GameCo CEOs Who Trashed E3 2008 Now Singing a Different Tune
GameCo CEOs Who Trashed E3 2008 Now Singing a Different Tune
October 23, 2008
We couldn't help noticing that yesterday's E3 2009 press release the ESA included quotes from two of the most prominent video game industry critics of the 2008 expo.
Both John Riccitiello of Electronic Arts and Laurent Detoc of Ubisoft USA run ESA member companies, so their harsh criticisms of this year's show certainly stung the ESA. It is significant that they are on board with the new format.
Then and now, here's what Riccitiello and Detoc had to say about E3:
Riccitiello:
(July, 2008) 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.
(yesterday) The E3 Expo will be the pre-eminent North American gaming show next year. The new, larger event is better for industry leaders and for serious gamers.
Detoc:
(July, 2008) E3 this year is terrible. The world used to come to E3. Now it's like a pipe-fitters show in the basement.
(yesterday) The video game business will be twice as big in 2009 as it was in 2006 when we had the last real E3 Expo - so get ready for some fireworks! The changes made will ensure that the 2009 E3 Expo conveys the best of what makes us proud as entertainment leaders.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
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.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:32pm
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:26pm
Andrew Eisen: In the US? Not that I'm aware of. Sad if true.
Andrew Eisen: In the US? Not that I'm aware of. Sad if true.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:25pm
Valdearg: @AE: Actually, I think, at least for now, businesses can still discriminate against gays in a few states.. Something like 5 or 8. Its part of why Gay Rights Advocates are in support of the Employee Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA.
Valdearg: @AE: Actually, I think, at least for now, businesses can still discriminate against gays in a few states.. Something like 5 or 8. Its part of why Gay Rights Advocates are in support of the Employee Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA.
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
I'm probably wrong, but didn't EA heavily criticise the old-style E3 towards the end of its time as well? I'm sure EA complained that all the peacocking at the old-style E3 was detracting from trying to present upcoming games to the public or something, and that they welcomed a downsizing of the event.
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
DarkSaber, I believe so.
@the article: DUH! Of course it is going to be better if they are sliding back to the old format. They screwed up the whole industry by closing the doors, but myguess is that they are going to be messing something up still... and I don't mean something minor.
Exhibitions like PAX are going to prevail because real gamers go there instead of journalists and game company big wigs.
yeah, PAX is a little different.
At E3, game companies come together to show off what they're working on, with a guarantee of having the entire world hear about it, because of the journalists attending. It's funded by the game companies as a form of advertising.
PAX on the other hand is a paid-for-by-attendees event, with an almost 100% consumer attendance. It's more of a festival. It's cheaper for the game companies to attend, which gives them the ability to spend more money on thier presentation.
I see no reason both shouldn't co-exist. They've both got a reason to.
Awesome, both Riccitiello and Detoc seem to have gotten what they wanted, a bigger, grander E3 where many many people are invited.
They wanted bigger, they got bigger, and now they've changed thier criticism to praise. Nice to see!
Eh... these comments are /way/ too pre-emptive right now, especially since the show isn't going to be public. But I guess when you lead a big company you have a responsibility to trumpet with your mouth cause that alone can build something up from failure to success. But I don't follow that hype anymore. I've been betrayed one too many times.
-------------------------
"They were retarded hairless pink bunnies, all of them. Except Shigeru Myamoto and... well, the good ones were just too /rare/ to be worth bothering about." - Mason Hornblower on the extinction of the human race
while it's true that E3 wont be public, anyone can get in. All you have to be able to do is prove that you've got some connection to the gaming industry. I know a girl who got a free press pass because she wrote a gaming blog.
not public, but not exactly restricted either.
It seems that I've barely heard anything positive about the way E3 has covered attendance since they started the new policy. You figure after just one year they'd learn... eh. Not like i'll be going anyway.
i think most companys are at e3 for 1 consumer advertiseing and then 2 the press. having a press only event cannot get as much data as a open event as in whos doing well in the publics view and what is gathering the most public attention
I think this is a step in the right direction. I went to E3 about 10 years ago (give or take a couple of years). It wasn't open to the public yet, but my manager had gotten a VIP pass, and he wasn't interested in games, so he passed it on to me.
It was like heaven on earth. All of these games all over the place, free play, it was like the worlds biggest arcade for free, along with booth babes. I shot maybe two rolls of Lara Croft on a motocycle. I even got a FFVII T-shirt (and an E3 hat my wife wears to this very day). To top it off, Pizza Hut Express being eaten while sitting on the floor.
However, by opening the show to the public, you lose something, I don't know what. The important thing is that while it is closed to the public, it needs to still be open to ME.
How can it be the largest game expo in the country when they cap attendance at 10k. Pax this year had 56k+ and is second in geek/gaming conventions only to Comic con International in San Diego. Almost makes e3 sound like a bad joke.