For the past decade, the gaming community has set their calendars by an annual event called the Electronic Entertainment Expo, or E3 for short. We've done a few history articles on it over the years that'd do you good to read. It's okay, I'll wait here while you go read them.
All caught up? Good.
Sounds like a fun place to go, right? Well, I'm sorry to say, you can't go any longer. It's dead. Kaput. No amount of blowing into the proverbial cartridge will bring it back so that you can experience the circus that was E3.
There was a problem. E3's attendance numbers were growing, and with them the costs of exhibiting.
After E3 2005, the bigger exhibitors (which included Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, and Electronic Arts) began to complain that the show simply cost too much; they weren't seeing much return from having to cater to the masses. Business was harder to conduct, and droves of rabid fanboys were starting to congest the show floor in their epic quest for goodies and swag.
The slight dip in 2006 was a result of an early effort to control the numbers. The Entertainment Software Association, or ESA—custodians of the event—used stricter registration methods and verification for media registrants, limited the number of "Exhibits Only" passes, and denied passes to low-level employees at game stores, restricting said passes to executive staff and buyers only. E3 2006 was supposed to rectify the aforementioned problems. It was a step in the right direction, but it wasn't enough. What happened next was the final blow to what we knew as E3: The big guns pulled out.
Barely a month after E3 2006, former ESA president Doug Lowenstein issued a press release. In it, he made the following comment, which ignited a firestorm in online gaming communities:
Over the next few months, the ESA became increasingly silent. No-one was hearing anything about the new E3. Rumors ran rampant and speculation ran wild. E3 as they knew it was dead, and yet no one could imagine anything different. While the ESA remained silent, several "E-alternatives" popped up to try and claim the throne. E for All was created. Existing shows like Gen Con and the Penny Arcade Expo upped the ante. Moderate success was had, but nobody really knew which event would be the one to follow, the one to attend. Where would the megatons be set off; where would the bombs drop? Every year at E3 there were major press conferences packed full of revelations, but no one had committed at any of these fringe events.
Into the midst of this chaos came Doug Lowenstein again. Another press release was issued, this time with more information, and another quote that really could do nothing but cause more havoc.
This did little to stem the tide of rumors and speculation; many people now worried that this new exclusive and invite-only event would be embargoed and impossible to get into. The dominant feeling was a declaration that even this—the new and improved E3 Media & Business Summit—was a farce, a hollow shell of what E3 was supposed to be.
You see, with this new E3, you have to be invited by an exhibiting company. These invitations are non-transferable, and you had a finite amount of time to confirm your registration and intentions of going. For those lobbying against this supposedly improved E3, this seemed its Achilles' heel: how could this E3 possibly be better if no one could get into the thing? The prevalent mood on forums was that this new E3 was worthless and unexciting; the magic was gone. They would never experience another of their cherished "E3 weeks".
And for a while, this prediction of doom did indeed seem like it would come to pass. Not many companies were announcing their intentions to attend or to what extent they'd exhibit. Even the big three—Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft—were being quiet. But then, quietly, a call was taken up. Companies began saying those magic words once again: Wait 'till E3.
Could it be? Could the announcements still ring true? Will the press conferences blow everyone away? Will E3's spirit live on in this new, more focused event? I sure as hell hope so. Not everyone is convinced, though; there's still quite a bit of hostility towards this incarnation of the show—mostly, it seems, from the people who didn't get invited (due to the ridiculous invitation system). I have faith, though—and this is why I think the E3 Media & Business Summit promises to be a better show than it's predecessor, smaller attendance.
With only 3,500 or so projected attendees, the show will provide an extremely intimate environment for journalists and developers to talk, and experience the games without the need for bright flashing lights and loud music—though that's likely to still be there, in the Expo's Barker Hanger, where all exhibitors will have a space to set up shop and participate in a larger-scale exhibition.
E3 Media & Business Summit 2007 takes place in one short week. N-Sider will be covering the events from Santa Monica first hand. Whether or not this E3 lives up to previous years, well, only time will tell. But we sure hope so.
All caught up? Good.
