E3 07 dated, detailed

  • By Staff, GameSpot
  • Posted Oct 13, 2006 10:19 pm GMT

Newly renamed E3 Media and Business Summit will be held July 11-13 at a Santa Monica venue and a variety of Los Angeles hotel locations.

The Entertainment Software Association today clarified a number of significant details of the new, downsized Electronic Entertainment Expo, now renamed the E3 Media and Business Summit. In July, the ESA said the megasized and circuslike Electronic Entertainment Expo, held in the massive Los Angeles Convention Center, would be "evolving into a more intimate event."

Today, the ESA announced that such intimacy will be found in Barker Hangar, a 40,000-square-foot property located in Santa Monica, California. The organization also confirmed that the event will no longer be held in May and will now run from July 11 to 13. While the total square footage of the hanger is significant, E3 organizers say they will only sell 16,000 square feet of usable space to exhibitors.

No information on the "Big Three" pre-E3 press conferences traditionally staged by Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony--which are not organized by the ESA--was available as of press time, though the July announcement indicated they would continue.

The ESA confirmed the event would be invitation-only and be open to both ESA members and nonmembers. "The new E3 event will be more personal, efficient, and focused, and it will provide the top stakeholders who make games, sell games, and cover games streamlined access to the people and products they most need to see," ESA president Doug Lowenstein said in a statement.

Display areas in the hangar will be limited to between 100 and 400 square feet and be much more modest than the massive booths that dominated E3s of yore. Complementing the Barker Hangar location--"where attendees will be able to casually test drive the featured video games planned for the coming holiday season and beyond," according to the ESA--will be hotel suite and meeting room sessions at a number of additional Santa Monica and Los Angeles locations.

The ESA said there will also be a number of lunchtime panels and executive presentations, as well as a serious games component to the event.

"By combining suite-based meetings with the software showcase in a controlled and business-like environment," Lowenstein said, "we believe we will successfully fulfill our primary objective of giving high-level media the best of all worlds--the chance to engage in highly personal, one-on-one dialogue with leading game company executives, as well as the chance to demo games on their own time."

Bookings for the E3 Media and Business Summit are expected to begin within the next 30 days, according to the ESA.

339 Comments

  • papapavvv

    Posted Jun 22, 2007 6:42 am GMT

    that's too bad they decided E3 would become small like that
    Now only the big names will be there, leaving no room for small compagnies such as Cryteck
    Sucks!

  • Wardog0080

    Posted Mar 16, 2007 3:34 pm GMT

    @AgileNate: because who cares

  • metal_assassin

    Posted Oct 21, 2006 3:03 pm GMT

    oh man

  • capthunt

    Posted Oct 17, 2006 8:40 am GMT

    Pfff TGS owns this new E3

  • thisisjosh

    Posted Oct 17, 2006 2:20 am GMT

    good for the press and developers, bad for the gamers who love the hype and excitement that was E3, to those this can only be one thing...........WEAK!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • thepyrethatburn

    Posted Oct 16, 2006 10:11 pm GMT

    I knew what a drain it was (used to write freelance reviews). People seem to misinterpret me as mad about this when I just think that this was the final nail in E3's coffin.



    Maybe I'm wrong but can you think of a single aspect of the show, besides the circus atmosphere, that E3 does better than any other show? E3 has been a dinosaur for a long time now whose only purpose was to be a cash cow for the ESA. At this point, this move will just hasten it's demise because a lot of the people coming will realize that, absent the superbowl atmosphere, there is no reason to come. I had already been wondering why companies like NCsoft were soming when it was painfully apparent that they did not profit from this. WIth Microsoft's X0x show, I can't see them coming back after a year or two. Most of the wheeling and dealing does not happen just at one time in May anymore. The displaying of new games, as has been said, is largely done over the internet now and, with the other shows so close to E3's date, you'll reach the same amount of people just by unveiling the game at TGS or even PAX.



    As I said, in a couple years, E3 will be dead and buried. Even if they reverse their decision in two years, the companies will have realized that E3 is really irrelevant to the whole business.

  • AgileNate

    Posted Oct 16, 2006 8:41 pm GMT

    The Tokyo Game Show is now better atleast the gamers ae still getting to see things. Come to think of it why is it that the japanese get all the attention. They got Microsoft trying there hardest to satisfy them, cheaper PS3 ,and they get to go to an expo still. Never mind the awesome gadgets they have. My phone is a rock compared to theres and it cost $250!!! (I know I kinda went off topic here.)

  • R0cketToRussia1

    Posted Oct 16, 2006 4:48 pm GMT

    this seems to be pretty good, will save the hastle of trying to get pass the geeks( =) ). E3'S of the past seemed to be packed with so many people.

  • Greatwasabi

    Posted Oct 16, 2006 4:45 pm GMT

    Aww at least save the booth babes!

  • mikado01

    Posted Oct 16, 2006 4:37 pm GMT

    Part of me is happy that E3 is evolving from the giant subwoofer fest that it used to be. The other part of me is crying on the inside............


    *holds up sign that says "Save the Booth Babes"*

  • CheddarLimbo

    Posted Oct 16, 2006 1:12 pm GMT

    Meh. I've never been to E3, and I doubt I ever will. That event isn't for people like me, it's for people in the industry making decisions.

    My opinion counts for something in the game industry on some small, minute level, but not to anyone at E3. I think this was a good move. I'll go to PAX instead.

  • FalconCA

    Posted Oct 16, 2006 11:55 am GMT

    hmm... sounds like it'll be difficult to sneak in now..... i'm always down for a challenge >:-]

  • fv242

    Posted Oct 16, 2006 11:43 am GMT

    If anyone of you had actually been to an E³ then you would know how much of a pain and a drain on your body and mind it is. In its old form it was virtually impossible to see and play everything. Lines that went for 2 hours or more at the nintendo booth and others just to get a minute of time with the game or to watch a demo of it was just well..for a lack of a better word stupid. How can you expect anyoen to make it through and see everything if you spent most of your time in a line sitting there barely moving?

    The way it is being set up now will allow for better coverage and less stupid little kids.

  • life4hire

    Posted Oct 16, 2006 11:33 am GMT

    I think E3 is good but since it was initially designed for journalists then it should return to them. There has now been a demonstrated need in the gaming industry for an E3 type event for gamers. The hype E3 has generated over the years has drawn a huge fan base. That fan base may have been drawn for the wrong reasons but it was still drawn in. It would be great for another E3 type event to be created for the gamer. Any standard search on the Internet for E3 can easily show the demand. A gaming expo should come out of this just based on demand by people wanting to see what goes on at E3 alone. This time companies should start off with telling everyone this is for the gamer so all gaming companies should bring their huge booths, giant billboards, booth babes and killer games because thats what we want and we will pay to see it. Companies would get their products some face time. Be able to demographic their customer. Maybe make some extra cash like the creative folks here at gamespot.

  • Jimbokundesu

    Posted Oct 16, 2006 11:11 am GMT

    I do think that there is a need for a public display of what's coming up in the industry of video games, but agree that E3 as it was had just become too massive a spectacle to allow the press to easily cover what they were there to see and report on. It would be nice to see the ESA create a more 'public' version of the new E3, maybe even have separte shows around the country for those unable or unwilling to make the trek out to the West Coast.

  • sasuke55

    Posted Oct 16, 2006 10:58 am GMT

    A couple of things. One I'm sad because I always wanted to go to one me and my brother talked about it soo many times but its one of those things that we just never did. Shame on me. I may just have to look into this PAX thing!. Second I really don't think its going to be better for anyone but the Big wigs like M$, Sony, Nintendo because now they don't have to spend all that money to plz the public which was their complaint. That means it won't be as much out there for us to see. They say they will be able to focus on making the game instead of preparing for E3 but lets be honest we not gonna see those savings. If that was the case why can't we get a $30 price drop on the PS3 or the 360 or a $5 price drop on games they saving money right?! People need to wake up and this doesn't just go for games but for gov't and everything else. Whenever someone says that I'm changing this for you its not for you and you will never see anything.

    Patriot Act. Sacrificed liberties for nothing. Reasearchers say that we are even more vunerable since 9/11 wheres all the protection huh?

    Cutting E3 we may still get great videos but that's what we should get.

  • t_walk1

    Posted Oct 16, 2006 10:44 am GMT

    Well this will be a very business like event. E3 as it was is no more. In the past it was made for Business and consumer, now it is strictly business. Coverage....big whoop. The big three will save all their major announcements for thier own shows (TGS, Microsofts recent show in Spain, etc.) so don't expect much other than frame rate specs and maybe a few announcements of games/types. Within 5 years the show will be so scaled back it wont matter anymore. E3 died a while ago, this is just the death spasms of something gamers once loved and looked foreward too.

  • tcampbell1976

    Posted Oct 16, 2006 10:44 am GMT

    E3 was never open to the public to begin with nab... people scammed passes to get in which caused the longer lines at booths and evolving it into a superbowl like event. E3 at best is no different than ShoWest for the film industry. It is a media, developer, and retailer only event. Most of the developers demanded this format so your not waiting in line behind 100 gamer dorks who scammed in passes just to test a PS3, Wii or [insert game name here]. Not to mention all the ridiculous console worship videos that sprang up on YouTube from the last E3 batch of kiddies that snuck in. "Look at me, I got to touch teh PS3!! I'm sooo cool with my scammed pass and holding up other industry types from seeing the event!!! $600 Disk Read Errors this Nov I can't wait." >.>

  • thepyrethatburn

    Posted Oct 16, 2006 10:33 am GMT

    So yeah, start complaining when Gamespot doesn't cover E3 as well next year... but I'm betting that their coverage will be of a better quality, a better depth, etc. than it was this year. Till then, happy speculating!



    It would seem that we are both doing speculation. My rationale for the journalism to be closer to the corporate line would be:


    Invite-only. This makes it easier to screen troublemakers and let the rest know what they are expected to write under penalty not only losing permission to be invited back but their website/magazine also being put on the black list not just for E3 but for future advertising dollars. As an example, I would imagine people like Dan Hsu won't be invited in the first place.

    WIth the previous E3, if an inconvienent fact came out, the companies had to try to run with it because you aren't just dealing with the people you invited, you're dealing with some anomymous wonk with his own web page who isn't on your invitation list and isn't threatened by the loss of advertising dollars. Under these circumstances, leaks and blunders are going to make it out anyway so the company is forced to run with it.


    Or are you saying that a site such as Gamespot has never, say, upped a review score based on advertising pressure?


    Greater emphasis on private screenings. It has been said all along that there will far more closed sessions so that will be an even smaller and more controlled information flow than the 2/5 of the Barker Hangar floor. Who is going to be allowed into those screenings?


    Even less reason for the little guy to attend. It should be noted that, when Gamespot got industry reaction, the only people who disapproved of this move was Nintendo, Irrational Games, and EvolvePR (who represent smaller companies such as Stardock). EA and the other big boys were all for it and why shouldn't they be? Now, any conferences or screenings that the little guys are going to do have to be scheduled around what the big boys are going to do. Let's face it, if a journalist has a choice of attending an EA conference or a Double Fine conference (and, remember, fewer invites going out = smaller number of journalists sent), Double Fine is going to lose out.


    Overall, as I've said, this is not a loss. E3 has outlived it's usefulness for a few years now. Other conventions have taken various aspects of the show for themselves and they now do it better now than E3 has. Certainly, very little in the way of actual information has come out of the last two E3s that was not available elsewhere (except for the PS3 price point). By the time the next generation of PS4s and Xbox 720s roll out, E3 will be dead and buried.

  • Zipster

    Posted Oct 16, 2006 10:08 am GMT

    "By combining suite-based meetings with the software showcase in a controlled and business-like environment," Lowenstein said, "we believe we will successfully fulfill our primary objective of giving high-level media the best of all worlds--the chance to engage in highly personal, one-on-one dialogue with leading game company executives, as well as the chance to demo games on their own time."

    Right. Best of all worlds? I guess the fan-interaction part of it, and the community aspect of it are only detrimental to the gaming business, eh? It doesn't matter if consumers get to have fun - as long as they get their money.

  • OPOLO

    Posted Oct 16, 2006 9:57 am GMT

    Well it looks & sound ilke the good old days are in fact long gone

  • JimmyCos

    Posted Oct 16, 2006 9:12 am GMT

    TT__TT

  • cherrybomb257

    Posted Oct 16, 2006 8:43 am GMT

    I'm going to miss those booth babes.... so much....

  • razu_gamer

    Posted Oct 16, 2006 6:53 am GMT

    these guys could have made money by charging people to come in. But no, they have to be stupid and donwsize such a wonderul event of which info of it goes around the world. To hell with them LGC rules now!!!

  • paradyme777

    Posted Oct 16, 2006 6:27 am GMT

    Well as long as it is still covered on this website and we get stuff on Xbox Live I don't care.

  • izni

    Posted Oct 16, 2006 5:47 am GMT

    :S

  • sun_wyvrn

    Posted Oct 16, 2006 5:43 am GMT

    "thepyrethatburn

    The journalist is wrong

    What the journalist will find is that the stories that they are now allowed to write will be "approved material only". Those that do not toe the line on this will not be allowed back so all that we will get is the standard company line that you could read in any magazine or website. This wouldn't be so bad if all that we were missing is "Giant Crab" moments. However this policy will also apply for things that we would want to know such as "this console overheats" or "this game continually crashes". "

    ~~~

    I want to know from you why you don't think what we get as it is isn't "approved material only?" As it stands, all E3 goers see are the same demos, the same spokespeople that the journalists do, a few closed-doors presentations aside.

    After all, to think that the companies slip up and let facts out they were prepared to present previously is nonsense. They calculate and they know just how much information they are letting out, and it will be no different next year. The only difference is that they won't have to yell over music, random noise pollution, or throw out the teenage lingo occasionally to sound cool.

    So yeah, start complaining when Gamespot doesn't cover E3 as well next year... but I'm betting that their coverage will be of a better quality, a better depth, etc. than it was this year. Till then, happy speculating!

  • Tsunamii_basic

    Posted Oct 16, 2006 5:36 am GMT

    Its funny that the answer to a group that obviously grew larger then they could manage is to get smaller insted of getting a new management team that can manage a large event. Failure to bring rules that would satisfy everyone and enforcement of rules in an evenhanded respectfull way are obviously light years beyond E3 management.

  • kipi19

    Posted Oct 16, 2006 5:34 am GMT

    Please cover it well, it'll be the 1st E3 with all next gen consoles out (hopefully)

    i'm looking forward to it already

  • chrisdojo

    Posted Oct 16, 2006 5:18 am GMT

    i'm sure GS will still cover it well (if they let ALL the staff in again) but stinx for those who were planning on going.....(but now can't)

  • mitsman

    Posted Oct 16, 2006 3:25 am GMT

    This is BS... A games event should be first and foremost FUN. E3 just got DEVOLVED. If they just want to tell us about the new releases and the company's strategy and stuff like that, they can do it online, and save the expenses. What's the point of eg. Gamespot being able to do a more comfortable job if there is so much less to report? For my part, I can't actually be at E3, but the footage and photos I have seen was always awsome. I happen to be both a tech-magazine editor and a gamer, and any way I look at it, I would be sad if E3 is reduced to this.

  • thepyrethatburn

    Posted Oct 16, 2006 2:50 am GMT

    The journalist is wrong



    What the journalist will find is that the stories that they are now allowed to write will be "approved material only". Those that do not toe the line on this will not be allowed back so all that we will get is the standard company line that you could read in any magazine or website. This wouldn't be so bad if all that we were missing is "Giant Crab" moments. However this policy will also apply for things that we would want to know such as "this console overheats" or "this game continually crashes".



    Still, the loss of E3 is no big loss really (except to the ESA who will look back on this two years later and say "Oh my God, what have we done to the event that was our cash cow?"). Many of the companies that were there were only there because it was expected of people to have a presence. I said this during E3 2005. E3 no longer really fulfills a useful function in getting information out now that the internet has become the news source that it is.

  • Ibacai

    Posted Oct 16, 2006 2:30 am GMT

    I've been to PAX the last two years and now I think it's going to be that much bigger next year. Thank you ESA for pushing more my way.

  • redgopher

    Posted Oct 16, 2006 12:18 am GMT

    I just got a QA job in the industry. I would have been able to go. SO CLOSE. Oh well, PAX07 will kick ass.

  • melvinf7

    Posted Oct 15, 2006 11:37 pm GMT

    i admit i may not have a chance in h88l to attend e3 but its was always fun just to see what i was missing man whats going on pretty soon all games will be is media center pcs, which are fun in there on right but i want a video game thats not a pc/tivo/cdburner/pic viewer and ect. i mean look at ps3 i mean i really like nintendo better than sony but i wont lie and say i didnt enjoy playing ps2 but its no longer a playstation but a tv station

  • tard--

    Posted Oct 15, 2006 10:59 pm GMT

    Now I'll never get any SWAG........ thanks for killing my dream ESA.....
    (Slow motion death scene)

    AND KNOW THAT ONE DAY I WILL RISE AGAIN AND TAKE MY REVENGE!!!

    Jack Hollow

  • ghost5484

    Posted Oct 15, 2006 10:42 pm GMT

    so no more retail people allowed next year then? there goes my pass...

  • osxgp

    Posted Oct 15, 2006 10:42 pm GMT

    Hmmm. Never went to E3, nor ever planned to. If this strategy helps developers make better games, then I'm all for it. However, what will the booth babes do now? I guess its back to porn for them.

  • Unholyone123

    Posted Oct 15, 2006 9:37 pm GMT

    AAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHA! MY WILL BE DONE!! Finally the giant has fallen!!! The journalist guy is right, everyone will get more in the long run. The industry is maturing, DEAL WITH IT!!!

  • pXxJoSexXp

    Posted Oct 15, 2006 8:52 pm GMT

    that's good for companies, bad for gamers

  • Deyee

    Posted Oct 15, 2006 8:28 pm GMT

    What if you never cared about E3 in the first place?

    It's a gaming convention that I couldn't go to. So I read the news and that's it.

  • sircyrus

    Posted Oct 15, 2006 8:23 pm GMT

    I think this is the biggest load of crap ever. But you know what? f$%k E3, because someone else is going to step up and create another crazy expo (or we'll see a lot more tiny expos) that we can all become crazed about and have the chance to attend

    It's called PAX. Penny Arcade Expo. It's the E3 for gamers, basically.

  • Gamepro2421

    Posted Oct 15, 2006 7:42 pm GMT

    I think this is the biggest load of crap ever. But you know what? f$%k E3, because someone else is going to step up and create another crazy expo (or we'll see a lot more tiny expos) that we can all become crazed about and have the chance to attend

  • sun_wyvrn

    Posted Oct 15, 2006 7:32 pm GMT

    "HeroOfTimeGCN
    Everyone is all sad because E3 has changed so dramatically (and yes, I too am sad because I never attended an E3 proper...) but this is a good thing for the industry.

    Reason? I myself am a Journalist working for online media (e-mpire.com), and all this means is that we inside the industry can provide better coverage of what's coming. E3 was never for gamers, it was for gaming journalists who cover the event FOR the gamers. It's better for us because we can see more games and spend less time staring at booth babes' chests.

    YOU get more coverage because WE get better access and more time to actually try the games, instead of standing in 7 hour lines to play the Wii for 5 minutes.

    Trust me, everyone will get more in the long run."

    ~~~

    requoted for truth.

  • adamska_br

    Posted Oct 15, 2006 7:19 pm GMT

    It really took away the "expo" from E3...

  • Leu-kun

    Posted Oct 15, 2006 6:48 pm GMT

    Why...?, I was dreaming about attending E3, almost all the videogamer community has lost one of his dreams.

  • LinkRemembered

    Posted Oct 15, 2006 6:26 pm GMT

    How could it get any worse?

  • Dups79

    Posted Oct 15, 2006 6:05 pm GMT

    I still can't believe this stuff.

  • Roland123_basic

    Posted Oct 15, 2006 6:03 pm GMT

    "MOODYHAMOUDI
    my life has been ruined!!
    u will hear about my suicide tommorow on cnn..."

    uh no we wont.... hundreds (if not thousands) of people as unimportant as you die every day, and we dont hear about it....

    no offense intended... but when you look at the grand scheme of things.... 99.9% of are just unimportant schmucks. no fame and no fortune.

  • gamesrmybusines

    Posted Oct 15, 2006 5:49 pm GMT

    i guess that's tight

advertisement

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!