"I hate E3 like this. Either we need to go back to the old E3, or we'll have to have our own private events."
-- John Riccitiello, EA CEO

"E3 this year is terrible. The world used to come to E3. Now it's like a pipe-fitters show in the basement."
-- Laurent Detoc, Ubisoft North American CEO

E3…the spectacle, the event, the moment of glory….that was two years ago. E3 has since been castrated. Last year we saw the glitz and glamor fade in favor of an abandoned airplane hanger. This year, we saw the media interest fade thanks to the lack of new content, yet the ESA claims the show will go on. Well, if that is to be so, some changes must occur, but first let's examine why the show got to this low point in the first place.

It all started with E3 2006—the infamous E3 where lines to see the Wii were up to five hours long, causing people to forgo much of the rest of the exhibition in favor of a day long wait for a chance at the Wii-mote. Never before had one booth had such a massive draw and this exposed the flaws in the convention's layout.


Everyone remembers that infamous line in 2006 to see the Wii. The press might have actually had time to see other booths that year (and keep the other attending publishers happy) had the exhibitors not piled into line before the press were even allowed in.

"So the ESA came out and said there will be another E3 next year. Too bad the mainstream media probably didn't even realize that they held one this year."

E3 2006 was a convoluted mess was partly due to the exhibitors themselves. The Wii booth line will live forever in infamy via YouTube, but the simple fact is that line didn't have to be as long as it was. The 3 hour Twilight Princess line from 2005 was manageable because it was "mostly" just press and the influx/outflow was pretty constant unlike Nintendo's strictly controlled access to the Wii booth to prevent injury from flailing Wii-motes (aka, insurance reasons). But 2006 finally exposed a problem that had plagued E3 since the very beginning. Exhibitors (the people running the various company booths around the show) were piling into the lines well before the doors were open to the press. Exactly what was the purpose of allowing these people in first at a press event? So the rivals can get a chance to scope out the competition? Wasn't the primary focus of E3 to be a chance to show off new products to the press who then carry the news to the public? So why prevent those people from being able to do their job?

Naturally you might assume that the reason publishers wanted to cut down on the size and scale of E3 was due to the costs of the event. It got to the point that the big guys were spending millions of dollars on booths that were only good for three days, but there was another reason the scale of E3 was decimated. Publishers just didn't think spending all that money was worth it since press people (and the competition) were the only people going to see all that flash. Sure, it was good for B-Roll footage and promotional purposes, but the only people taking advantage of all that stuff was press. They didn't think it was worth the money to get the attention of the media since they assumed we would show up with or without the flashy lights and bouncing breasts at every turn because it's our job. They were right. We showed up because the content was still there. That vanished this year, so what's left for 2009?


Take a look at the West Hall of E3 2006 versus E3 2008. What was once the premiere event of the electronic entertainment industry is now a mausoleum.

Without a massive format change, there isn't a lot left for E3 2009, yet the ESA came out and said there will be another E3 next year. Too bad the mainstream media probably didn't even realize that they held one this year. First of all, the giant E3 of old needs to come back if the ESA hopes to get the attention of anyone outside the core gaming press. In case anybody didn't notice, the mainstream media (newspapers, cable news, ect) didn't show up this year because there was nothing to get their attention. Mainstream media is shallow. They don't show up to cover the intricacies of the gaming industry. They show up to point cameras at a flashy attraction and poke fun at nerds. Still, CNN and Fox News cameras make for good (and free) promotional footage, and it helps remind the mainstream world that the gaming industry is important to pop culture.

"By opening E3 to the public, the relevancy of the exhibition takes an immediate upward turn. Splitting an expo between press and public has worked for Tokyo Game Show. Why not try it on this side of the Pacific? "

Second—the meeting room set-up and the giant floor show of old need to be kept separate. In the past, press people complained about having to navigate the warzone of the expo floor to make it from booth to booth for meetings and hands-on appointments. The past two years have proven that separating the meeting rooms and the floor show (as tiny as it was) is helpful for the productivity of press trying to bring readers coverage, but the floor show doesn't need to be castrated for this to work. But remember, publishers didn't think we press were worth the money. That's fine. Simply extend the show to four days and open the second two days to the public. By opening E3 to the public, the relevancy of the exhibition takes an immediate upward turn. Splitting an expo between press and public has worked for Tokyo Game Show. Why not try it on this side of the Pacific?

Gamers don't want to go to "E for All". They want to go to E3. E3 means something to them. Publishers actually show up to E3 to get business done and (unlike E for All) they actually bring their goods with them. But when that business is done, why not conduct the most important business of all—strengthening ties with the core fanbase that pays their bills. Those of us in the press usually complete our work within the first two days of the expo anyway. Open the show to the public and suddenly those giant booths get some use and serve a purpose again.

"Last but not least, fire ESA president Michael Gallagher...Serving as the Chief Telecommunications and Internet Policy Advisor to the Bush administration sure as hell doesn't qualify you to represent the gaming industry."

Publishers also need to save some surprises for the show. The expo was so late this year; publishers had already blown off most all of their major surprises for the rest of the year. Without surprises, E3 loses its relevance to the gaming press (the only media who actually bothered to show up this year) because the fanbase already knows everything that's coming. That leaves little to cover. Last but not least, fire ESA president Michael Gallagher. The man is a know-nothing tool who has no experience in the gaming business and is the primary reason the expo is in this horrible state. How he got this job is anybody's guess, but one thing is for certain: serving as the Chief Telecommunications and Internet Policy Advisor to the Bush administration sure as hell doesn't qualify you to represent the gaming industry.

Gaming isn't a glamorous hobby. More than a few hardcore gamers play the latest releases in their underwear on recliners. E3 was our moment in the sun. It was that one time of the year where we all got to see that our hobby actually means something and remind the general public of that fact. Video gaming may be the highest grossing form of entertainment in the world, but sometimes we need a reminder. E3 was that reminder. Now it's just a second rate lecture hall, smaller than a Midwestern Wal-Mart Supercenter.

Give us back our time in the sun. Give us back E3.

Like this article? Please Digg it!