Sounds like a fun place to go, right? Well, I'm sorry to say, you can't go any longer. It's dead. Kaput. No amount of blowing into the proverbial cartridge will bring it back so that you can experience the circus that was E3.
There was a problem. E3's attendance numbers were growing, and with them the costs of exhibiting.
| Year | Attendance | Year | Attendance |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1997 | 32,000 | 2002 | 60,000 |
| 1998 | 45,000 | 2003 | 62,000 |
| 1999 | 56,000 | 2004 | 65,000 |
| 2000 | 62,000 | 2005 | 70,000 |
| 2001 | 62,000 | 2006 | 60,000 |
After E3 2005, the bigger exhibitors (which included Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, and Electronic Arts) began to complain that the show simply cost too much; they weren't seeing much return from having to cater to the masses. Business was harder to conduct, and droves of rabid fanboys were starting to congest the show floor in their epic quest for goodies and swag.
The slight dip in 2006 was a result of an early effort to control the numbers. The Entertainment Software Association, or ESA—custodians of the event—used stricter registration methods and verification for media registrants, limited the number of "Exhibits Only" passes, and denied passes to low-level employees at game stores, restricting said passes to executive staff and buyers only. E3 2006 was supposed to rectify the aforementioned problems. It was a step in the right direction, but it wasn't enough. What happened next was the final blow to what we knew as E3: The big guns pulled out.
Barely a month after E3 2006, former ESA president Doug Lowenstein issued a press release. In it, he made the following comment, which ignited a firestorm in online gaming communities:
Over the next few months, the ESA became increasingly silent. No-one was hearing anything about the new E3. Rumors ran rampant and speculation ran wild. E3 as they knew it was dead, and yet no one could imagine anything different. While the ESA remained silent, several "E-alternatives" popped up to try and claim the throne. E for All was created. Existing shows like Gen Con and the Penny Arcade Expo upped the ante. Moderate success was had, but nobody really knew which event would be the one to follow, the one to attend. Where would the megatons be set off; where would the bombs drop? Every year at E3 there were major press conferences packed full of revelations, but no one had committed at any of these fringe events.
Into the midst of this chaos came Doug Lowenstein again. Another press release was issued, this time with more information, and another quote that really could do nothing but cause more havoc.
This did little to stem the tide of rumors and speculation; many people now worried that this new exclusive and invite-only event would be embargoed and impossible to get into. The dominant feeling was a declaration that even this—the new and improved E3 Media & Business Summit—was a farce, a hollow shell of what E3 was supposed to be.
You see, with this new E3, you have to be invited by an exhibiting company. These invitations are non-transferable, and you had a finite amount of time to confirm your registration and intentions of going. For those lobbying against this supposedly improved E3, this seemed its Achilles' heel: how could this E3 possibly be better if no one could get into the thing? The prevalent mood on forums was that this new E3 was worthless and unexciting; the magic was gone. They would never experience another of their cherished "E3 weeks".
And for a while, this prediction of doom did indeed seem like it would come to pass. Not many companies were announcing their intentions to attend or to what extent they'd exhibit. Even the big three—Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft—were being quiet. But then, quietly, a call was taken up. Companies began saying those magic words once again: Wait 'till E3.
Could it be? Could the announcements still ring true? Will the press conferences blow everyone away? Will E3's spirit live on in this new, more focused event? I sure as hell hope so. Not everyone is convinced, though; there's still quite a bit of hostility towards this incarnation of the show—mostly, it seems, from the people who didn't get invited (due to the ridiculous invitation system). I have faith, though—and this is why I think the E3 Media & Business Summit promises to be a better show than it's predecessor, smaller attendance.
With only 3,500 or so projected attendees, the show will provide an extremely intimate environment for journalists and developers to talk, and experience the games without the need for bright flashing lights and loud music—though that's likely to still be there, in the Expo's Barker Hanger, where all exhibitors will have a space to set up shop and participate in a larger-scale exhibition.
E3 Media & Business Summit 2007 takes place in one short week. N-Sider will be covering the events from Santa Monica first hand. Whether or not this E3 lives up to previous years, well, only time will tell. But we sure hope so.