In 2007 I remember feeling many things. Shock, confusion, anger, and mirth were just a few of these. The aforementioned emotions were all related to the news that that year's E3 (the Electronics Entertainment Expo, a large video game convention notable for being the place where major video game companies announce "the next big thing") was closed to the public and open only to the press (except for mirth, I had found some jellybeans I had forgotten I had. Thus, mirth).
It wasn't only me that was upset either, I knew a lot of people who were angry about this development. Oh how we talked. Conspiratorial whispers of this being E3's demise, groans as to what could possibly replace this behemoth of a video game conference.
To all of our surprise, not only did it survive this castration, but opted to retain this same format for E3 2008. The disappointment was not confined only to the consumers. IGN asked in an editorial if
2008 would be the last E3 and even Will Wright (creator of SimCity, the Sims, and more recently Spore) called E3 a bloated corpse, destined to fester away as seagulls pecked away at its rotting form... okay, maybe not in those exact words. But he did say that
the real E3 died years ago and the current iteration was akin to the walking dead. Seriously, he actually said that. If you don't believe me click on the hyperlink to the article (that's what those are by the way, hyperlinks to relevant articles).
Indeed it did appear as if the zombified remains of E3 sloughing off its selling points rapidly (I would like to give myself a pat on the back for that horrifying word picture). In May 2008 both
Activision, Vivendi, and Lucas Arts announced that they were breaking away from the ESA (Entertainment Software Association and the organizers of E3). Both Activision and Vivendi also announced that they
would not be participating in any E3 events that year (Lucas Arts being the exception, pledging to fully participate in E3).
With the ESA seemingly intent on destroying their own creation, everyone fully expected this years E3 to be no different from the past two years. However in October 2008 the ESA announced that
E3 2009 would be open to the public at large. A shocking turn of events to be sure, but what could have caused this change of heart?
According to an interview with the head of the ESA Michael Gallagher, he has no idea. In fact, he was made head of the ESA just weeks before E3 2007 and says that the decision to attempt to destroy E3 was made before he arrived. When repeatedly asked about the change of format from 07 to 09 he seems overly evasive. However, carefully analyzing the interview does give us a few possible answers:
- I wasn't with the ESA in 2006
- I got to meet new friends
- I wasn't with the ESA in 2006
- I'm excited that we moved the show to early June
- I wasn't with the ESA in 2006
- I'd never been to E3 before 2006, but I asked nicely if they'd let me see some old program guides
It's quite clear from these answers that either Michael is a complete imbecile who can't tell when he's being asked why he changed the format back, or he's hiding something. I don't think that there is a shadow ESA and that Michael is just a puppet, so I'm thinking it's the latter.
But what could the ESA have to hide? Is it that by losing the revenue from companies jumping off of a sinking ship they were forced to bring E3 back to its pre-2007 state? I don't think so, in the interview Michael is asked this specific question.
GS: In 2006 and before, the ESA drew a majority of its income for the year from the E3 show. For 2007 and 2008, the shortfall from the smaller E3s was made up for by hikes in membership fees. Do you expect the show to once again provide the organization with most of the money it needs to operate throughout the year?
MG: This show allows us to diversify our revenue in a way that's much more balanced. This show will not provide anywhere near the level of support of the prior shows. And it's not intended to. But it does contribute in a balanced way to the economics of running the ESA. It also allows us to reduce dues and make membership more accessible for a broader cross section of the industry.
It appears that, no, E3 doesn't bring in nearly enough revenue to replace the membership of companies jumped ship. They do just fine by raising membership fees. So what is it then?
I have a theory. Remember New Coke? The one that no one liked and complained about? The one that made everyone miss the "Old Coke"? Do you see where I'm going with this?
I realize that this theory of mine may seem a bit far-fetched. All I ask is that you look at
this Microsoft page advertising the return of "E3 Classic". I rest my case.
Sidenote: In case you're wondering whether I got my New Coke theory from the Microsoft page, I didn't. I was laughing about it even before I found that page. The fact that they seem to agree with me only serves to bolster my claims.
