Do We Really Want An E3?

E3 went out with more of a whimper than a bang this year, and the consensus seems to be that it was largely unsuccessful - especially compared with the festivities of years past.  That said, do we really need the glitzy, booth-babed E3 of yesteryear?  I’d argue that we’re all better off with the party in its current state.

Previously, E3 served a few functions: it celebrated the past years’ winners and losers, it provided enormous quantities of new game and company information, it provided a glamorous spectacle for attendees, and it conveyed a sense of accomplishment - a monument to the idea that gaming was mainstream and important.  Yet most of these rationales are now at best passe and at worst counterproductive.

First, we have a multitude of ways to reward the successful and mock our failures.  Gaming awards are almost ubiquitous online and have a number of offline venues as well.  As a result, it’s no longer as important to have a single, unifying event to highlight such things… we have made reporting largely self-sustaining.  Second, E3 encouraged many companies to hold their news and important announcements for the festival itself.  But this wasn’t really very good for gamers; we had to wait for an artificial deadline to receive news that now trickles out on a near-constant basis.  If there were no bombshell announcements this year, it’s because those announcements have become much more evenly distributed.  Third, the spectacle itself benefited industry insiders and well-connected journalists, but was largely inaccessible to the rest of the gaming population (even if you were able to travel to California in the first place).  As interesting as E3 sounded, it wasn’t possible for most people to attend.  You’ll forgive me if I begrudge the luckier amongst us their sushi canapes and late-night parties… I understand why they’re missed, but I doubt the majority of gamers will be losing any sleep over it.  And the money can probably be better spent.  And finally, gaming has attained, if not mainstream acclaim, at least legitimacy.  We no longer need to proclaim our value to the world; gaming is a multi-billion dollar industry that commands its own respect and marshals its own heroes and villains onto the global stage.  As a result, the need for such a spectacle as E3 has waned, becoming incorporated into the daily actions of hosts of marketing and PR professionals, gaming media, and interested bystanders. 

So will we lose anything with E3?  I continue to think that the ESA is an important organization, at least as far as its mission is concerned (if not the ESA in particular).  Gaming may have achieved a measure of respectability, but like all media it will remain a target of opportunistic politicians, unscrupulous journalists, and demagogues everywhere.  Having a group dedicated to fighting against those perceptions will, I think, remain as critical in the future as it does now.  And that’s why I’m concerned to read speculation about the ESA being further weakened by the poor E3 showing and its recent membership departures. 

I’d also suggest that E3 offers some value in unifying what is a highly fragmented market under the same roof - showing the connections between hardware and software platforms across the gaming spectrum.  But in general, the bad probably outweighs the good.