E3 Cancelled.

[DoTheFandango]

Can they do that? Is that even allowed?!

Doug Lowenstein, the president of the Entertainment Software Association is expected to announce within the next 48 hours that E3, the Electronic Entertainment Expo, the definitive video games show, has been cancelled. Industry sources have told Next-Gen that the reasoning behind this move is primarily one of cost versus return. Publishers aren't getting the media attention that they expect from the large amounts of cash that they're putting down to exhibit at the show.

WHY?! WHY GOD WHY!?

[Troll King]

Mainly it's because the bigger companies already put on their own shows. According to IGN, E3 isn't exactly "cancelled" though; it's just going to be smaller and less flashy. It'll also be moved to July which will make it fit better into most companies' production schedules. This would also cut down on the costs involved in producing the extravagant booths, while putting on more focus on lower-budget private showings for the media which would also help them get info out more efficiently.

[Bioture]

All they have to do is make it available to the public and charge admission!!

(or at least I hope it would be that simple)

[Eric is God]

All they have to do is make it available to the public and charge admission!!

(or at least I hope it would be that simple)

This in an excellant idea if done properly. I never really saw the need for E3. The vast majority of consumers interested in products unveiled at E3 are very internet savvy, so there is no need to have one big show. It makes little difference to me if Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo have seperate shows to reveal next year's products. If I can go in person on the other hand, I'd definately be willing to shell out $60-80 for a weekend pass.

[DoTheFandango]

If an E3 was an equivalent of ComicCon, where the public could enter if the price is right, then it would be better than the Super Bowl.

[Richard Creager]

on one side, I think I would be glad if they never did one again, except if it weren't for the fact the last one was actually cool and was the source for a lot of hilarity, but maybe its that which is making them 'decide' to tone it down. you know, that way a certain someone doesn't get embarassed as badly again.
that or maybe they're expecting a crash, which by the looks of things isn't too unplausable and is probably necessary at this point. then again, I guess it depends on what you consider a crash and what you consider good riddance to horrible rubbish.

[Maurauth]

Yeah, they could sell tickets for the weekend for even 100-150 dollars and it would still get HUGE ammounts of visitors. They could pay for nearly all of it with just that.

[genocidal]

Nerd convention. I hope they do it so I can spray Agent Orange in the building's air conditioning.

[Vykromond]

E3 has been stupid for 7+ years, I'm not mourning its death.

[+/-]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060730-7382.html

[Troll King]

What does selling tickets have to do with anything? The money will only go to the organizers of E3, the ESA, not to the developers. The reason they are changing E3 is because the developers and publishers are spending too much on their booths and feel they could better spend their money putting on smaller, more focused shows. The bigger companies will also put on their own shows where they can do things on their own terms without having to compete for media attention with their rivals. Why pay for expensive displays, not to mention union workers to assemble them, when it'd be cheaper just to invite the media to your main offices?

Here's a good editorial on the decision to change E3 on IGN:
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/722/722126p1.html

[Eric is God]

What does selling tickets have to do with anything? The money will only go to the organizers of E3, the ESA, not to the developers. The reason they are changing E3 is because the developers and publishers are spending too much on their booths and feel they could better spend their money putting on smaller, more focused shows. The bigger companies will also put on their own shows where they can do things on their own terms without having to compete for media attention with their rivals. Why pay for expensive displays, not to mention union workers to assemble them, when it'd be cheaper just to invite the media to your main offices?

Here's a good editorial on the decision to change E3 on IGN:
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/722/722126p1.html

Well my only argument would be that E3 should be geared towards the game consumers and not the publishers or the gaming media. I'd prefer what they are choosing to do rather than the traditional E3, but I'd prefer a convention open to everyone over both options. I don't see why they can't have a convention for the media and then have another one that is open to the public. As Maurauth mentioned, they could help off set the costs.

[Troll King]

But E3 was never about being open to consumers. It always was intended to be just for the industry and media. One reason they wanted it to be smaller was the number of people (i.e. consumers) sneaking in. They don't want the public there is that the products are still too early in the developmental stage. We already see games being released that are full of bugs, just imagine how bad it would be at those conventions? And again, as for the costs, the money would go towards the ESA coiffers, but they aren't the ones complaining about the costs. They could divide the money up among the developers and publishers, but can you think of a fair way to do that with the number of parties involved, not to mention the relative sizes of those companies?

[ZeUs!!]

What happened to E1 and E2?

[Squeezer]

What happened to E1 and E2?

***BRITISH HUMOR ALERT***