Or can we replace it with widely disseminated trailers? And game developer streams a la Borderlands 3 or Ghost Recon Breakpoint? Is there really an intrinsic benefit for having e3?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Does E3 need to exist? From perspective of publishers NOT FANS
- Thread starter Deleted member 56752
- Start date
E3 week is consistently when most eyes are on the industry. Twitch / YouTube views during the expo skyrocket. Theoretically you could still have that without the convention, but I think the convention is the reason people pay attention in the first place and is the excuse for all these publishers to do something at the same time of year.
Strictly speaking, no. It doesn't need to exist. But it's useful. Through years of effort, the companies involved have convinced us all to get together and be excited to watch marketing at a predictable time and place. It would be hard to justify killing that.
Yeah, of course. Most publishers aren't Nintendo and haven't really built up this idea of pushing game news outside of normal conventions, so if they tried it, their announcements would likely not have as big an impact as during E3 where they know a ton of potential customers are watching.
Yes, the publishers can all piggyback off of eachother for a high amount of eyes on their product. Even when publishers aren't there for a physical press conference, they typically show their stuff off around then. We've seen dedicated events like X0 and Playstation Experience not do as well regardless of content, same for stuff like whenever Microsoft has a bigger Gamescom thing. The Nintendo Directs at E3 always get way more attention paid to them too.
E3 is a trade show and IIRC a big purpose of its existence is gaming/retailer/press relations. So I'ma say yes going by the title of "From perspective of publishers NOT FANS" and not the OP/poll which is very much from a fan perspective ("Do we need E3?" and talking strictly about trailers).
I'm sure there is more to E3 than just what the fans see. For the game industry, sure, for the fans or consumers, no.
E3 is well past it's cell-by-date. Its pretty much a walking corspe now. A shell of it's former self.
OP
OP
Nobody needs E3, but publishers do get a lot out of it...
...or rather, they did. Today, most of them are starting to deliberately jump the gun on the conference by having pre-E3 reveals, and a lot of major announcements are now being made on the publisher's own time (see also: the rise of the Nintendo Direct). The E3-tier announcements are getting more sporadic overall, to the point where I kinda understood Sony's decision to just skip last year's conference. It's not easy to get a lot of good stuff ready, and E3 imposes quite the arbitrary deadline for all that.
(Not to say I won't miss it, though. Some conferences were incredible to watch. I know this is deliberately not what the topic asked, but as a fan, it really was quite the treat at times.)
...or rather, they did. Today, most of them are starting to deliberately jump the gun on the conference by having pre-E3 reveals, and a lot of major announcements are now being made on the publisher's own time (see also: the rise of the Nintendo Direct). The E3-tier announcements are getting more sporadic overall, to the point where I kinda understood Sony's decision to just skip last year's conference. It's not easy to get a lot of good stuff ready, and E3 imposes quite the arbitrary deadline for all that.
(Not to say I won't miss it, though. Some conferences were incredible to watch. I know this is deliberately not what the topic asked, but as a fan, it really was quite the treat at times.)
The big press events fans watch and associate with E3 aren't actually held during E3, or at any E3 venue, and the convention is unrelated to them. And I don't think they ever have been, the convention center provides booths and offices, not audience venues. Their timing is the only thing linking them to E3.
I don't think the E3 convention has any use anymore. Back in the day, E3 was useful as a place to hold business meetings between companies, because all the companies were there. But these days there are plenty of easy ways for businesses to meet and communicate over the internet. And same with media access to games, the game publishers/developers can easily demo things over the internet, and there are easy ways to get demos to the press, if they wish to do so. Not to mention that the game media isn't as important these days either, it's more about Youtubers.
I don't think the E3 convention has any use anymore. Back in the day, E3 was useful as a place to hold business meetings between companies, because all the companies were there. But these days there are plenty of easy ways for businesses to meet and communicate over the internet. And same with media access to games, the game publishers/developers can easily demo things over the internet, and there are easy ways to get demos to the press, if they wish to do so. Not to mention that the game media isn't as important these days either, it's more about Youtubers.
I mean I get you but you changed the framing of the question in doing so. Are you asking if we need E3, or if publishers need E3?
OP
OP
It's easier to generate hype and show your games when the whole press focuses on few days of an industry expo. If you would spread out all E3 announcements and trailers over the whole year then the overall visibility and generated hype would end up beeing much less. Other events like the GamesCom are consumer expos.
On paper fans do not really profit at all from an E3 but in the end people also love to get hyped up which causes them to do loads of free PR for the publishers.
On paper fans do not really profit at all from an E3 but in the end people also love to get hyped up which causes them to do loads of free PR for the publishers.
From a publisher's perspective, E3 is still very much needed. Only E3 gets the amount of mainstream exposure that it does, and only E3 gets this much live streaming and social media buzz. Publishers and developers can use E3 to show off a game to consumers that don't normally see their content. Retailers are in attendance, which isn't common for other gaming events, so that's even more necessary promotion and advertising that developers and publishers can use. E3 press events probably generate more advertising and buzz than anything else in the year.
From a fan's perspective, it's a constant stream of gaming news all year, making E3 look like it's simply part of the crowd. But from a gaming business/industry perspective, it's an advertising, PR and media giant.
From a fan's perspective, it's a constant stream of gaming news all year, making E3 look like it's simply part of the crowd. But from a gaming business/industry perspective, it's an advertising, PR and media giant.
No. Nintendo was ahead of the curve with just pushing out Nintendo directs. Sony's now caught on as well. You are able to target a greater audience to convenience of a simple stream/video and its extremely cost-efficient in not having to schedule around X time in flying out to another country.
In terms of reaching your audience and target market, no. But the event isn't something I'd want to see disappear from our gaming calendar.
Nintendo still does events, though, like Treehouse Live and the Smash tournament. They also release their Direct during E3 every year. So they haven't really given up on E3, they just aren't doing the old press conference format.
E3 is the only time of year a lot of mainstream news outlets and gamers pay attention, so it is pretty much the best opportunity for companies to get their marketing out there.