friedram
CAG Newbie
3/7/07 UPDATE: Click here
With the recent changes being made to E3- it seems that there are some who think the restrictions are a good thing.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6155038.html
Michael Pachter, analyst with Wedbush Morgan Securities:
I think that the right way to look at E3 is to step back and ask yourself why we have the show in the first place. From the publishers' and the developers' and the console manufacturers' perspective, the reason they have the show is to generate positive press about their products. I'm not sure that there are 60,000 people who matter in generating positive press.
I think there are 5,000 people who matter, and then 50 million who matter because they actually buy the products.
I'm not sure that next incremental 55,000 who show up really influence opinion making.
Ken Levine, cofounder, Irrational Games:
Like most things, it's probably good for the big boys and probably bad for the little guys. If you've got a bunch of games to show, you can host a giant event, fly in journalists, give them good food, have the Spice Girls reunite, etc., and spread all those costs across all those big games. If you're a small publisher with just a couple of titles, well, then you're kind of hosed.
I'm just surprised this didn't happen sooner. Some of the biggest games at E3 had very low-key presentations. We were fortunate enough this year to have a great response to BioShock, and we were just showing it off in a tiny little room on a medium-sized television. I'm sure that didn't make some of the big guys spending zillions of dollars on the same show floor very happy. I'm sure there are big players wondering, "Why bother? We'll just do our own thing where there's no competition."
I think the biggest loser is the "universal awareness of the games biz" in the sense that there's no longer a single event for the mainstream press to wrap their head around. It was sort of like an annual holiday where the "Live at Five" anchor-bots talked about the game industry for five minutes. I always thought that was good for a laugh.
With the recent changes being made to E3- it seems that there are some who think the restrictions are a good thing.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6155038.html
Michael Pachter, analyst with Wedbush Morgan Securities:
I think that the right way to look at E3 is to step back and ask yourself why we have the show in the first place. From the publishers' and the developers' and the console manufacturers' perspective, the reason they have the show is to generate positive press about their products. I'm not sure that there are 60,000 people who matter in generating positive press.
I think there are 5,000 people who matter, and then 50 million who matter because they actually buy the products.
I'm not sure that next incremental 55,000 who show up really influence opinion making.
Ken Levine, cofounder, Irrational Games:
Like most things, it's probably good for the big boys and probably bad for the little guys. If you've got a bunch of games to show, you can host a giant event, fly in journalists, give them good food, have the Spice Girls reunite, etc., and spread all those costs across all those big games. If you're a small publisher with just a couple of titles, well, then you're kind of hosed.
I'm just surprised this didn't happen sooner. Some of the biggest games at E3 had very low-key presentations. We were fortunate enough this year to have a great response to BioShock, and we were just showing it off in a tiny little room on a medium-sized television. I'm sure that didn't make some of the big guys spending zillions of dollars on the same show floor very happy. I'm sure there are big players wondering, "Why bother? We'll just do our own thing where there's no competition."
I think the biggest loser is the "universal awareness of the games biz" in the sense that there's no longer a single event for the mainstream press to wrap their head around. It was sort of like an annual holiday where the "Live at Five" anchor-bots talked about the game industry for five minutes. I always thought that was good for a laugh.