony Computer Entertainment America, and Sony Online Entertainment, Inc. stick out on the list.

A point my editor made when we went over this is that the members of the ESA may want to refocus attentions on the media because they haven't been getting good press.  Sony has been on the end of a bashing stick ever since the price point dropped, and Microsoft still isn't happy about the independant press calling B.S. on Xbox sales and reminding other journalists the original Xbox is still dead last worldwide, never did pass the Gamecube in total sales, and never made a profit.  (not to mention that Intel and Nvidia both had to write off millions, Nvidia over $21 million in the first 2 years alone of the original Xbox)

By refocusing the event and making it more appointment only, the major players can insure that what they want published is what gets published. For example, Nintendo probably didn't want it out that they were using 3rd Gen development kits for the Wii demonstrations, and not the final units. Had Nintendo been in an enviroment where they had total control, nobody would have been able to have pop pictures on the backside of the Wii displays.

I would say this though, if ESA doesn't get their act together and realize how important the trade show style is to everybody but the big vendors who sit on the ESA board, someone else will, and we'll get another convention that will do what E3 did before.

[Netami]

I wont miss it. E3 wasn't that great...

[Saist]

I wont miss it. E3 wasn't that great...

because you never got to go? Or is there another reason that you would make this outlandish statement?

[Netami]

Because it was a show.

Gaming companies realized that they shouldn't put on a dance and song to woo people about their software. It's all this money, and for what? A huge convention center crammed with people getting the same amount of little information. It makes much more sense for a company like EA to just let people do interviews or release statements for people than to pour ungodly amounts of money better spent elsewhere into some sort of carnival.

[Xuzaf D]

I'm with Netami. Companies like Namco-Bandai show up and place a really expensive gundam statue down and surround in banners when all they really have to show is five seconds or less of footage of some game that is "coming in 2007." It's just a giant pissing match that ultimately doesn't add up to what it should be, and this is proved by Sony showing up in '05 with nothing but pre-rendered games to show us. And what did we honestly get out of E3'06 from the floor that doesn't happen in the rest of the year? All of the big news was from the conferences that weren't filled with wall to wall crap.

[Netami]

The only somewhat valid arguement I see coming from people saying that E3 should stick around is that small gaming companies wont get the press.

Saist said, for example, how Lineage got the ball rolling due to E3. Well, I am of the opinion that a great game from a small game company will win awards based on it's good merits, and not necessarily the hype machine. What I am saying is, if a game is good enough, it wont need E3 anyways. In the long run, it's negatives were outweighed by it's positives. It was basically giant companies paying the way for little companies (and los angeles' hotels) to get something accomplished why they tried to pitch their latest bullshit titles.

[RJ]

They instituted an initiative for 'properly dressed booth babes' recently anyway RJ.  So the underclad ilk were tossed out on their bums at the latest E3.

Ah, never knew that... In a way I'm glad.

I'm afraid I can't comment on RJ's post without getting myself into deep trouble.

... You betcha. I don't swing that way anyway. I'd rather there be more booth dudes.

[Rowne]

I'm not so sure I agree with that rule though, it's a bit authoritarian for my taste.  If a woman permits herself to be objectified for payment, then it should be allowed.  It's actually removing freedoms from a person to say what they can or cannot do, at least if it doesn't deny the free will of another entity.  I'd say that the latter is a greater evil than the former.

As for E3, there are a couple of points to be made really in regards to it, je already made one of the best ones - that if it's harder for independant journalists to get into the new expos, it'll be more difficult to have a more broad, open and truthful report made about the expo itself, the less desirable aspects that slip out can be silenced.  If the new expos won't cull the possibility for independant journalists though, then I have nothing against it.

I also liked the fact that developers got their own little soapboxes at E3.  I loved reading about and watching (with the videos that were released) the little ramblesome bouts of showmanship that folks like Warren Spector and Shigeru Miyamoto would engage in.  To be completely honest I enjoyed those as much, if not more than the information provided by the expo itself.  The new approach means that these little soapbox mumblings might be exchanged for interviews, that'd be somewhat depressing.

I like both interviews and the soapbox shows myself.  *Shrug.*

[Nikki]

i could personally care less about E3 because to me, it's just a waste of money, and when companies reveal their new stuff, they lose potential big buyers (like yours truely) because of the high pricings...

[Rowne]

Irritated much by the new Playstation 3 price?  At least, that's what I think you were implying.  No clue if that's what you were actually implying, though.  I'd say "poor Sony" but they make enough money already.  Still, it was a nice idea for a console, especially since it runs Linux.

And even if E3 ceases to be as we know it, I hope we'll still get soapbox shows from Shigeru Miyamoto.  Even if he has to do it crazed hobo-style on a street corner.

[Supercheese]

And even if E3 ceases to be as we know it, I hope we'll still get soapbox shows from Shigeru Miyamoto.  Even if he has to do it crazed hobo-style on a street corner.

Ack, that sounds far too much like VGCats...

[Rowne]

Sadly, it really does.

Alas, poor Shigeru might go the way of Nintendo's original CEO.

[Darkmoon]

I'd say "poor Sony" but they make enough money already.

With the PS2, yes. But if the PS3 fails, they're pretty well sunk. The games division was the only department really keeping Sony afloat. That and the couple of big movie franchises they own (Spider-Man being on the top of that list).

[Saist]

even Spider-Man didn't do it.

During the final fiscal quarter of 2005 only 2 sections of Sony Corporation posted profits. The LCD and TV Home Entertainment section and the UMD licensing branch of SCE.

