Talk:E3

E3 2007

More of a request than a comment, info of plans for E3 2007 have just been released, if anyone could poach some info and put it here, it would be much appreciated as the filters at my college have blocked anything to do with it.

There may not be an E3 2007. [1] Diputs 03:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It will be called E3, it will not be E3 Beomoose

Celebrities

I added that celebrities are also allowed into the expo. I doubt Sinbad is an industry professional... -NLUT

Paris Hilton attended 2006 as well >_< --85.210.1.60 16:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If she is an industry professional, I'm Ken Kutaragi.--ᎠᏢ462090^Contribs 17:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Name

Why isn't this article at Electronic Entertainment Expo, the full name? Andre (talk) 21:27, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Which of the two is most commonly used? The general rule is "most common", otherwise we'd be puzzling everybody with our articles on "James Earl Carter" and the like. Stan 03:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I actually think the most used is E3, not E³ (no silly exponent) but I think in this case the abbreviation shouldn't be used. It's a bit like having a Counter-Strike article at the more commonly used (online at least) CS. Andre (talk) 20:30, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I have moved the article. Andre (talk) 01:38, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree with your comparison there, people know "Counter-Strike" before they know CS, whereas E3 is far more known that Electronic Entertainment Expo (see what links here). This article should be at E3, but as that is a disambiguation page, E³ is the next best option (as opposed to E3 (expo)). ed g2s • talk 18:52, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Having an exponent in an article title that's an abbreviation seems extremely absurd to me. Andre (talk) 19:32, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

It's doubly absurd because you can't type in the exponent to get to the article. Isn't there a suggestion somewhere not to use special characters unnecessarily in articles? Andre (talk) 20:25, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

The title E³ actually goes against the guidelines of Wikipedia.

"Convention: Avoid the use of acronyms in page naming unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its acronyms and is widely known and used in that form (NASA, SETI, and radar are good examples). Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms)

The form E³ is rarely, if ever used. (Google turns up next to nothing). The title, IMO should be Electronic Entertainment Expo since the more commonly used acronym, E3 (which it is widely known as) is disambig. Furthermore as the article I listed above suggests the name is preferred to be spelt out anyway. 2 examples are the Motion Picture Association of America rather than the more commonly used MPAA and Digital Millennium Copyright Act better known as the DMCA K1Bond007 21:48, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

E³ is almost exclusive used. 'Electronic Entertainment Expo' is only used to explain the abbreviation (not acronym). The page should be E3 (expo) or E³. Note that searching for E³ on google won't show up all the instances of E³, and also that some people just can't be bothered to super-script the 3 even if they think that's how it should be. ed g2s • talk 23:59, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And while we're talking google searches, "electronic entertainment expo": 127,000, E3 game (so as to filter out most other uses of E3): 2,690,000. ed g2s • talk 00:04, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But I think it's a general rule to not use parentheticals like (expo) if you can avoid it. Andre (talk) 03:39, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure superscript is a no-no as a general rule too, which is why you see articles like "82nd Airborne" instead of 82^nd Airborne. K1Bond007 21:21, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Well E3 is taken, and parentheticals are standard for disambiguation. ed g2s • talk 23:54, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But you don't need the parenthetical, because the expanded abbreviation is not taken, plus it doesn't have a special character. Andre (talk) 05:15, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the official site [2] seems to use "E³" wherever it's mentioned, except in the copyright information down the bottom, where it gives the full name. I don't have an opinion on this either way, though. - Vague | Rant 11:40, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

I've listed this article on RfC, in the hope that more opinions will flow in about the odd naming of this article. I strongly don't think it can remain as is. Andre (talk) 17:59, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've only ever seen it as E3, and I had to look it up to find out the full name of the expo. --Carnildo 20:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For the record i originally put it here after wondering where it belonged, and moved it here after reading the official website. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:55, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)

The superscript doesn't work at all, IMO, and I think the acronym more appropriate. Given the low importance of what's on E3 currently, it might be least confusing to move that article to E3 {disambiguation) and give this E3. 119 00:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion. A few moves need to be made: E3 → E3 (disambiguation) and E³ → E3. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-9 11:09 Z

Since Wikipedia has a policy to not use acronyms, I believe the longer name is appropriate, with a redirect from E3 to Electronic Entertainment Expo. Examples of redirects to longer name: PETA, USA, IEEE. However in spite of the policy, there does appear to be precedent for naming articles to widely known acronyms, for example, IBM, CICS, NAACP, NATO, DNA. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 11:50, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

We have no policy not to use acronyms, rather than explaining it in my own words I'll just quote the policy:

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms):

"Convention: Avoid the use of acronyms in page naming unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its acronyms and is widely known and used in that form (NASA, SETI, and radar are good examples)."

