Report: Details on E3 2009 Revealed Tonight
Report: Details on E3 2009 Revealed Tonight
October 20, 2008
E3 2008 was a disaster. But what will the 2009 version look like - provided there is one?
According to Destructoid, all will be revealed tonight on G4's X-Play, hosted by Adam Sessler and Morgan Webb.
GP: Since there is hoopla involved, the ESA must be holding E3 next year - and it must be a very different animal (because if it was the same, everyone at ESA would be fired). Here are the possibilities as we see them:
- open to the public
- open to the public & combined with that other L.A.-based flop, E for All
- back to the pre-2007 extraganza, but open to industry and media only
- an entirely new show with an entirely new name... in an entirely new city?
UPDATE: I'm hearing unconfirmed reports that the ESA - which owns and operates E3 - is not on board with whatever E3 news G4 has planned for tonight.
UPDATE 2: G4 reports that E3 2009 will remain in L.A., but offer public admission - for a fee. Expect the ESA to drop the official announcement on Tuesday morning.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:14pm
Valdearg: IE: Male body/Female Mind or Female Body/Male Mind.
Valdearg: IE: Male body/Female Mind or Female Body/Male Mind.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:13pm
Valdearg: @Zip: TG == Transgendered/Transsexual.
Valdearg: @Zip: TG == Transgendered/Transsexual.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:09pm
DarkSaber: Forget it Zippy, it's an abbreviation of a big word and so would be wasted on you
DarkSaber: Forget it Zippy, it's an abbreviation of a big word and so would be wasted on you
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:07pm
ZippyDSMlee: Vlag:....TG?
ZippyDSMlee: Vlag:....TG?
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:02pm
Valdearg: @DS: Im sure that's what they'd do if it wasn't legal to just tell Gays/TG's to "Screw off," just because they're who they are.
Valdearg: @DS: Im sure that's what they'd do if it wasn't legal to just tell Gays/TG's to "Screw off," just because they're who they are.
Posted 02/09/10 at 02:50pm
DarkSaber: Whoever told him/her/it that is dumb. They should have done like most companies and made-up some bullshit, yet legal, reason for it not getting the job.
DarkSaber: Whoever told him/her/it that is dumb. They should have done like most companies and made-up some bullshit, yet legal, reason for it not getting the job.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:16pm
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:10pm
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:00pm
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:53pm
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:48pm
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:42pm
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:40pm
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:39pm
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:34pm
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
This time they better get the booth babes!
--- Official Protector of Videoland!
Yay! Cute LA women dressed in sexy outfits that won't give me the time of day! FTW!
If those changes happen it may yet live.
The game industry seems to hate it's customers though, so I doubt it.
Video Games are about Fun, that's where its heart has always been, not about profit. It was started by my generation sitting in front of their BBC Micros or Spectrums and coding away not because they wanted to be rich, but because they loved computers, they loved games, and they wanted to share their ideas/games with other people. We used to sit typing out listings from PC World (No such things as Cover CD's or downloadable content then, and entering a listing was no mean feat with the Spectrums keywords) purely to see what other people had achieved, we did it because we loved it.
E3 needs to represent that more than anything, if you don't include the heart of gaming in the show, then the show will have no heart.
Go back to the extraganza make it a good trade show and sell tickets to the public, lettign the higher level tickets get into the more closed parties and what not, that would be win for eeryone.
I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
(in need of a bad overhaul)
I think the new E3 should be like Leipzig. The public in one building, the media in another, and all in one event.
Then they'll focus mainly on the media people! Gosh...
Hey there!
At E For All I was talking to an LA Convention Center employee who has a son that attends the expos. She told me that E3 had already reserved the LA Convention Center for 2009 but wouldn't give me dates.
If this information is accurate the expo is definitely going to be bigger than it was last year.
--
Ben Burgess
I hate to evoke anything, but I wonder if a certain soemoen will claim to haveb een invited.
Xplay just said that E3 is going back to the way it use to be.
Who cares about that when G4 shows quality shows such as Spaceballs the Animated Series......
They're going to have to offer up free hookers and blow to make anyone interested after this year's utter floptastrophe.
So THAT'S what the GTAV goodie bag will have!
Not for nothing, but E3 was really easy to navigate and most of the people there were actually there for a reason. I was actually able to get to meetings and get things done. Now, I wasn't at old E3, but I've covered CES and I can tell you which one was more press friendly.
E3 needs a focus and needs to be at a better time. (is June confirmed by the way?) The fans don't need E3 when they have PAX right around the corner. So maybe magazine and website staff don't get the gold treatment and get driven back to their hotel rooms drunk, but is that really a bad thing?
The problem is the spectial is what sold brands they do not have "it" in pax and want to do one big bash to ramp up public support and meet and talk about the industry with insiders once a year. Altho E3 might just be dead man waking will see if pubs take notice of the change or contenuie to leave the sinking ship of the ESA.
I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
(in need of a bad overhaul)
Well I'm glad it will stay in L.A. I live near Los Angeles and I haven't had a chance to attend anything except the two E for Alls (which I couldn't see because of time).
----------------------------------------------------
"What for you bury me in the cold cold ground?" - Tasmanian devil
Oh joy, it's going back to its old school experience! I look forward to hundreds of e3 previews which are "TITS TITS TITS TITS BOOTH BABE BOOTH BABE oh and someone said something about GTA5 but we were distracted by TITS!"
If we were looking for pictures of babes on the internet E3 coverage wouldn't be at the top of the list. When will those people learn that fact.
----------------------------------------------------
"What for you bury me in the cold cold ground?" - Tasmanian devil
Maybe the ESA can be just like Capcom(Mega Man 3-8) and pretend that those E3's didn't really happen.
This is what I want.
*Open to the public, for a small fee. (I mean, like maybe $5.00 to $10.00)
*Pre-2007 extravaganza.
That's it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I AM DOOMED TO HAUNT JACK THOMPSON'S DREAMS UNTIL HIS CRUSADE AGAINST VIDEO GAMES ENDS.
First you want to shun me, now you want to invite me? *spits cherry pit* Blow.