Sony's last fiscal results showed some improvements, but it doesn't change the fact that for right now, Sony is a one trick pony, and they shot that Pony in the legs during this years E3. I really do question how much of the "new" format is driven by Sony getting hammered after this years event.

[Darkmoon]

(nods) Yeah, they haven't exactly handled the situation well, certainly.

[Drake Manaweilder]

one thing i've heard that will murder the PS3, is that sony is considering putting some sort of Tech into it that prevents people from playing games thay do not own.
That means 3 things:
+ theves wont be able to play the games they've stolen
- you wont be able to rent PS3 games (well you could but you wouldent be able to play them)
-you couldent play games you borrowed from a friend

If your wondering where i heard this, it was this show called "Attack of the Show" on the G4 channel in the US and Canada. They also did a poll on the show as to wether or not people would still buy the PS3 if they installed this thing and 83% said no.

frankly, the $650cdn. price point killed it for me but the fact that they may install this likely killed it for those who intend to take out a second morgage to pay for all the stuff. (eg second controler, games, and the other stuff that they'll relece for it)

[Darkmoon]

Sony has since denied that rumor, fyi.

[Saist]

one thing i've heard that will murder the PS3, is that sony is considering putting some sort of Tech into it that prevents people from playing games thay do not own.
That means 3 things:
+ theves wont be able to play the games they've stolen
- you wont be able to rent PS3 games (well you could but you wouldent be able to play them)
-you couldent play games you borrowed from a friend

If your wondering where i heard this, it was this show called "Attack of the Show" on the G4 channel in the US and Canada. They also did a poll on the show as to wether or not people would still buy the PS3 if they installed this thing and 83% said no.

frankly, the $650cdn. price point killed it for me but the fact that they may install this likely killed it for those who intend to take out a second morgage to pay for all the stuff. (eg second controler, games, and the other stuff that they'll relece for it)

Darkmoon is right, Sony denied the rumor. Gamesindustry.biz has a nice write up here:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=17283

Some nice quotes by Sony include these gems:

"PlayStation 3 software will not be copy protected to a single machine but will be playable on any PlayStation 3 console."

"there has been no official comment on this since the story that came up a few months ago - it hasn't changed since then, and we're quite surprised by why this has popped up again, to be honest."

Now, just because Sony says this now doesn't mean that the scenario described above isn't going to happen. To kinda show why I'm going to quote something that isn't published yet on Gamenikki. Call this a preview

*************

First shock : license

The first shock is that Sony now intends to license games instead of selling games. This is actually what Microsoft does with Microsoft Windows, and what the Recording industry does with music. You do not actually purchase the content. What you purchase when you "buy" Windows Operating System or a RIAA member music CD is a license to use the product as the legal /owner/ dictates. That is why people who copy RIAA member music cd's are susceptable to being taken to court, as well as being jailed and or fined. The fact is, once a consumer agrees to a license, they are held to that license.

One of the items I mentioned a long time ago in the casual blog is an upcoming editorial on Digital Rights Management, reffered to as DRM. One of the concepts of DRM, as explained to consumers, is that it allows the /owner/ of the content to decide what happens to the content. That is the reason why owner is bolded. When you purchase a license to use content, rather than the content itself, you are not the /owner/. Rather, the owner is whoever produced the content. DRM, therefor, is used to control the content as the /owner/ wishes. If you are not the /owner/ of the content, you do not have control.

The gut reaction to realizing what licesning content and DRM actually are intended to accomplish is that content providers would never actually do that. Unfortunantly, content providers are already doing that. Sony/BMG has been in hot-water for using Music-CD's to install root-kits in Microsoft Windows Operating Systems.

The reality is, Sony fully intends to remove consumer control of Sony produced content. Consumers will not actually own the content, it will still legally be Sony's, and Sony can use the content in any way it pleases. This ties into Sony's view of the living room of the future. Everything is centered around Sony and Sony is the center of everything. Everything entertainment related is Sony. Consumer Advocy groups and privacy groups will probably have a field day in courts with this.

*********

[Rowne]

My point wasn't that Sony are making a profit from all their assets though, my point was that Sony still has practical revenues and therefore money coming in.  Even if the PS3 fails, they'll hardly be broke, they might pull away from the console race for a while though and that would leave an interesting void to be filled.

[Darkmoon]

Actually, they really don't have reliable revenue. They would have to do more than pull away from games and entertainment if they wanted to keep afloat... like, sell off a bunch of their divisions and radically downsize.

[Xuzaf D]

I feel like I won't be allowed near anything called a playstation in the future unless I get my own recording studio and fifty platinum albums.

[Rowne]

Darkmoon: Wow, I had no idea that they were that they were in that much trouble.  One has to wonder what could possibly spur them into following their PS3 plan, then.  They'd likely have been better following Nintendo's example with the Wii.

[Saist]

I've kinda already addressed that particular issue.

http://www.gamenikki.com/g3/features/Jason.php?id=7

http://www.gamenikki.com/g3/features/Jason.php?id=8

both of those articles answer some of the questions that may explain Sony's behavior

[Rowne]

Ah, sorry.  I actually do have short-term memory issues (of the clinnically proven kind, yay me).  *Sheepish.*

[Darkmoon]

Yeah, it's just Sony trying to gain a monopoly on the market, one way or another. Either they want the best game system and/or they want the medium all games and movies are printed on, and/or they want the new portable game and movie medium...

Corporate greed will push some people very far.