Well, it's not "almost exclusively known only by its acronyms", at least not where I come from. Note too that NASA is pronounced "nasa", SETI as "seti", RADAR as "radar", while "E3" is pronounced "ee three". It hardly fits the precedents.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 10:16, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

"E³" is the most common name. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:15, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)

Well this is interesting, "E³" as an article title, but we can't do iMac (see IMac)? What kind of software are we running on anyway? :)--User:naryathegreat(t) 23:42, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

MediaWiki, and its not a problem with the software, its simply configured to normalize the first letter to upper case. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:20, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

at the top of the article, it states that "The expo is only open to industry professionals and journalists," but then goes on to say that from wednesday on "the expo is generally open for the public." does "the public" refer to only industry professionals and journalists, or is it open for the public? sorry for my probable lack of decent wiki markup, i'm just a reader.

To get to the main E3 show ("Wednesday on"), you need to have credentials as a member of the industry or press, and submit them to the show beforehand. From what I hear, E3 is fairly liberal in who it lets in, and plenty of game store clerks and administrators of fan websites get in each year, provided (usually) they have connections and jump through plenty of administrative hoops.

The pre-show conferences on Monday and Tuesday, however, are much more exclusive. Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony each have a pre-show conference, and they are invite-only. Typically, only well-established members of the industry or press are able to attend.

I know this is kind of vague, but think of it as two tiers of difficulty: it's hard to get into E3, and even harder to get into the pre-show conferences. 209.152.48.200 20:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The article states that the E3 is "the world's largest annual trade show for the computer and video games industry." Really? There were "65,000 attendees" last year, compared to over 105,000 attendees at the Games Convention in Leipzig, Germany (540,000 square feet vs. 750,000 square feet, respectively). If, on the other hand, only the number of developers count, the statement is (still) correct. -- ntropie 15:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

If it's broke, fix it. Andre (talk) 20:15, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

It is the largest. Don't forget this line: "The expo is only open to industry professionals and journalists." K1Bond007 21:24, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Then it is the largest by what measure? Number of journalists? Acclamation? —Morven 01:05, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

A trade show is not the same thing as a convention. - 211.28.79.52 10:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's my opinion. If you go to e3expo.com the only place you see "Electronic Entertainment Expo" is in the disclaimer at the bottom. In the entire official page they refer to themselves as "E³". "E³" is a little play on math that stands for EEE which is the acronym for "Electronic Entertainment Expo". E3 does not work as that acronym, nor do they refer to their expo as E3, E3 is only more common since it's much easier to type then E³ since most keyboards do not have a cubed key. Since E3 is not a name that they use themselves in any way it should not be used for this page since it is unoffical. What would be correct to do is make the E3 page re-direct to the page this ends up on.

Now E³ vs Electronic Entertainment Expo. If we can use E³ as a title (not sure if we are allowed superscript in titles) then we should use E³ since it is what the Expo refers to itself as. If we cannot use superscript then we should name this page "Electronic Entertainment Expo" since that is the official name. "E3" is not the name of the Expo and is therefore not an acceptable page title. Seraphim 00:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above two posters. E³ is the name, and should be the title of the page. The ³ is used in other titles, for example: Alien³. There's no reason it can't be used here. - Indecision 09:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

E³ is NOT the name, E3 is. Why did someone put the superscript everywhere? I have never seen it typed E³ anywhere but here.

Go to http://e3expo.com, the official site, and see how it is typed. - Indecision 05:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't get the west hall thing...

If it refers to the fact that Nintendo and Sony are from asia, asia is often considered the east

It refers to where the exibitors are actually located in the conference center. — Frecklefoot | Talk 02:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the point was, what does the part "By coincidence or otherwise" mean. - Indecision 09:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Corrections, edits

So-called “Booth Babes” are not banned from E3. This is a misconception most likely stemming from confusing media reports. The ESA are only regulating new and enforcing old guidelines – they’re going to attempt to make sure the “booth babes” are covered up, as such. Basically it’s to stop them going around in underwear and might go a lot further.

