s I perused my favorite video game sites just a little over a week ago after a long weekend, I came across the rumor that E3 would be going away forever. I laughed, and completely doubted this news just like many others did.  How could they trash the institution that is E3? Next thing I know, 24 hours later it’s official - E3 will never be the same.  Now that the dust has settled a bit, and people have had some time to mull it around their noggins, we get a number of people’s thoughts on the death of E3 in its current state, and what the future holds.

Billy Berghammer :: Game Informer :: Online Managing Editor

I have to admit, I didn’t believe it at first, but now that it’s a reality I have to say that I feel like a part of me has died.  Now I won’t name names, but there are plenty of people that I know that absolutely despise E3.  From developers, to PR folks, to the press, many dread spring for one reason – E3. Call me crazy (and those people will), but I loved it.  Fortunately, I got to go to six of them, and no matter how much of a blur it was, and no matter how much my body wanted to keel over after each one, I looked forward to E3 every single time I got to go.

I got to see the show from two different perspectives.  My first few years were from a Nintendo fansite perspective, and the last couple were with Game Informer.  They were very different for a number of reasons, but I’m glad I got to see these different sides to the show.  Only having to cover one side of everything – Nintendo related games – was very different than having to cover all sides of E3. But as a gamer who likes to play everything, it’s wonderful and tricky to see everything the show has to offer.

There were a lot of cries from readers that the big show was dead. But then again, for readers following the events of E3 this time period is only a week long.  For us as online press, it’s actually months long.  We start thinking about the next E3 after we get back from an E3 and break down what worked, and what didn’t work from our perspective.  Actual planning for the show begins right around the first of the year.  About a month out from May we start the pre-E3 festivities where we’re on the road for most of the time going to different publisher events, or developer’s studios.  This gives us a chance to have more of an intimate look at a company’s games rather than be forced to attempt to wrap our heads around a game when there are 100 booths everywhere spraying bass in your face.  While in theory you’d think that would alleviate you having to actually schedule a separate appointment, but 99.99% of the time each of the companies show you a taste of their line-up instead of everything.  They’ll hold back a majority of their big guns and you’ll still have to make an appointment to see the rest, which is ridiculous for us.

But this is where I really start understanding why E3 needed to change.  I’ve been in charge of a team covering E3 as large as 25 and as small as 2, and no matter how long you make the show, it’s still tricky to see everything.  Fortunately, even now that I have a smaller team size I can still see almost everything I want to, but that’s because my E3 is almost a month long. Looking at my schedule for the actual week of E3 is just plain hilarious. When I say our schedule is full, we’re talking back-to-back from the morning until late night.  I wear running shoes to the show because I’m hauling ass from South Hall to West Hall – back and forth, hurdling over people that don’t need to be there just to attempt to not be too late for my next appointment. I’m not late because I’m unorganized or didn’t properly plan ahead, it’s this way because that’s the way it is for us.  

Finally getting to an appointment, if there are only a few games that I need to see then I most likely get to see exactly what I came for.  That is, unless there’s another demo running long, the developer isn’t there, or a schedule mishap pushes a reassignment of the meeting to the time period I leave on Friday for just these issues. Even so, it still makes seeing those few games rather tricky. With all the ruckus that is E3, it’s definitely not as focused as getting a more intimate demo of a game in a quieter setting – much like the pre-E3 meetings or other gamer’s day type events we attend.

But then again, this is what also worries me about this Neo-E3. In our interview with Doug Lowenstein he stated that this new E3 would take place outside of its original Los Angeles Convention Center home in a three day time period.  Instead of each company having booths at the convention center, companies would occupy meeting rooms and hotel suites in Los Angeles hotels.  The three major console press conferences will also “supposedly” still take place.  This is where my head begins to start hurting.

In a perfect world each of the companies would occupy space in four or five hotels that are all within walking distance from each other, and we would move from room to room, suite to suite, meeting room to meeting room to meet with each developer and see each game. All of the pre-E3 press conferences would happen on one day, and I’ll even give the ESA (in this perfect world, mind you) the additional day to have these press conferences.  There would technically be no need for third party press conferences since they’ll have their own meeting rooms or suites, right?

Is this possible?  I may be playing a complete devil’s advocate here, but there’s no way in hell this is going to work for a number of reasons.

1. Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo don’t play well together.  As history shows us, the three keep beating each other up over just when they can have their press conference.  Each company always wants to go first.  This is why we now had press conferences on Monday and Tuesday.  All three used to be on the same day, but then each company would go over on their times making the next company start late.  I can’t see this changing if all three press conferences take place on the same day, but I couldn’t imagine what this will do with hotel suites and meeting rooms.  There are only so many good hotels in downtown LA with adequate meeting space. Take into consideration that Sony has a Los Angeles studio why would they even want to have a hotel when they can have people to their own pad?  This takes me to my next point…..

2. Studios will now have press just come to their studios for meetings and demos.  There are plenty of development studios housed in Los Angeles and the surrounding area.  Why spend the extra cash on renting out a hotel when you’re already paying rent for your companies Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, etc. headquarters?  Plus, once the journalists are out there, they’re away from the other companies focused on your goods.

3. Why even do this new E3 to begin with?  I think one of the main reasons companies could justify spending the millions of dollars on E3 was the simple fact that everyone else was doing it. All of the companies were in the same convention center fighting for media time. But now that all of the companies aren’t being housed in the same arena for a fight to the death, why try to go up against your competition to begin with?  Companies could take a fraction of the amount of money they would spend at E3 and have a larger scaled gamer’s day at a time period that benefits them not only development-wise, but when there’s nothing else going on.  Not only does that almost guarantee that they’ll get coverage from the major video game media that they want, but they can determine when developers need to have their polished (or attempts for) builds ready.

4. It’s going to be a logistical nightmare even more than it is already.  There’s only a set amount of hotels right now to begin with, and even here at Game Informer we haven’t always stayed right where the action is.  But then again, who knows where the action is going to be.  With my prediction that the show is going to be spread out, factoring in how to get from one place to another is going to be an absolute mess.  I’d rather go up against all of the fanboys and E3 attendees blindfolded than trying to fight other press people for cabs, and then fight L.A. traffic.  Barf.

5. You’re still not going to be able to keep out the people that aren’t invited that really want to be there. Okay, there’s supposedly going to be invites coming from each of the companies to come to their suites and meeting rooms.  Who’s to say the hardcore gamer who’s already finagled his way into E3 won’t camp out in hotels to figure out which company is where?  You better have security ready, especially if you try to keep the fansites out. If you make an E3, no matter how big or small – they will come.  Hell, I would if I didn’t have this job.

Granted, it’s more than obvious that I think next year’s event will be a mess.  The ESA and all of the companies have a lot of work to do to try and figure out what will happen. It’s also almost impossible for something not to happen in Los Angeles next year due to the fact that the city is expecting it.  From what we’ve heard from our sources, Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Convention Center have been contracted for this event for the next few years.  Either the publishers and the ESA are going to have to buy out these contracts, or figure out a good solution on what to do.

This doesn’t say what’s going to happen to other major video game events, either. Companies are going to latch onto D.I.C.E., The Game Developers Conference, Tokyo Game Show, The German Games Convention, and PAX even more than they do now.  While good for TGS, GC, and PAX, shows like D.I.C.E. and the Game Developers Conference that have a different focus than the conventions could suffer a bit.

Granted, right now it’s still too early to tell how this will all work out in the end, but as you can tell, I’m extremely skeptical. It’s really going to take a few years to see how this will really end up, because there’s no way that this new show will be a complete success the first time out.

- - -

However, I’m not the be-all-end-all person that has suggestions and thoughts about this show.  In fact, I contacted the big three – Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo and their official responses are very similar. 

Sony: For the past 12 years, Sony Computer Entertainment has participated in the Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) and has used it as an opportunity to communicate to the industry and consumers our vision for gaming and entertainment.  As an ESA member, we support the board's decision to pursue other types of events that can better address the needs of our industry and further its growth.

Microsoft: We are very supportive of the ESA’s decision in providing a new vision for E3. Over the past 12 years, the industry has grown and matured and it’s great to see the show evolving to meet the needs of the industry. The show continues to provide enormous benefits from a key media, retailer, developer and partner standpoint. Further questions about E3 should be directed to the Entertainment Software Association.

Nintendo: Nintendo supports the ESA in its efforts to make the Electronic Entertainment Expo as effective as possible for both the participating companies and the audiences we wish to reach. We look forward to showcasing our great games and systems at next year's event.

You’d think they all had the same public relations firm.  In fact, we contacted a number of third party publishers' public relations firms to find out that most of them didn’t have a comment. Third party publishers were rather reluctant to comment about this issue what-so-ever.  Well, outside of Ubisoft.

"Ubisoft has always been extensively involved with E3, serving as a member company of the ESA board. The annual E3 event has allowed us to showcase our creativity and innovation in the video game industry. Year after year we impressed our partners, retailers, media, analysts and the general public and brought home numerous awards for both our products and our booth.

We support the ESA's decision to modify the event in an effort to better serve the industry in a challenging marketplace. As the industry evolves, so too will Ubisoft. We've grown to be a powerhouse in global development and publishing by being flexible and innovative.

We look forward to working with the ESA as it evolves the E3 event. Creativity and innovation are what make this industry exciting and we'll be there to support the new E3 Media Festival in 2007."

While we only received official response from one out of all of the third parties, it’s not too surprising since they’re the ones that make up the ESA.  My personal belief is that they all don’t know what they’re doing yet. 

- - -

But what about other press outlets?  What about freelancers?  What about fansites? What about developers?  What about people in charge of other events? What about Andy McNamara?  Reiner?  I broke open my rolodex and went down the line to get as much of a varied response as I could. 

I sent out a number of boiler plate questions to a number of people I know in the industry, but basically gave people the freedom to write whatever they wanted.  A few people I had phone interview/conversations which we transcribed. The answers you read may surprise you.

Andy McNamara :: Game Informer :: Magazine Editor-In-Chief

Q:  What did you think about the current format?

A: As someone who has attended E3 for all the years of its existence, I can easily say that I felt the show's previous form was flawed. When it began it worked as intended, but as games became bigger budget and more difficult to create, the show did less and less for the product. Games simply didn't show well in the convention format. To truly understand a game or a developer's vision, you had to sit down and hear it straight from the source, which basically rendered the entire show floor useless.

I also feel that it created a venue for misunderstanding. Gamers walked up, tried a game for 15 minutes with little to no explanation as to why, at that point in the development process, the game was going to have issues. But the pressure to have games at the show outweighed good judgment and many times, games that simply shouldn't have been show in their current form were rushed to be a part of the madness.

Q:  What do you think about the new format?

A: Whenever I ran into someone I knew at E3 the first words out of their mouths were always, "So what is cool at the show?" While all the details of what the new show will entail are a long way off, making the event smaller and actually showing why the video game industry is the greatest entertainment medium for today and tomorrow is vital.

In the old format it was difficult for even experienced journalists and industry analysts to cut through the noise and find the direction and vision of the industry. For many others, the non-believers if you will, E3 was the equivalent of a monster truck rally where big giant behemoths battled it out with no real way of knowing why or how, but "Wow, was it loud."

It is very important for every company in the video game industry, be it a video game magazine like Game Informer or a monster publisher like Electronic Arts, that the rest of the world understands why video games are such a major piece of the entertainment puzzle. Reggie Fils-Aime's opening speech at the Nintendo press conference at E3 2006 is a perfect example as to why there needs to be change to the way the industry communicates about video games to the rest of the world. And don't be fooled, E3 is one of the few times in a year when the video game industry truly speaks to the rest of the world.

What were Fils-Aime's words of wisdom? "Do you know anyone who's never watched television? Never watched a movie? Never read a book? Of course not. So let me ask you one more question. Do you know someone, even in your own family, who's never played a video game?"
The old E3 was never going to change the answer to this question. Perhaps the new and improved one can.

Reiner  :: Game Informer Magazine :: Executive Editor

E3 may not be the ideal place to conduct business, but there’s no way that a gamer can honestly say that they won’t miss this show. Watching fanboys sprint to the Nintendo booth is worth the price of admission alone. Even as an E3 veteran, I always found myself in awe of the sights and sounds that this show presented each year. It was Disney World for gamers. Rather than waiting in lines for a ride, you waited in lines to watch a video presentation of a game. I’m definitely going to miss it.

With that said, however, I am definitely looking forward to the new structure. The hotel format is the perfect format for business. You won’t need a megaphone to communicate with companies, and it will be nice to check out games without swarms of people bumping into you and trying to kick you off of a unit. I’m not so sure that the press conferences and show can be completed in three days, but we should be able to see more stuff faster.

It’s sad to say, but this is exactly what needed to happen. E3 was the big event for video games each year. I’m certain the same amount of exciting news will still be unveiled under the new format, but it just won’t be the same without the larger than life sights and sounds. It’s a sad day for gamers, but a great day for video game journalists, developers, and publishers.

Steven L. Kent :: Boy’s Life, Delta Sky, Costco Connection, Formerly Wrote For MSNBC, USA Today, and the Seattle Times.  Author of The Ultimate History of Video Games: From Pong To Pokemon – The Story Behind The Crazy That Touched Our Lives And Changed The World, The First Quarter: A 25-Year History of Video Games, The Clone Republic, Rogue Clone, and more :: Freelance Writer

Q: What was your initial reaction when you heard about the changes happening to E3?
 
A: I have been hoping for the end of E3 for a long time. 

E3 really does more harm than good for the industry.  It is a very expensive show.  Big companies like Sony, EA, Microsoft and Nintendo drop millions of dollars every year into the show.  With sales slowing under the drag of a new generation of hardware and with game development costs skyrocketing, having a lavish, ultra-expensive expo in Los Angeles does not make sense.

E3 has kind of become an industry-wide addiction.  Big companies have to have big presence there, whether it helps them or not.  In 2000, Sega had a huge and lively booth with that garnered all kinds of attention at E3.  It did not save Dreamcast.  All the booth space in the world did not make GameCube a contender, but it cost Nintendo a fortune.

Rockstar did not bother showing GTA: San Andreas at E3 two years ago.  I do not believe it hurt that game’s sales.

More importantly, hundreds of companies that could not afford to go to E3 had to go because no one would take them seriously if they did not.  These companies set up small booths and were ignored in Kentia Hall.  They spent thousands of dollars strictly for the right to be able to say they were at E3.

I do not believe E3 benefited the industry. 

From my perspective as a journalist, I think smaller events with less noise and less confusion will serve the industry more efficiently.  Years ago, Midway used to employ Steven Style and Andrew Hoolan, two guys who simply flew around the country demoing games.  They came to Seattle two or three times each year.  They would call.  We would set up a meeting.  I could look at their games as long as I wanted.  I did not have 500 other games buzzing in my head.   They did not have to compete with all the noise and confusion of the show floor.

They would show me four or five games and leave.  Midway could have paid them $500,000/year, not including travel expenses, and still come out ahead compared to what it paid for its room in Petree Hall this year.
 
Q: How do you think this will affect your role/job – positively, negatively?
 
A: I think the changing of E3 will have a minor positive affect on the industry.  It will mean that smaller companies can apply their capital on development.  It means that huge companies like Sony and Nintendo can focus on game design instead of facing a major distraction.  I think a lot of companies already have their own shows, and this will continue, and that is for the best.  Third-parties may now become larger participants in hardware manufacturer shows.  This is not new.  It used to be that Sega and Nintendo had big events at which their third party partners also showed games.  E3 supplanted that over the years, but I think you will see its return.  This is good because Nintendo and Microsoft and Sony will not charge their partners the kind of money E3 charged.  It does tend to empower the platform makers a bit heavily, but competition will sort that out as it traditionally has.
 
Q: What will you miss about the “old E3?”
 
A: It was a very exciting show.  The rumors and excitement surround E3, especially in the early years, will be missed.
 
Q: What are your concerns about this new format, and what do you think the show’s biggest challenges are for next year?
 
A: I really am not paying a lot of attention to the new format of E3.  I see it mostly as a stop gap.  I think the game makers will eventually take on this function for themselves.

Chris Charla :: Foundation 9 Entertainment :: Executive Producer, Development

Q: What was your initial reaction when you heard about the changes happening to E3?

A: I was like “What? Noooo!” because I am one of the few that really loved E3. I loved the crowds, I loved the games, I thought it was awesome to attend. As a forum for getting any work done, it was nearly worthless, but just to enjoy as a gamer, I loved the pageantry of it and just the celebration of game culture. The Sony Party was also really fun, as was seeing all your old friends.

Q: Do you think these changes needed to happen?

A: Absolutely. E3 was really becoming an expensive while elephant. There were few surprises for the press, there has been a lot of consolidation on the buying side, and it was really becoming tough to manage because so many people at the show were essentially consumers. E3 basically outlived its usefulness in its current format.

Q: How do you think this will affect your role/job – positively, negatively?

A: No effect, except that for developers it will probably make GDC even more about development meetings and less about attending forums to hone your craft. Negatively, I think we won’t get a chance as an industry to play as many of each others’ games, so that will probably retard growth a bit and may lead to multiple games making similar decisions. Positively, it will save publishers some money and may spark a lot more consumer shows, such as PAX.

Q: What will you miss about the “old E3”?”

A: Swag, giant booths, pageantry, seeing all the games, catching guys who complained about the presence of booth babes ogling the exact same booth babes five minutes later. I’ll also miss seeing the awed looks on the faces of hardcore gamers who had managed to sneak their way in. Nothing gave you a great feeling like seeing the passion of the fans in line at Nintendo for 6 hours. Those guys are awesome. Hopefully, they’ll all be at PAX from now on.

Q: How do you think this will affect the industry?

A: No real effect, except we may finally see some consumer shows get real momentum, such as PAX. Did I mention PAX? Everyone should go. We’re gonna have free comics there.

Q: What are your concerns about this new format, and what do you think the show’s biggest challenges are for next year?

A: Main concern: Is there still going to be a Sony party? Seriously, though I’m actually pretty curious about how the show will play out with the suite style; I assume it will be a lot more like Toy Fair, which is basically just all closed booths and appointment only.  It might be a pain in the ass running between hotels for meetings, but hopefully it will be pretty nice. It will also be interesting to see everyone will be able to restrain themselves. Going from E3’s largess to demure suites might spark some sort of PR arms race where everyone tries to spend just a *tiny* bit more than their competitors, and five years later we end up with E3 all over again…

Joseph Olin :: Academy Of Interactive Arts And Sciences :: President

Q: What was your first reaction when you first heard about this?

A: When I first heard about it, it was shock and surprise. I think the shock was the fact that the ESA board was able to finally come together and make a material decision regarding E3. I think that it is generally well accepted that within our culture that a lot of people have been dissatisfied with effectiveness of E3 for that last couple of years.

Q: So you think that this is something what was brewing for a long time.

A: Yes, without a doubt. Nothing happens quickly.

Q: How does this affect you?

A: I don’t think there is a direct affect. I think by virtue of E3 changing in scope and size, I’m not sure it will change in terms of visibility. I think the opportunity for the academy and its programs are to become a little more visible. I think for a program like the DICE summit, the board companies that we share with the ESA will take that as an opportunity to speak out on some other issues that might have normally been restricted to E3. I think the same thing can probably be said for GDC in terms of Jamil’s program, that there will be some opportunities for perhaps more significant announcements. But as far as showcasing games, I still think that in what ever format that the ESA board ultimately adopts that this E3 sponsored event will still be the focal point for game business as far as showcasing products.

Q: Now do you think by the show being in July that it dramatically changes the landscape of our industry?

A: No, I personally don’t. In some of the conversations I had with studio heads and some of our board members at the academy, they seem sort of split in terms of the date. One of the stated complaints and issues raised for years is the amount of effort needed to create a demo for E3. Talking to a couple of studios guys, they could change from May, they could change it to April and they could make it the 12th of never. For me to pull half of a team off to make a demo is me pulling a team off to make a demo. Those dynamics, they don’t believe, are going to change dramatically. I find it interesting that some of the demos that we saw at E3 this year have been in the can for months.

The ESA board and the E3 Expo management team responsible for governing the event have a lot of work to do to determine, you know, how do you scale it down, what things do we really want to accomplish, whose included, whose not. We know we want a smaller group of attendees. How small?  Doug Lowenstein was quoted at 5,000 people.

Q: How many people did you have at D.I.C.E. last year?

A: D.I.C.E. was tiny. Including every member of the media and my staff and registered staff for the sponsors, there were 700 people.

Q: In the past, companies would once in a while, piggy back on D.I.C.E. to showcase some of their products. Do you think with the changing of E3, this will increase that? Or are you going to try and fight against that?

A: I plan to fight for keeping D.I.C.E. to be D.I.C.E.. I just don’t think there is enough for us to gain other than perhaps some short-term dollars by expanding or changing the scope of the show. We have the games lounge as part of D.I.C.E.. And that was really set up so that a significant amount of the games are being showcased during the Interactive Achievement Awards and can be seen by all of the attendees. It wasn’t really designed to be Microsoft showing off a new game for the Xbox 360 in the games lounge. Every year we flood the idea of doing a limited trade show because we have companies approach us and to show off product, but our board says no. We know we give up income potential but at the same time, it changes the timbre of the event.

Q: So you don’t think the changes of E3 will affect D.I.C.E. ever?

A: I know that one of my speakers that was coming from one company that had been replaced by a significant member of that company’s management team.

Q: Because of this?

A: Yes. So I expect a significant announcement from a platform company to come out of D.I.C.E. this year. I think we will be the beneficiary of some increased sponsorship support this year. Some of the major players in the business obviously have freed up a few dollars. The academy’s operating budget is pretty insignificant sums of money compared to the sums of money people would spend for E3.

Evan Wells :: Naughty Dog :: Co-President

When I first heard the news, I have to admit that I was a little surprised.  But that surprise was quickly replaced with a fair amount of relief.  Every year E3 kept getting bigger, louder, and a little crazier, and with all of that, it really had become one of the most stressful weeks of the year for developers.  And seeing how much effort was being put into the spectacle each year, one had to wonder how the publishers could justify the expense.  Overall, I think the downsizing of the event will not dramatically change how Naughty Dog is able to do its job, but it should help with some of the stress.  E3 has always served as a great deadline to get your game in a polished and playable form, and I’m sure that it will continue to provide that milestone. 

But hopefully the more intimate setting will make it easier to connect with the media and conduct the necessary meetings without having the fight the insane crowds and compete with the sensory overload that E3 had become.  I’m sure the new format will make it more difficult for developers to get hands on play time with all of the games that they’d like to check out, but that was already becoming a problem with some of the long lines for games and more and more behind closed door demos.  Another concern for the industry is the financial effect this could have on the ESA and its ability to continue to represent the game industry’s interests in today’s heated political climate.  But overall, I think this is a good move.  It’s time to hit the reset button and keep what works and get rid of what doesn’t.

Barry Caudill :: Firaxis Games :: Executive Producer

Q: What was your initial reaction when you heard about the changes happening to E3?

A: I actually thought it was a hoax when someone first sent me a link about it.  When it started to sink in, I was somewhat shocked because E3 has become an institution that belies its relatively short lifespan. 

Q: Do you think these changes needed to happen?

A: There's no doubt that E3 had become a monster and that the original reason for having it had been lost amid all the hoopla and excess.  On the other hand, a lot of business has been conducted there and it did provide an interesting puzzle-mini-game aspect.  If you know how to read the signs, it's actually pretty easy to tell the state of certain games based on the scope of their presence on the floor. :)

Q: How do you think this will affect your role/job – positively, negatively?

A: On a positive note, we no longer have that dreaded E3 deadline that doesn't coincide with any naturally-occurring milestone that would help to actually finish the game.  Also, I won't have to talk myself hoarse for three days every year.  On the downside, it was easy to count on the E3 milestone and plan for it.  Now, it will most likely be replaced by more events and those will create more arbitrary milestones that don't actually help us to finish the game either. It will probably mean more travel and time spent away from my family as well, but that goes with the territory for producers.

Q: What will you miss about the “old E3?”

A: E3 is very stressful.  First you get ready by trying to nail down stable builds when you probably aren't even alpha, then you put together demo scripts and practice, then you travel, help set up, deal with machines you have never seen, etc. - that's a nightmare.  Then it's talk, talk, talk, madness, and more stress.  Even with all of that, there's always a point when I get a break and I get to walk around and look at everything and all is forgiven.  I will miss the overblown face-offs between Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft.  I will miss Kentia Hall and all the crazy gimmicks down there.  I'll definitely miss hanging out with fellow developers and the press although we may still have some of that...and there's always GDC. 

Q: How do you think this will affect the industry?

A: I think the industry will be just fine either way.  I'm not sure how much real business took place on the floor and it has to be more healthy if publishers no longer need to shell out millions for a booth that will only be up for three days.  I think GDC may now take on an increased importance and that's troubling because it feels like it is getting too big already.  If GDC gets to be too much like E3 I think it will be a bigger loss for actual developers.

Q: What are your concerns about this new format, and what do you think the show’s biggest challenges are for next year?

A: I'm afraid I don't know enough about the new format to comment yet.  On the surface, it seems like the new format will ensure that games get more coverage, but I do worry that smaller companies will be left out of the mix in the new format.  Will there be space for the Kentia Hall vendors in the new world order?  In addition, the new, stripped-down version of E3 will have to find a way to prove that it is relevant or others may try to supplant it with their own version.  After all, it is a lot easier to compete with the new version than it would have been with the old behemoth.

Paul Semel :: Big Shot, Complex, Computer Gaming World, Electronic Games Monthly, Emmy, GamePro, GameSpy, Giant, Mean, Movies.com, Penthouse, TV Guide, Blender, E! Online, and MSN.com :: Freelancer Writer

Q: