Nintendo Nintendo Direct E3 6/15/2021 9am (PST)

[crispy4000]

Yup, that’s probably why EA delayed for a month.  No reason to get lost in the middle.

[Paperclyp]

35 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

This right here. The only reason they even do anything around this time of the year is for cranky gamers who refuse change. Even then, they put in less effort every year.

the reasons are more complex than that.

 

Big devs don’t NEED it and can certainly craft their own shows that would do well, but there’s still something to be said for a big expo to generate interest. I think the bigger issue is that the E3 company is very bad at what they do - if run by a more competent company that perhaps catered to what these companies desire in a show like this, I could see “E3” coming back as a pretty big celebration of gaming as a whole where all parties feel like they’re benefiting. 
 

But the other part of this is smaller devs and indies get a ton of mileage out of these shows and it can make or break their game. 
 

I don’t think it’s accurate at all to say they’re doing it for “cranky gamers.” 

[Ghost_MH]

9 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

the reasons are more complex than that.

 

Big devs don’t NEED it and can certainly craft their own shows that would do well, but there’s still something to be said for a big expo to generate interest. I think the bigger issue is that the E3 company is very bad at what they do - if run by a more competent company that perhaps catered to what these companies desire in a show like this, I could see “E3” coming back as a pretty big celebration of gaming as a whole where all parties feel like they’re benefiting. 
 

But the other part of this is smaller devs and indies get a ton of mileage out of these shows and it can make or break their game. 
 

I don’t think it’s accurate at all to say they’re doing it for “cranky gamers.” 

 

Indie devs are already banding together to put on their own shows. There was the wildly massive Indie Live Expo from last week. Also, allow me to remind everyone, once more, of the phenomenal Wholesome Direct. They hold shorter presentations for games multiple times a year.

 

Even then, indie devs were getting more mileage from events like PAX than things like E3 where they get lost among all the major game announcements.

 

When I say cranky gamers, I mean these major companies are only making a half baked effort to show up at these events because gamers think events like E3 matter...only to then bitch about how so little is being unveiled at these events. I'll say it right here; it would be stupid for any major developer to unveil a brand new AAA title at E3. Is the press not going to cover the game of the game is unveiled at their own event, distanced from the E3 chatter? Nintendo didn't unveil the Switch until months after E3. That didn't hurt coverage or sales, so what would they have gained from unveiling of earlier?

 

It could be a big old gaming celebration, but we have conventions likes PAX for that. If you're arguing that E3 should be refocus from being a press event to a gaming convention, then yes. I'm all for that. Publishers are still going to shy away from making it their premier event, but the name can stay around for nostalgic reasons.

[Paperclyp]

16 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

Indie devs are already banding together to put on their own shows. There was the wildly massive Indie Live Expo from last week. Also, allow me to remind everyone, once more, of the phenomenal Wholesome Direct. They hold shorter presentations for games multiple times a year.

 

Even then, indie devs were getting more mileage from events like PAX than things like E3 where they get lost among all the major game announcements.

 

When I say cranky gamers, I mean these major companies are only making a half baked effort to show up at these events because gamers think events like E3 matter...only to then bitch about how so little is being unveiled at these events. I'll say it right here; it would be stupid for any major developer to unveil a brand new AAA title at E3. Is the press not going to cover the game of the game is unveiled at their own event, distanced from the E3 chatter? Nintendo didn't unveil the Switch until months after E3. That didn't hurt coverage or sales, so what would they have gained from unveiling of earlier?

 

It could be a big old gaming celebration, but we have conventions likes PAX for that. If you're arguing that E3 should be refocus from being a press event to a gaming convention, then yes. I'm all for that. Publishers are still going to shy away from making it their premier event, but the name can stay around for nostalgic reasons.

I think you’re making a whole lot of assertive claims without any metrics whatsoever to back them up. I think just the fact that all of these companies make the effort to do SOMETHING around this time, even if it’s not part of official E3, suggests strongly that they value the eyeballs that gather around this event and time of year. 
 

Nobody needs E3, least of all the big companies. but I think you’re underselling the impact of the event. 
 

And let’s not forget last year and this year are ALL sorts of fucked up with the pandemic. The show likely would have looked very different if devs hadn’t been hampered as bad as they have. 

[Keyser_Soze]

[Guest]

Who do you think pays for these huge conventions? The console manufacturers and major publishers foot the vast majority of the bill, as is the case for all industry trade shows.

 

And there is a reason that such shows are dying over time, especially in the consumer entertainment and product space. All these big companies know they can just upload a video on their own social media channels and get exactly as much attention, or maybe even more because they aren’t competitive for attention in a packed week.

 

It does make sense for small companies to work together to create events that give collective voice, but even that is less important over time as the tools get better to find your audience if you have a product worth paying attention to.

[Paperclyp]

Just now, sblfilms said:

All these big companies know they can just upload a video on their own social media channels and get exactly as much attention, or maybe even more because they aren’t competitive for attention in a packed week.

Again I would be more inclined to believe this if people had any sort of data to show this is true. It’s just a thing people seem to say.
 

 

[Ghost_MH]

1 hour ago, Paperclyp said:

I think you’re making a whole lot of assertive claims without any metrics whatsoever to back them up. I think just the fact that all of these companies make the effort to do SOMETHING around this time, even if it’s not part of official E3, suggests strongly that they value the eyeballs that gather around this event and time of year. 
 

Nobody needs E3, least of all the big companies. but I think you’re underselling the impact of the event. 
 

And let’s not forget last year and this year are ALL sorts of fucked up with the pandemic. The show likely would have looked very different if devs hadn’t been hampered as bad as they have. 

 

You are correct that I have nothing to back up my claims. All I'm going off of it's the fact that the console manufacturers are putting more effort into their own events. Microsoft announced the Series X at the Games Award Show. Sony here their own Future of Gaming event. Nintendo had they're own unveiling Direct.

 

Just answer me this. What do the major publishers get from E3 that they couldn't get from just holding a virtual event? Favorable press coverage? Is IGN not going to cover the next Forza because Microsoft didn't give them a demo at E3? It's Giant Bomb not going to cover Final Fantasy XVI news of it isn't announced at E3? E3 mattered back when streaming this stuff online was difficult and it was easier to show communicate with the press in person than over the phone. These days, I haven't been to the office in over a year, productivity is through the roof, and I still know when my coworkers get haircuts because I still see their faces multiple times a day.

 

We're the only nerds that actually pay attention to any of this stuff. There just happens to be a large enough collection of nerds to be upset of companies start skipping E3. The only value it provides is not upsetting the fans that think it provides value. Just look at the backlash Nintendo got when it said it was going to be skipping E3 a number of years back...not that it had any impact at all on coverage or sales. Sony skipped E3...again. how many years has it been since Sony bothered with E3? Did anyone here actually care? Has it hurt PS5 coverage or sales?

[Ghost_MH]

14 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Who do you think pays for these huge conventions? The console manufacturers and major publishers foot the vast majority of the bill, as is the case for all industry trade shows.

 

And there is a reason that such shows are dying over time, especially in the consumer entertainment and product space. All these big companies know they can just upload a video on their own social media channels and get exactly as much attention, or maybe even more because they aren’t competitive for attention in a packed week.

 

It does make sense for small companies to work together to create events that give collective voice, but even that is less important over time as the tools get better to find your audience if you have a product worth paying attention to.

 

Why pay for a shared spotlight when you can have it all to yourself in July or August or October or whenever?

 

Small companies and indies banding together to create a larger social media presence is key for them. I'm not subscribing to Gamious on YouTube, but I caught their trailer for Lake on Wholesome Games.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Paperclyp said:

Again I would be more inclined to believe this if people had any sort of data to show this is true. It’s just a thing people seem to say.
 

 

It is what has been happening everywhere in consumer products. Even stuff like Comicon presentations had been replaced by private events by movie studios like Disney and Warner because they can spend way less to produce their own events and they have control over the timeline and coverage. They can go direct to their audience without the gatekeepers. They can even pick and choose what journalistic outlets they do want to bring in to aid with making their message known.

 

It is plainly obvious, and it makes sense when you understand how much money these companies were sinking into trade shows. Events like E3, CES, Comicon, NAB, etc. are very expensive to attend as exhibitors. 
 

Even small booths at regional conventions can cost thousands between the booth space, build out, and staffing. The big companies were dropping literal millions of dollars into these events and now they can spend $100k on a really well produced video package and pump it out to all their social channels and get the same benefit, or maybe even more as they aren’t creating crunch time around making playable demos like they used to…some of which were legit their own game just to have something to show.

[Paperclyp]

7 hours ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

Just answer me this. What do the major publishers get from E3 that they couldn't get from just holding a virtual event? Favorable press coverage? Is IGN not going to cover the next Forza because Microsoft didn't give them a demo at E3? It's Giant Bomb not going to cover Final Fantasy XVI news of it isn't announced at E3? E3 mattered back when streaming this stuff online was difficult and it was easier to show communicate with the press in person than over the phone. These days, I haven't been to the office in over a year, productivity is through the roof, and I still know when my coworkers get haircuts because I still see their faces multiple times a day.

 

We're the only nerds that actually pay attention to any of this stuff. There just happens to be a large enough collection of nerds to be upset of companies start skipping E3. The only value it provides is not upsetting the fans that think it provides value. Just look at the backlash Nintendo got when it said it was going to be skipping E3 a number of years back...not that it had any impact at all on coverage or sales. Sony skipped E3...again. how many years has it been since Sony bothered with E3? Did anyone here actually care? Has it hurt PS5 coverage or sales?

 

A few points: 

 

1. Austin Walker talked about this on his pod this week. He talked about the impact of the show, especially being in a physical place where he can go play games. It was a 5 minute segment on the show, where he said it sucks that they can only watch trailers - all they can do on the pod is say, hey yeah, we saw 10 seconds of this game in a trailer montage, you all saw what we saw, what more is there to say. So again ESPECIALLY with indie game where they get to go around and sample them and play games that we as viewers can't get our hands on, you bet your ass those indie developers get great value out of that, and if you wanna sit there straight faced and tell me that some random indie showcase another time in the year is going to give them the same opportunity for exposure, good on ya, I think you're lying to yourself. 

 

2. Generally "what they're getting" can be as simple as, this is just the biggest show of the year, and I guess I disagree that it's just the hardest of hardcore of nerds who follow it. I want to re-emphasize that I don't think there's anything special or unique about E3 other than that - that it has that history as the biggest showcase of the year - but that that's not nothing. In TOTAL agreement with you guys that it has never mattered LESS, but I think ya'll are WAY exaggerating how much less it matters (seems like you feel it's essentially useless). 

 

7 hours ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

Why pay for a shared spotlight when you can have it all to yourself in July or August or October or whenever?

 

Small companies and indies banding together to create a larger social media presence is key for them. I'm not subscribing to Gamious on YouTube, but I caught their trailer for Lake on Wholesome Games.

 

Just reiterating the same point. And the general point I'm making is it's the E3 collection of news that is important, not that you participate in E3 directly. Which is why I talked about if a company decided to run the show competently, it COULD become a collective, cohesive show again. 

 

6 hours ago, sblfilms said:

It is plainly obvious, and it makes sense when you understand how much money these companies were sinking into trade shows. Events like E3, CES, Comicon, NAB, etc. are very expensive to attend as exhibitors. 
 

Even small booths at regional conventions can cost thousands between the booth space, build out, and staffing. The big companies were dropping literal millions of dollars into these events and now they can spend $100k on a really well produced video package and pump it out to all their social channels and get the same benefit, or maybe even more as they aren’t creating crunch time around making playable demos like they used to…some of which were legit their own game just to have something to show.

 

Lots of numbers claims without any actual data, and again I think missing the point on why they did it and the complexities of it all. 

[Paperclyp]

One final point - it is the biggest fans who end up writing the narrative overall, so you are in some fashion or another mindful of them and what they are saying about you. 

[BloodyHell]

4 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

One final point - it is the biggest fans who end up writing the narrative overall, so you are in some fashion or another mindful of them and what they are saying about you. 

I kind of agree. Right now, Sony is getting horrible game press for not being there, and Gearbox is being ground into dirt for their "show". Bad publicity hurts companies. Companies like MS absolutely gained GP subs with their show. I was 100% going to buy Back4Blood on PS5, now theres no chance. I would have also re-bought Hades on PS5, but now ill just replay it on GP. There are definitely other examples. It hurts companies that don't show, or have a bad show, more than it costs those that do.

[Remarkableriots]

14 minutes ago, BloodyHell said:

I kind of agree. Right now, Sony is getting horrible game press for not being there, and Gearbox is being ground into dirt for their "show". Bad publicity hurts companies. Companies like MS absolutely gained GP subs with their show. I was 100% going to buy Back4Blood on PS5, now theres no chance. I would have also re-bought Hades on PS5, but now ill just replay it on GP. There are definitely other examples. It hurts companies that don't show, or have a bad show, more than it costs those that do.

Do you have a link to any of this horrible game press against Sony?

[Ghost_MH]

43 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

 

A few points: 

 

1. Austin Walker talked about this on his pod this week. He talked about the impact of the show, especially being in a physical place where he can go play games. It was a 5 minute segment on the show, where he said it sucks that they can only watch trailers - all they can do on the pod is say, hey yeah, we saw 10 seconds of this game in a trailer montage, you all saw what we saw, what more is there to say. So again ESPECIALLY with indie game where they get to go around and sample them and play games that we as viewers can't get our hands on, you bet your ass those indie developers get great value out of that, and if you wanna sit there straight faced and tell me that some random indie showcase another time in the year is going to give them the same opportunity for exposure, good on ya, I think you're lying to yourself. 

 

2. Generally "what they're getting" can be as simple as, this is just the biggest show of the year, and I guess I disagree that it's just the hardest of hardcore of nerds who follow it. I want to re-emphasize that I don't think there's anything special or unique about E3 other than that - that it has that history as the biggest showcase of the year - but that that's not nothing. In TOTAL agreement with you guys that it has never mattered LESS, but I think ya'll are WAY exaggerating how much less it matters (seems like you feel it's essentially useless). 

 

 

Just reiterating the same point. And the general point I'm making is it's the E3 collection of news that is important, not that you participate in E3 directly. Which is why I talked about if a company decided to run the show competently, it COULD become a collective, cohesive show again. 

 

 

Lots of numbers claims without any actual data, and again I think missing the point on why they did it and the complexities of it all. 

 

Indie devs don't have the money to support a giant show like E3. Indies get better press being showcased in Nintendo's Indie World Direct than something like E3.

 

Yeah, I get that the press likes E3. I'm never going to dispute that, but the press isn't paying for E3. If the event doesn't provide a tangible benefit to the people that fund it, why would they bother? Sony is saving the money and Nintendo is spending less every year. Trade shows are really expensive. Putting together a demo for E3 that exists as it's own entity that is often built outside of the actual game itself is really expensive. You know what's a lot cheaper? Just inviting press to come to you to check out a game when it's ready. Sounds like a better plan that hoping you're shoddily put together demo gets bad press at E3.

 

Let's make this easy. What benefit do publishers get from E3 outside of "good press"? Do their games sell any better? What tangible thing has Sony missed out on after skipping E3 for so many years? Is the PS5 selling poorly? Are they failing to move copies of Miles Morales?

 

I get that you're telling me that I'm talking without providing any evidence, but I don't know what to tell you. Publishers only care about their bottom line, and if pumping millions into trade shows isn't helping, why should they bother to share the spot light with everyone else when there's a perfectly good week anywhere else in the calendar?

 

27 minutes ago, BloodyHell said:

I kind of agree. Right now, Sony is getting horrible game press for not being there, and Gearbox is being ground into dirt for their "show". Bad publicity hurts companies. Companies like MS absolutely gained GP subs with their show. I was 100% going to buy Back4Blood on PS5, now theres no chance. I would have also re-bought Hades on PS5, but now ill just replay it on GP. There are definitely other examples. It hurts companies that don't show, or have a bad show, more than it costs those that do.

 

Is the PS5 selling poorly? Last I checked they're still selling as fast as Sony can pump them out, so if they're getting bad press I have yet to see how it's affecting them.

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

Lots of numbers claims without any actual data, and again I think missing the point on why they did it and the complexities of it all. 

What data are you wanting?

[Paperclyp]

If they only cared about the bottom line and E3 is useless why does E3 exist? 

[Paperclyp]

1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

What data are you wanting?

Actual cost of the trade shows per company, their internal metrics of what they’re getting out of it, cost to make their internal videos, viewership of those, etc like literally any hard piece of data to back up a single claim you are making. 
 

Trade shows can also evolve over time. They do it for influencers too, which did not exist before in this way. 
 

I think if the claims you guys are so certain are true WERE true, like E3 just wouldn’t exist flat out. And once more i think it’s important to keep in mind that the pandemic has had a profound effect on everything these past two years. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Paperclyp said:

If they only cared about the bottom line and E3 is useless why does E3 exist? 

Now you’re on the right track. These things won’t exist in the near future. Not at least in a way that is at all recognizable to a time traveler from the year 2001. These events have evolved, and major companies taking their flagship events off site was the first clue. The eventual conclusion to this is you do what Marvel has been doing with events at El Capitan, one their schedule, in their building, and with only those in attendance that fit the profile they want.

 

Big trade shows are subsidized by the big players, and that isn’t limited to video games. I’m on the planning committee for both my industry’s largest event (Cinemacon) and two regionals. Convention center space is terribly expensive. At Caesar’s Palace we are in the $15/sqft range for booth space. That’s just the space, that doesn’t include building your booth, stocking your booth, or staffing your booth. The smallest vendors are easily

spending $5-$6k to have a booth, which they are pretty happy to pay because nothing grants them the guaranteed exposure.

 

But what do the large companies get for the six figures they spend on their booths that they can’t get via their online platform? That they can’t get by just flying these “influencers” in and giving them the red carpet treatment?

[stepee]

NERDDDDDDDSSSSSSS

[BloodyHell]

2 hours ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

Indie devs don't have the money to support a giant show like E3. Indies get better press being showcased in Nintendo's Indie World Direct than something like E3.

 

Yeah, I get that the press likes E3. I'm never going to dispute that, but the press isn't paying for E3. If the event doesn't provide a tangible benefit to the people that fund it, why would they bother? Sony is saving the money and Nintendo is spending less every year. Trade shows are really expensive. Putting together a demo for E3 that exists as it's own entity that is often built outside of the actual game itself is really expensive. You know what's a lot cheaper? Just inviting press to come to you to check out a game when it's ready. Sounds like a better plan that hoping you're shoddily put together demo gets bad press at E3.

 

Let's make this easy. What benefit do publishers get from E3 outside of "good press"? Do their games sell any better? What tangible thing has Sony missed out on after skipping E3 for so many years? Is the PS5 selling poorly? Are they failing to move copies of Miles Morales?

 

I get that you're telling me that I'm talking without providing any evidence, but I don't know what to tell you. Publishers only care about their bottom line, and if pumping millions into trade shows isn't helping, why should they bother to share the spot light with everyone else when there's a perfectly good week anywhere else in the calendar?

 

 

Is the PS5 selling poorly? Last I checked they're still selling as fast as Sony can pump them out, so if they're getting bad press I have yet to see how it's affecting them.

Every win for MS is a loss for sony. Are we really pretending this industry doesn't turn on a dime. Gamepass is going to start looking real good to the public.

[BloodyHell]

2 hours ago, Remarkableriots said:

Do you have a link to any of this horrible game press against Sony?

Go check out the major podcasts like KFGC, Podcast Beyond, etc etc this week. Its exactly that.

[Bacon]

A new car game is about as exciting as a new sports game. 

 

Anyway, the real winner of E3 was me. Get fucked

[stepee]

In a way even for car games Cruis’n Blast is kind of more exciting too! Because again, we knew Horizon 5 would be a fun thing we would play this fall/winter already.

[Paperclyp]

31 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Now you’re on the right track. These things won’t exist in the near future. Not at least in a way that is at all recognizable to a time traveler from the year 2001. These events have evolved, and major companies taking their flagship events off site was the first clue. The eventual conclusion to this is you do what Marvel has been doing with events at El Capitan, one their schedule, in their building, and with only those in attendance that fit the profile they want.

 

Big trade shows are subsidized by the big players, and that isn’t limited to video games. I’m on the planning committee for both my industry’s largest event (Cinemacon) and two regionals. Convention center space is terribly expensive. At Caesar’s Palace we are in the $15/sqft range for booth space. That’s just the space, that doesn’t include building your booth, stocking your booth, or staffing your booth. The smallest vendors are easily

spending $5-$6k to have a booth, which they are pretty happy to pay because nothing grants them the guaranteed exposure.

 

But what do the large companies get for the six figures they spend on their booths that they can’t get via their online platform? That they can’t get by just flying these “influencers” in and giving them the red carpet treatment?

You’re retreading the same points. I agree that E3 may look very different and that it’s impact has never been less, and I don’t think the industry NEEDS it, feel like I’ve said that over and over, but it’s still a relevant show. If you wanna actually break down into specifics when you think it’ll disappear or whatever, I’m willing to hear it, but at this point we’re going in circles where you keep explaining things to me that I already understand lol. 
 

And frankly I don’t think we have THAT different of a take on it, I just think the show matters a little more than you do. 

[Keyser_Soze]

3 minutes ago, stepee said:

In a way even for car games Cruis’n Blast is kind of more exciting too!

 

Sorry. Gary is a heartless man who is not excited by a new Crusin' game.

[Amazatron]

17 minutes ago, BloodyHell said:

Every win for MS is a loss for sony. Are we really pretending this industry doesn't turn on a dime. Gamepass is going to start looking real good to the public.

 

It's been years since this industry has turned on anything, come on now. This won't matter to Sony AT ALL.

[Keyser_Soze]

Just now, Paperclyp said:

You’re retreading the same points.

 

This is his, "I'm bored I will be contrarian while I splice penises into this film roll," type of argument.

 

You probably should disengage now, you probably should have already done so yesterday.

[BloodyHell]

3 minutes ago, Amazatron said:

 

It's been years since this industry has turned on anything, come on now. This won't matter to Sony AT ALL.

It will if MS keeps nailing it.

 

And its been years since we got new consoles. 

I mean, there was no turn from 360 to xbox one. Or WiiU to switch. Or ps3 to ps4 in the opposite direction. None at all.

[Amazatron]

9 minutes ago, BloodyHell said:

It will if MS keeps nailing it.

 

And its been years since we got new consoles. 

I mean, there was no turn from 360 to xbox one. Or WiiU to switch. Or ps3 to ps4 in the opposite direction. None at all.

 

None of those are actual turns.

[stepee]

Sony fumbled really really badly on ps3, but they got it back on track and still came on top over 360 worldwide when the dust settled. They were still doing great, just didn’t dominate as usual, besides that they have been dominating the console market for a quarter century now. Gamepass and Bethesda alone won’t take them down and if they ever need to they could just make ps now relevant easily.

[stepee]

And really, as I’m sure has been stated but I wasn’t going to read all of this, MS is doing their own thing and they do not care about console sales anymore in the same way Sony does. I don’t think anyone has to worry about anyone right now as far as the three major platform holders are concerned. 

 

Gamepass, whatever nintendo wants to do, playstation consoles, plenty of room for all three in different markets today. They can all grow and not take the other ones out.

[Ghost_MH]

2 hours ago, Paperclyp said:

Actual cost of the trade shows per company, their internal metrics of what they’re getting out of it, cost to make their internal videos, viewership of those, etc like literally any hard piece of data to back up a single claim you are making. 
 

Trade shows can also evolve over time. They do it for influencers too, which did not exist before in this way. 
 

I think if the claims you guys are so certain are true WERE true, like E3 just wouldn’t exist flat out. And once more i think it’s important to keep in mind that the pandemic has had a profound effect on everything these past two years. 

 

Sony started skipping E3 years ago. COVID was not a factor in their decision. E3 only exists today because gamers think it's important, not because it actually matters to the industry at large. That's why nobody unveils their consoles at E3 anymore.

 

52 minutes ago, BloodyHell said:

Every win for MS is a loss for sony. Are we really pretending this industry doesn't turn on a dime. Gamepass is going to start looking real good to the public.

 

Do you like GamePass? Would you stop liking it if Microsoft improved it, but also just stopped giving a fuck about E3?

 

That's a silly question and that's why thinking E3 matters to the big guys that pay for most of it is silly.

[Paperclyp]

6 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

Sony started skipping E3 years ago. COVID was not a factor in their decision. E3 only exists today because gamers think it's important, not because it actually matters to the industry at large. That's why nobody unveils their consoles at E3 anymore.

I feel like I’m talking to a skyrim NPC 

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

This is his, "I'm bored I will be contrarian while I splice penises into this film roll," type of argument.

 

You probably should disengage now, you probably should have already done so yesterday.

How is what I said remotely being contrarian. I would posit that “conventions/trade shows are dying” is the majority position. Everybody that runs such events are trying to figure out how to adapt to the challenges brought on by rising events costs and waning importance in the modern media space. And then brooms like “I want to know how much things cost” and I told him real world numbers and he’s off on something else now. 

 

The fact of the matter is that many of the industry’s largest players have been foregoing an official prescience at E3 for a long time and it’s only making the financial

burden higher for those who remain. So I’ll ask again: what benefit do these large companies get from E3 that they don’t get from doing their own events on their own timeline?