Sexist, subjective generalisation also removed.

This article is about a computer/video games industry, links to unrelated ‘gaming’ industry events removed.

Minor grammar edits

I corrected minor grammar errors in the article. Cabadrin That's nice. Ace Class Shadow 07:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC) SO DID I AND CAPS LOCK IS MADE OF COOL Eztli 00:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

2006 coverage

With so much news coming out about E3, I'd like to have a section of the article for 2006 events (games announced, console news etc). If the section grows large, it could (at that time) possibly be split off as a separate article (akin to what was done with 2006 Sundance Film Festival), though I don't know if there will be enough content for that (eg. 2006 CES news turned out to be a smallish paragraph). --Interiot 16:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh...thanks for...mentioning it, I guess, but if you want to make a section, it's cool. Like Nike says, ya know? The Anti-Gnome 20:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be easier to read if under the subsection 2006 there was a nintendo, microsoft, and sony section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.184.31.158 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC).

Largest/third largest

That part doesnt make sence. It's the largest trade convention in the world but only the third largest "gaming" convention? A contradiction i believe :) Is it perhaps the other way around really? it's the largest gaming convetion in the world and the third largest tradeconvention overall in the world?

Sega's booth

Sega traditionally camped out in the Concourse Hall, but now have a booth in the South Hall. They have not been in the West Hall.

Link - 2006 countdown

This link got removed, and yeah its not enclopedic, but interesting so I thought it desreved to be here. So here it is... countdown to E3 -Ravedave 22:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Superscript 3

I have moved the article to E3, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). Specifically: "..avoid using special characters that are not pronounced and are included purely for decoration. In the article about a trademark, it is acceptable to use decorative characters the first time the trademark appears, but thereafter, an alternative that follows the standard rules of punctuation should be used". ed g2s • talk 19:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

2006 Page

Eventually we are going to have to make a section for an E3 year, be it 06 or 07. We may as well start now and make an E3 2006 page. The page should include a section for the Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft conferences (in that order, as that was the order they were done in), list of games announded, list of games featured through trailers, and list of playable games. After that would be awards, best in show and trivia. Any other conferences or announcements should also be covered, naturally.--Orion Minor 00:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's easy enough to split it off if/once it becomes large enough. At this point, it's not clear that it will/should become big enough to be a separate article. For 1995, the current content heavily overlaps with History of video game consoles (fifth generation), and it's not clear that people will be interested in writing or reading significantly more. --Interiot 02:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess I spoke too soon. It looks like it just expanded a whole lot. --Interiot 12:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

2006 length

For what it's worth, I think the current information in the 2006 should be pared down a bit. It's my opinion that, once 2007 or 2008 arrives, that from a historical perspective, we won't care about all of the games that were introduced at E3, or even the top-50 games. I think, at most, the top 20 or 25 should be mentioned. Also, for the prices that were announced, I think this article (since it's about E3) should simply state that "launch dates and prices were revealed for the PS3", and then let the user click on the PS3 link, and find out the date that the console actually launched (the PS3 article might even detail the various predictions and delays occured, but that sort of thing is for the PS3 article, since this article just covers a snapshot of what happens one week out of the year). For similar reasons, I think that future tense should generally be avoided in this article (eg. because E3 will be over in three days, and we'll be thinking about 2006 E3 in a historical context). --Interiot 17:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Trimmed down sections will only work for so long, in a few years, even small parts per year will be an eyesore. I say we make some sort of E3 Years page (or something to that affect) that will have a section for each year's information; it's similar to what I proposed earlier, but one page for all the years. If you think the size is bad now, just wait until the winners are announced, that's a large amount of info that people will want recorded.--Orion Minor 00:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

once I get a chance I'll add some of the notable events that happend at the actualy expo Monucg 21:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

European Mistake

For the PS3 prices, it is not correct. Not all European countries use euroes. There isn't any other price references, and I doubt Australians use euroes! Britain definitely doesn't!

Historical E3s

Shouldnt we have a section on all the historical E3s, such as the unvieling of things like the ps2, halo, final fantasies and among other things that got gamers excited for the rest of the year? - (unsigned comment by User:Cheesor)

Great idea! Have at it!-Ravedave 02:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I should, as I suggested it earlier in my post in "2006 length." There's a lot of good material there to cover.--Orion Minor 02:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Who took Microsoft out of the article?

I noticed that recently that, fot the most part, Microsoft was taken out the article! I see huge mention of everything Nintendo and Sony released, but it seems that someone had deleted the Microsoft information. I have replaced the information, included in a detailed description of Microsoft's press conference. I would like to state that just because you really don't like Microsoft or X-Box, doesn't mean that others don't. I'm a huge fan of each system seperately, for different reasons. Wikipedia is a work that is read, edited, and reviewed by many different people with millions of views and opinions. Don't cross that line. --Kyle 16:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

you might want to serch 'Neutral point of view', you do not have the right to put your views on Wikipedia's main pages - anyway the 2006 section is far to large as well as the Microsoft section of it being far too large as well - and will most likly be shortned next year, or in years to come as this page becomes too large... most of that stuff belongs to the 360 page, but the list of Wii and PSP/DS games is a bigger joke. Monucg 21:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

stop bitchin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.63.186.16 (talk • contribs)

PLEASE NOTE: Rubbish removed/corrected

If you don’t know facts (have a source) about LA, E3, or the computer games industry don’t edit this!

Ok the E3 article is hardly prefect now, but it’s a start. I have gruellingly corrected and removed a large number of factual errors, removed what journalism knows a ‘colour’, changed some static language, and updated the article with new changes to the event this year.

I beg anyone reading to not edit this or any page on this site unless you can back up what you are posting… the amount of errors that were here was highly misleading. Monucg 21:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, can people stop adding links to the “gaming” which means dress up or play board games – computer games ‘gaming’ and it are not interchangeable. The relationship is on par to the industry and culture ties to film, music etc. Monucg 21:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Moving Time

I think the 2006 page is long enough now that it warrants the creation of a "History of E3" page. Here's some notable events from past E3 events I gathered from looking at the Game Critics Awards History[3]:

2005 - Sony's controversial use of prerendered video, esp. the "Killzone" controversy - Microsoft's poor performance due to overexposure in earlier events (the MTV unveiling) and games not running on the actual system - Spore's first E3 - The Revolution is unveiled - The Gameboy Micro is unveiled

2004 - Halo 2 multiplayer Zanzibar demo - The PSP winning awards over the DS (despite many later seeing the DS as more successful, especially given the DS Lite's success)

2003 - Half Life 2 - Halo 2 is unveiled

2002 - The Wavebird Wireless Controller - Doom III

2001 - The Gamecube - The Xbox

2000 - The Xbox - The PS2 - Halo

1999 - The Dreamcast

1998 - The first E3

There's a lot more than this. My knowledge is generally limited to the Xbox and Dreamcast fields, along with the more recent E3 conventions. Perhaps an example of how needed this page is: I kept thinking, "where can I find info on past E3s? I know! Wikipedia!" --Orion Minor 06:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

History of E3 Created

Well, I couldn't get any response, so I went and made History of E3. It needs a lot of work, but I think a few big edits will put it in really good shape. I Made a rough skeleton. If you feel it should be merged/deleted, let's talk about it. For now, let's just start adding the info.--Orion Minor 08:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

E3 moved to E³

User:Loves Nintendo! moved E3 to E³, without discussing it here first. I'm pretty neutral about it, although it has broken these redirects:

• Electronics and Entertainment Expo
• Electronic Entertainment Expo
• Electronic Entertainment Exposition
• E Thrizzle
• E3 2006

Just thought it should be noted. I'm hesitant to change those redirects to point to E³ in case the page gets moved back. Sum0 12:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This has already been discussed in the past, and there's not really a strong consensus, but I think that it makes much more sense to have the page at E3 without the exponent. Andre (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, keep it at "E3" ... the use of the special character there is really annoying and will essentially mean that no one will actually be able to type in the name of the article. It's just a formatting difference, not even a pronunciation difference, which is the excuse for using diacritics on a lot of foreign names. --Cyde↔Weys 22:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

And it's moved to E³ again. I prefer E3 per above, but it's not really a big deal either way since the redirect is there. It'd just be nice to settle on one and not have it moved back and forth all the time (I don't know if this is a bikeshed color problem or not). --Interiot 21:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, in case it comes down to the WP:MOS "equally acceptable" clause, I believe it was originally E3. --Interiot 22:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I hate clauses like that. Seems against the foundation of WP, an easy way out. Anyways, the official name is E³. People don't search for "Nintendo GameCube" but search for "GameCube", but the name of the product is, in fact, "Nintendo GameCube". Scepia 02:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the spirit of the clause is good, that if consensus doesn't favor one version of the other, then it's unproductive to change it back and forth without a good reason. --Interiot 00:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There simply aren't enough people involved. The fact is, and you can't deny it, the thing is known as E³. Scepia 00:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I know the MOS has rules, but when it comes down to it, following rules doesn't make an encyclopedia. It makes an easy way out of the truth. I don't care about this clause one bit, I think it's garbage when we have [sarcasm]so much discussion. [/sarcasm] Scepia 00:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Rules are rules. There's no "truth" except that it's known by both, but that E3 is more common and simpler. Andre (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I just mean it seems like an exscuse for a fleshed-out decision, in this case, as so few people have put in their opinions. "more common" - I would argue that the official name trumps the more common one. It is known with the superscript by the creators. "simpler" - Again, simpler doesn't mean better. I want to have this page be professional, not decided upon by a few editors and half thought-out. Scepia 04:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The manual of style states that the most common name trumps the official name. Andre (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

E3 DOWNSIZED

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/07/30/e3-canceled-for-next-year-and-beyond/ Im gonna add this into the article. --Elven6 19:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The only cition to that article is to another article with no source. It says that there's going to press relase soon. This doesn't make since.--Scott3 19:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

EDIT there shouldn't be rumors in the article.--Scott3 19:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It is only a rumor at this point that E3 will be canceled. I personally don't think it is true. The gaming industry wouldn't be that stupid to get rid of E3. dposse 21:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It does indeed seem like it is going to be heavily downsized. It actually does make sense to me ... developers like releasing information on their own schedule and on their own terms, something they can easily do these days thanks to the internet, no once-a-year expo necessary. It should be confirmed tomorrow in an official announcement from ESA. --Cyde↔Weys 21:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes but it's nice having alot of press coveage like that. Probally more then they would get if they realsed it on there own. --Scott3 23:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok here's the right info: E3 game trade show not cancelled, but will be downsized but don't put anything in the article yet. We need wait for more info--Scott3 03:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In the paragraph about the downsizing, it says the new event will be inaccessible. What is meant by that? It was already closed to the general public, so unless they're planning to exclude press, access will remain unchanged.Apofisu 19:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

They may exclude TV coverage from G4 and maybe reduce the number of reporters. --Edgelord 20:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[4] There is the official announcement from the ESA. E3 has been killed. dposse 20:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks fro clearing that up, Edgelord, and thanks Dposse for finding the official announcement. I had been unable to find it myself, which is why I cited the gamespot article. Apofisu 22:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm glad i could help. dposse 02:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, the e3expo.com link must be changed. That website is subject to change very quickly. I recommend making [5] the official annoucement from the ESA into a reference link and putting it in the introduction and the "E3 change fallout" section. dposse 02:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I just saw E3's cancellation make the feed on g4 so it's more than likely that there will be no more E3s.--24.14.47.216 20:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't rely on what G4 says. Read the official announcement. dposse 21:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is currently as correct as I think it can be- e3 as we know it is officially cancelled, and in its place, this smaller and restructured show will take place. You can say this even is just a changed and downsized e3, but really, they're getting rid of everything most currently know e3 as (swarming crowds of sweaty bloggers) and turning it into something that most people are angered by (only "insiders" getting access). In time, however, I'm sure some PR gurus will spin the news to say this is how e3 should have always been and a year from now this article will detail broader history of e3 and how the change was a return to roots with some contraversy. Anyone wanna take the bet? Heh. Gspawn 00:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

E3 vs PAX

Apparently this makes PAX the biggest gamerconference. See here: [6] I don't knwo what source could be used to back that up...-Ravedave 20:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

PAX is bigger then GDC? Why did I not hear about it until today? (besides the fact i'm way behind on penny arcade). Mathiastck 01:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

GDC is bigger than PAX and PAX has no intention of becoming E3. PAX is less a tradeshow and more a Gamer's Convention. They mix and mingle a little bit but the two concepts are essentially different in goal and arrangement. - 24.10.95.220 19:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Professional journalism comment

This is a benefit to professional press, who will have greater hands-on time with products without having to wait in line for hours [7].

I have removed this comment. The professional press does not have to wait for hours in line at E3. That's one of the differences between 'normal visitors' and the professional press. Hyrule 18:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

They often get pushed up to the top of one line but have other lines to contend with, the Nintendo stand this year with lines inside and out would be a good example. Some of the more valued journalist do get treated like royalty, other very much so "professional press" do not. It varied from stand to stand from line to line etc. It looks like I will have to do another clean up of this article once I get the time. Monucg 18:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

New Gaming Expo?

I'm wondering, Is anyone going to create a new gaming expo, I have that Idea and I plan to make it available to the public, Kids allowed, No more do you have to watch it on your TV, You can go there, Plus It will be the same as the previous E3 expo but more alive. --SU182

Sounds like a hassle. I attended in '99 when the general public was banned and it was still a huge crowd and was hard to get around. If you did succeed in hosting such an event, no developers would attend (except maybe some indies). The huge crowds are the whole reason they changed the format, from an expo to an invitation-only event. Too many non-professionals attending was the biggest problem with the old E3. Sounds like you want to create an expo based on the problems. It also sounds like you come from outside the industry and are digruntled that you won't be allowed to attend the event based on the new criteria. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If it was just about non-professionals attending, entrance could have been restricted, and that would have been the end of it. Clearly, there's more going on. The best bet is that all the larger corporations (see: Sony, Microsoft...) did market research and saw e3 wasn't worth all the time and money spent- think about games sold versus development time wasted creating e3 demos and videos, and flying developers to e3 so they aren't developing during the conference, etc. I doubt e3 has ever been "worth" the expense for the large corporations in this regard. I've also worked game retail for a few years- basically 0% of the people coming in had any clue what e3 was or what was showing. Nor did they know any of the news coming from it. Even most "hardcore" shoppers barely knew e3 existed. In my experience. Gspawn 00:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

But E3 being downsized might ruin E3, The rules are more restricted and it's even harder to get into, With people like the Press, Game Developers, and Gaming Legends, and due to it's smaller size, Coverage for it will be dropped and E3 will be canceled, also the new E3 is restricted to the biggest of companys, Not smaller publishers, This new expo will focus more on the general public and less on the developers, The general public deserves to see the games that are being made and the kids get to know what's going on, The general public deserves the right to interact with any annoucements, events and q&a's and the general public deserves to play the games before it get's out, Not watch them from the TV's, This expo will have no age restriction, That's right, It's heaven to us underage, This expo will not be a buisness, This expo will not be a trade show, It will be a public expo like the LA Auto Show where everyone can attend and everyone can interact, It will be a place where smaller publishers can show their work, It will be a place of harmony and perfection, This expo will be the new E3. --SU182 23:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not really a discussion board, this talk page is to discuss the article. But since you brought it up, and per the insightful comments by Gspawn, I respond to your comments:

• "But E3 being downsized might ruin E3, The rules are more restricted and it's even harder to get into, With people like the Press, Game Developers, and Gaming Legends, and due to it's smaller size, Coverage for it will be dropped and E3 will be canceled"

Well, it is the E3 organization that is restructuring the expo--they certainly have the right to "ruin" their own monster.

• "the new E3 is restricted to the biggest of companys, Not smaller publishers"

Details are still too sparse to make such an assessment, but that is the general assumption. I don't know if only the "biggest" publishers will be allowed, but the point is that it will be invitation only. That will restrict a whole bunch of indies and wannabes, which is the whole idea.

• "This new expo will focus more on the general public and less on the developers, The general public deserves to see the games that are being made and the kids get to know what's going on, The general public deserves the right to interact with any annoucements, events and q&a's and the general public deserves to play the games before it get's out, Not watch them from the TV's,"

I assume you are talking about your new conference here. Per Gspawn's comments, I doubt any developers would attend. Like he said, developing an E3 demo takes a lot of work, work away from the common baseline that could be applied to actually shipping the game. So, if the developers don't attend, how are the attendees going to see the games in progress? You also state the "public deserves to see the games that are being made." Where is that written? Who says that? Where is that a law? Certainly nowhere in the US, where E3 is held. They don't have any of the "rights" you mention, though they probably would love to play pre-release games. But where's the ROI that Gspawn mentions? A few sales from people who attended? Demoing games to the press is much more effective, and they'll still be doing that.

• " This expo will have no age restriction, That's right, It's heaven to us underage,"

Okay, now I see your real motivation here. You're a minor and couldn't get into E3, and you're sore about it. But speaking from experience, there were already too many people at the "old E3"—allowing any John Doe in off the street would be a nightmare. Tons of kids running around, trying to steal pre-release versions of the games, blocking professionals who are actually trying to get some work done, getting underfoot. Geez, who would attend? It'd be a zoo! Not a good idea.

• " This expo will not be a buisness, This expo will not be a trade show, It will be a public expo like the LA Auto Show where everyone can attend and everyone can interact"

I have no idea why the LA Auto Show is open to the public (is that what you're claiming?), but I suspect that few kids are interested in cars, so they can pull it off without too much clamor. A video game expo open to the public would be a total nightmare. Restricting access to just those in the industry is the way to go.

• "It will be a place where smaller publishers can show their work"

Well this is a good point, but one that has already been made. Indie developers were able to show their wares at the old E3, but I doubt they garnered much interest. What indie game developer hit it big because they were able to show their game at E3? Zero. Indies can still show their games to bonafide publishers when their game is complete (or at least looks decent) and hope for a publishing deal.

• "It will be a place of harmony and perfection, This expo will be the new E3."

No it won't, the new E3 will be the new E3. Your dream expo would be your version of E3, which no developers or publishers would attend.

I have to back all of Gspawn's comments. E3 just didn't provide a solid ROI. Now the way they're restructuring it, they may actually accomplish what they originally set out to do: get distributors interested in upcoming titles, getting some press to garner excitement for upcoming games. Gspawn's right, few gamers know what E3 is or hear any buzz about it.

Now, don't get wrong, I really liked the old E3, but I attended way back in '99 when there were fewer attendees (it was still totally mobbed, though). But the expo is for the developers, not the public, and it had turned into a total circus. Perhaps another "expo" type event will emerge, but I doubt it'll be formed by the E3 Committee. And it could only be for professionals and the press. Otherwise, it'd be an unmanagable circus that few, if any, developers would attend. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Good points all, but I think there's one more angle to consider: control of the press. With attendance by invite only, this will give the industry a powerful weapon to wield against the gaming press: "don't say negative things about the upcoming games you see at e3, or you won't get an invitation next year." Given the previous scandals of collusion and payola between developers and "reviewers" (in which those reviewers took on more the role of paid marketing teams), I'd say it's not unreasonable to suppose that the major developers would want a way to keep reviewers in line. Whether they will make much use of this power remains to be seen.

And I agree with those that point out that e3 has become a "monster"; preparing the obligatory demo, booth, glitzy spectacle, booth babes, etc., takes up valuable time that could otherwise be devoted to getting the game out on time and with good quality, and dealing with the furor must be a real problem (not to mention the sheer damage that can be dealt by a single bug making the game look like it's going to suck). But I don't think they realize how this is going to be perceived. I'm sure it's true that they're just returning e3 to what it was "intended" to be, but a lot of folks neither know nor care what it was "intended" to be; they will just see themselves being excluded from the e3 elite clique. The result will be a lot of antipathy. What puzzles me is that the big developers must know this. They frequently fund "viral marketing" maneuvers such as the "Giantology" blog that covertly advertised Shadow of the Colossus. They know that word of mouth is one of their tools. So they must be aware that it's not only the Penny Arcades that matter, but also having the goodwill of a lot of penny-ante bloggers who can spread the word. It will be some time before people realize this isn't intended as a slap in the face. Kasreyn 07:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed from the middle of my previous post:

Frecklefoot: This is not really a discussion board, this talk page is to discuss the article.

Mathiastck: What does that mean? What should we not say here? (08:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC))

This talk page is to discuss ways to improve the article, things that could be included in the article, etc. It's not intended as a discussion board. SU182 started a thread on a new gaming expo he'd like to see to replace E3. That topic would be fine for a discussion board, but not for this talk page. It doesn't really have anything to do with improving or updating the article. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

How about E for All? It's a new expo recently announced. It's public too!