Report: ESA Squabbling with Game Critics Awards over E3 Eligibility

May 17, 2008 -

Should Activision be eligible to win a "Best of E3" award even though they are technically not a participant in the show?

That's apparently one of the issues driving a reported flareup between the embattled ESA, which owns and operates E3, and the Game Critics Awards, an independent group which makes the annual "Best of" selections.

According to Kotaku, the issue has become "heated:"

[ESA] assumed that the departed companies' games would no longer be eligible for any of the annual "Best of E3" awards, given out by an independent group of Game Critics' Awards judges at each year's show.

However, Geoff Keighley (left),  executive producer of GameTrailers and co-chair of the Game Critics' Awards, told Kotaku that no decision has been made on eligibility. And while several publishers have said they will not participate in E3, the recently-departed Activision and Vivendi apparently will have some sort of unoffical presence outside the July expo's L.A. Convention Center venue. Said Keighley:

The fact that Activision is not a registered exhibitor for E3 has brought to light the issue of how to determine the eligibility of games... A precedent has been set that in the past, judges have voted on games that have been presented off the show floor at hotel suites and across the street from E3. It would be a shame for me if the best game of E3 didn't win the Best of Show award because it was demoed across the street from the show floor...

 

The fact we are independent awards [lets us] define our own rules for eligibility... Our organization isn't for profit. It's a volunteer organization, a consortium of journalists, so we can be pure.

Both Activision and the ESA declined to comment.


Comments

Re: Report: ESA Squabbling with Game Critics Awards over E3

I also think the best plan is to just change the name of the award.  I agree with the ESA that the "Best of E3" award really should go to a game that was at E3...  but if the award is independant and not connected to E3 then just rename the award and be done with it.


-- mostly harmless

mostly harmless

Re: Report: ESA Squabbling with Game Critics Awards over E3

Who cares the E3 and the ESA are shells of what they once were.

Hopefully both die as they have more or less become useless.

Re: Report: ESA Squabbling with Game Critics Awards over E3

My thoughts:

Change the names of the awards and be done with it. The ESA can't make a stink over something that does not have their name on it.

E. Zachary Knight
www.editorialgames.com

 

Re: Report: ESA Squabbling with Game Critics Awards over E3

I really, REALLY hate to say it, but I actually agree w/ the ESA on this.

How can an Activision game be eligible for Best of E3 when they aren't even part of E3?

Re: Report: ESA Squabbling with Game Critics Awards over E3

Dissapointing, but easy to follow. The real question here is if the awards presented at E3 are selected and managed by a third party, then why are they called the "E3" awards? Better yet, if certain games are demoed across the street, how can they be considered "Best of Show" if they aren't even in the show?

 

---- There is a limit for both politicians against video games, and video games against politicians.

Re: Report: ESA Squabbling with Game Critics Awards over E3

More than likely, that is what the GCA will determine.

But the idea that the ESA feels that they can come in and dictate what is and isn't OK for an independant 3rd party to give an award to is not cool. Very presumptive and arrogant on the ESA's part. That issue, I think, is what the real stink is over. It is also indicative of the kind of behavior by the ESA that is probably causing companies like Activision to jump ship.

Re: Report: ESA Squabbling with Game Critics Awards over E3

I think I can see your point, but I kind of have to see it from the ESA's point of view. They are the ones putting E3 together, and Activision has said explicitly that they will not participate, so how can they be eligable for an award at a show they won't actually be participating in? It's like going to a car show, and not liking the guys who are running it, so you show off your sweet ride across the street. You can't get an award really, even though there is a third party doing the judging. You aren't actually part of the show, inf act, you are a detractor to it.

 

---- There is a limit for both politicians against video games, and video games against politicians.

Re: Report: ESA Squabbling with Game Critics Awards over E3

"even though there is a third party doing the judging"

Exactly. The show has nothing to do with the award other than in name.

Re: Report: ESA Squabbling with Game Critics Awards over E3

With publishers like EA Games and Activision getting bigger and becoming more independent, what happens when they stop doing well and end up bankrupt?  This is all leading to another video game crash.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Is King right? Should all games adopt the free-to-play model?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MaskedPixelanteNumber 3: Night Dive was brought to the attention of the public by a massive game recovery, and yet most of their released catalogue consists of games that other people did the hard work of getting re-released.04/17/2014 - 8:46pm
MaskedPixelanteNumber 2: If Humongous Entertainment wanted their stuff on Steam, why didn't they talk to their parent company, which does have a number of games published on Steam?04/17/2014 - 8:45pm
MaskedPixelanteNumber 1: When Night Dive spent the better part of a year teasing the return of true classics, having their big content dump be edutainment is kind of a kick in the stomach.04/17/2014 - 8:44pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://www.giantbomb.com/articles/jeff-gerstmann-heads-to-new-york-takes-questions/1100-4900/ He talks about the future games press and the games industry. It is worth your time even though it is a bit long, and stay for the QA. There are some good QA04/17/2014 - 5:28pm
IanCErm so they shouldn't sell edutainment at all? Why?04/17/2014 - 4:42pm
MaskedPixelanteNot that linkable, go onto Steam and there's stuff like Pajama Sam on the front-page, courtesy of Night Dive.04/17/2014 - 4:13pm
Andrew EisenOkay, again, please, please, PLEASE get in a habit of linking to whatever you're talking about.04/17/2014 - 4:05pm
MaskedPixelanteAnother round of Night Dive teasing and promising turns out to be stupid edutainment games. Thanks for wasting all our time, guys. See you never.04/17/2014 - 3:44pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the consequences were not only foreseeable, but very likely. anyone who understood supply demand curvs knew that was going to happen. SF has been a econ/trade hub for the last hundred years.04/17/2014 - 2:45pm
Andrew EisenMixedPixelante - Would you like to expand on that?04/17/2014 - 2:43pm
MaskedPixelanteWell, I am officially done with Night Dive Studios. Unless they can bring something worthwhile back, I'm never buying another game from them.04/17/2014 - 2:29pm
PHX Corphttp://www.msnbc.com/ronan-farrow/watch/video-games-continue-to-break-the-mold-229561923638 Ronan Farrow Daily on Video games breaking the mold04/17/2014 - 2:13pm
NeenekoAh yes, because by building something nice they were just asking for people to come push them out. Consequences are protested all the time when other people are implementing them.04/17/2014 - 2:06pm
Matthew Wilsonok than they should not protest when the consequences of that choice occur.04/17/2014 - 1:06pm
NeenekoIf people want tall buildings, plenty of other cities with them. Part of freedom and markets is communities deciding what they do and do not want built in their collective space.04/17/2014 - 12:55pm
Sora-ChanI realize that they have ways getting around it, but one reason might be due to earthquakes.04/17/2014 - 4:42am
Matthew WilsonSF is a tech/ economic/ trade center it should be mostly tail building. this whole problem is because of the lack of tail buildings. How would having tail apartment buildings destroy SF? having tail buildings has not runed other cities around the US/world04/16/2014 - 10:51pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the issue is you can not build upwards anywhere in SF at the moment, and no you would not. You would bring prices to where they should have been before the market distortion. those prices are not economic or socially healthy.04/16/2014 - 10:46pm
ZippyDSMleeYou still wind up pushing people out of the non high rise aeras but tis least damage you can do all things considered.04/16/2014 - 10:26pm
ZippyDSMleeANd by mindlessly building upward you make it like every place else hurting property prices,ect,ect. You'll have to slowly segment the region into aeras where you will never build upward then alow some aeras to build upward.04/16/2014 - 10:25pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician