Report: ESA Committed to Holding E3 in 2009

July 23, 2008 -

The Entertainment Software Association, which operates E3, has told GameSpot that despite rampant criticism of this year's expo the game publishers trade association is already gearing up for the 2009 show.

No additional details were provided. GameSpot attributes this quote to to an unnamed ESA rep:

As we do every year, we're beginning the process of surveying exhibitors and attendees to determine potential changes to the Summit. Once this is completed and shared with the ESA's Board of Directors, we will make an announcement about the specifics of the 2009 E3 Media & Business Summit, which will occur.

GP: While it is the nature of organizations to put on a brave face, there are a couple of facts that need to be weighed against the ESA rep's comments.

The first is that since E3 '08 wrapped up less than a week ago it seems a bit early to commit to a 2009 show. One might expect that exhibitor debriefs as well as a thorough E3 post-mortem need to take place in order to sort out what went wrong and determine whether it is fixable. That's especially true given the fairly widespread negative reaction to this year's expo, including this rather definitive comment attributed by the San Francisco Chronicle to EA CEO John Riccitiello:

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.

Moreover, the ESA rep's comment seems to imply that the ESA will tell the board of directors (which is comprised of top execs from ESA member game publishers) what's happening with E3, but we'd expect it will be the other way 'round. And since EA happens to be chairing the ESA board this year, one has to wonder. 


Comments

Re: Report: ESA Committed to Holding E3 in 2009

If even EA thinks soemthing is bad for the industry, you got a problem.

Re: Report: ESA Committed to Holding E3 in 2009

I keep hearing a lot of people saying that this year's E3 was a big let down.  On the other hand, I did watch a little of the show on G4 and some of their post-show wrap-up as well.  The show may have been a disappointment, but there were some incredible looking games.  Games such as Infamous, Dark Void, Fallout 3, and Fable 2 (to name a few).  So if there were some awesome games, how can we really say it was a let down?  Sure, there weren't any surprises, Nintendo was stingy, the keynote was delivered by a politician, and a few other things, but the games were there.  And isn't that what we really care about?

Re: Report: ESA Committed to Holding E3 in 2009

Part of the problem is that the games WERE NOT there. Traditionally, most games on the floor are the holiday releases for that year, or at most, summer releases of the next year. How many games at this year's E3 will get released by summer 09? Not many. And pushing that date back to holliday 08, we start to get an even smaller number. Then tack on how many playable demo's were available and we start to reach that magic number 0. Sure there were a few games that caught the public's eye. But I'm willing to bet a large majority of games that people are excited about from this years E3 will be showing up again at E3 09 (if they even have one).

Finally, tack on the fact it cost the ESA $5 million when they decided to change to a smaller venue, and you realize that the ESA dropped the ball... big time.

Re: Report: ESA Committed to Holding E3 in 2009

E3 was Epic Fail.  Finish it ESA!

Re: Report: ESA Committed to Holding E3 in 2009

Private events sounds good to me -- we could get a year-long series of conferences across the continent instead of just waiting on the slow trickle of an increasingly irrelevant annual summit.  (We don't get a whole lot of gaming shows in Ottawa.)

---
The Mammon Industry

---
Fangamer

Re: Report: ESA Committed to Holding E3 in 2009

Good for them I suppose.  Glad they're committed to a concept no one else cares about.  Yeesh.  No wonder companies are leaving.

"Even if it was online gaming that somehow inspired him to kill his parents, he must have realised at some point that they wouldn't drop any good loot." - GP member, Doomsong
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Which group is more ethically challenged?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Matthew WilsonI am old school on this. I believe its a conflict of interest to have public sector unions. that being said, I do not have a positive look on unions in general.07/07/2015 - 3:59pm
TechnogeekWhat's best for the employee tends to be good for the employer; other way around, not so much. So long as that's the case, there's going to be a far stronger incentive for management to behave in such a way that invites retalitation than for the union to.07/07/2015 - 3:10pm
TechnogeekTeachers' unions? State legislatures. UAW? Just look at GM's middle management.07/07/2015 - 3:05pm
TechnogeekIn many ways it seems that the worse a union tends to behave, the worse that the company's management has behaved in the past.07/07/2015 - 3:02pm
james_fudgeCharity starts at home ;)07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
james_fudgeSo mandatory charity? That sounds shitty to me07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
E. Zachary KnightGoth, if Union dues are automatically withdrawn, then there is no such thing as a non-union employee.07/07/2015 - 2:38pm
Goth_Skunka mutually agreed upon charity instead.07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
Goth_Skunkyou enjoy the benefits of working in a union environment. If working in a union is against your religious beliefs or just something you wholeheartedly object to, dues will still be deducted from your pay, but you can instruct that they be directed towards07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
Goth_SkunkBasically, if you are employed in a business where employees are represented by a union for the purposes of collective bargaining, whether or not you are a union member, you will have union dues deducted from your pay, since regardless of membership,07/07/2015 - 2:32pm
Goth_SkunkIt's something that has existed in Canada since 1946. You can read more on it here: http://ow.ly/PiHWR07/07/2015 - 2:27pm
Goth_SkunkSee, we have something similar in Canada, called a "Rand Employee." This is an employee who benefits from the collective bargaining efforts of a union, despite not wanting to be a part of it for whatever reason.07/07/2015 - 2:22pm
Matthew Wilson@info depends on the sector. for example, have you looked at how powerful unions are in the public sector? I will make the argument they have too much power in that sector.07/07/2015 - 12:39pm
InfophileIt's easy to worry about unions having too much power and causing harm. The odd thing is, why do people seem to worry about that more than the fact that business-owners can have too much power and do harm, particularly at a time when unions have no power?07/07/2015 - 12:31pm
Matthew Wilsonthe thing is unions earned their bad reputation in the US. the way unions oparate the better at your job you are, the likely you want to be in a union.07/07/2015 - 11:33am
InfophilePut that way, "right to work" seems to have BLEEP-all to do with gay rights. Thing is, union-negotiated contracts used to be one of the key ways to prevent employers from firing at will. Without union protection, nothing stops at-will firing.07/07/2015 - 11:06am
Infophilehas an incentive to pay dues if they're represented either way, so the union is starved for funds and dies, unless things are bad enough that people will pay dues anyway.07/07/2015 - 11:02am
InfophileFor those who don't know, "right to work" laws mean that it can't be a condition of an employment contract that you pay union dues. That is, the right to work without having to pay dues. Catch is, unions have to represent non-members as well, so no one...07/07/2015 - 11:01am
MechaCrashUnexpected? Seriously?07/07/2015 - 10:55am
Mattsworknamejob they wanted without the unions getting involved. The problem is, it has some unexpected side effects, like the ones Info mentioned07/07/2015 - 8:49am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician