The Demise of E3: ESA to Blame? Think Again.

by Justin Arnold on July 24, 2008 at 8:20 pm

You never really appreciate something until it’s gone — or in this case, chased from a city by angry gaming press with torches and pitchforks.

As E3 showed up, sputtered, then crept out of Los Angeles — hanging its head in dejected embarrassment — industry bloggers and reporters of every stripe began panning this years offering from the Electronic Software Association. Some pontificated on the trade show’s demise, stating that this year’s incarnation was merely its death-throes, and that it had become a weary, tired beast, in desperate need of being tied to a tree and mercifully shot.

Puzzlingly, the ESA seems to be the favored whipping boy when I believe that it is the developers who showed up ala the Emperor, wearing nary but a smile.

There is no doubt that E3 has been suffering from a degenerative illness as of late, but one that can hardly be blamed on the substantive lack of booth-babes with dual-side airbags. The truth is that the offerings from the Big Three have been mediocre at best, and at worst, a bloviating scrum of corporate narcissism.

How else could anyone characterize the Nintendo conference? Microsoft was a little better, and Sony continued to march merrily, if not obstinately, off a cliff called “denial.”

Is it the ESA’s fault that Nintendo showed up without a new Zelda title, and instead focused their press conference finale on a rhythm game that requires no rhythm?

Is it the ESA’s fault that Microsoft stepped on its own shoelaces, face-palming a developer, in order to keep the press focused on a rivals lost exclusive, instead of announcing one of their own?

Is it the ESA’s fault that Sony eagerly tried to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, instead of coming to the Big Show with the same magic they wielded in their glory years, when the PS2 was the King of the Virtual Jungle?

These are not failures of the ESA or E3, but instead the failures of publishers who are more interested in the realm of public perception, than providing the public with what they truly want — fun.

We in the gaming press must also shoulder a measure of culpability for laying so much failure at the feet of the ESA, when it’s the offal rendered by others that is responsible for the stench we cannot stomach.

With a different pair of eyes you can see that, if anything, E3 has somehow garnered more mainstream corporate and political credibility. While the keynote was attended with as much fervor as a Foghat reunion tour, it was interesting that the speaker was the Governor of Texas. While this may not lend any interest to the gaming media echo-chamber, the presence of Gov. Rick Perry is important. As the industry is facing attacks on multiple fronts can it really afford to cast off E3 as it gains much-needed political capitol for not only itself, but for the rest of us?

I agree that E3 is need of change, but I believe that change must be brought about by developers; prepared to show up with exciting titles and technical surprises that make us sit up and take notice.

The ESA is doing its job by providing a venue for an industry to show up and show off, it is then up to the industry to impress us. Blaming the ESA for a tepid E3 is folly. If you have succumbed to that line of drivel you might as well blame the ESA for global warming, or killer bee’s from Argentina.

In 2009 developers will have the chance to relegate the unwashed masses, as it has been rumored that the public will be able to attend in all their fanboy glory, and perhaps that would be for the best — a novelty that the public would be able to hiss in disapproval or clap in delight, undiluted by the jaded – and complicit – gaming press.

Perhaps then developers will take E3 more seriously as the very people they depend on will be there, hovering expectantly for the latest and the greatest.

In the end, those culpable for the death of E3 will not be the ESA; it will be the developers holding the smoking gun.

Share This: