E3 suffers final death

 For real this time

When last we spoke of the Electronic Entertainment Expo, we were already sizing it up for the event's Mahgony lid coffin. Because what else are you going to do when all of the major developers either pull out or set themselves up with convenient E3 alternatives on the off-chance that you pull out? Covid changed a lot of the power dynamics of live event shows, and reminded the world of gaming that most all of it's audience live exclusively on the Internet: which therefore makes it the place to be if you want to reach and appeal directly to that style of person. What is the point of spending thousands renting out a booth crammed with others where you have to fight and vie for attention when you can take that time for yourself, only show off exactly the content that your studio is ready to show and save those marketing dollars for a trip to Vancouver or something. The point is that the ESA won't be hoovering up money for doing nothing more than renting out the convention centre that they themselves rented.

And you know what; couldn't have happened to a more decrepit and internally corrupt group of suits- and I mean that. For a board that was originally designed to help protect the industry during the rise of government scrutiny after the violence of Mortal Kombat, the ESA has grown depressingly partisan and fangless over the past decades. I'm not even talking about the accepting of various high level game studio executives into their ranks, because I understand the need to have relevant professionals to keep the discourse feeling relevant and up-to-date: I take issue more with the idea that ESA are somehow above the law and thus don't have to impart the same diligence to protecting it's consumers if it might hurt their bottom line. Who remembers their absolute refusal to stick to their own guns by labelling EA games that preyed on the addictive properties of psychological manipulation to make their FIFA money? Preying on a game that is categorised as playable for children, yet cranking down on Pokémon for having a fictional, virtual, casino depicted in game. Guess Gamefreak should have paid more bribe money, eh?

For a time the literal only thing that the ESA could do right was put together the E3 showcase, and that was largely because they didn't have to do much of anything but organise an itinerary and send out invitations. For the most part it was Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo and whomever else was big enough to secure their own showcase, deciding on how to set-up their show, who to invite and where best to position themselves within the rented space. The only time the ESA decided it was within their prerogative to get involved was during the aftermath of the Cyberpunk announcement, where it was apparently their 'brilliant' idea to reach out to traditional world celebrities to host after the success of Keanu Reeves' surprise appearance. Unfortunately that was an inkling which lived on in Geoff Keighley- resulting in the Game Awards with Al Pacino. I mean I love Pacino's movies and all, but really?

But everything changed when the Covid nation attacked. That initial sweeping wave was far too sudden in the year for the ESA to react. The very concept of 'remote shows' was still looked on as a low-rent cost saving measure back then, not fit for the pretentious snobs who thought themselves irreplaceable in an industry that ran totally without them. The Game Awards had far less problems moving to the virtual space, which is how Geoff managed to neatly steal the crown of 'gaming event of the year' from the ESA due to their lethargy. When the ESA finally did manage to throw a show together, it was largely a disappointment probably best summed up by Randy Pitchford's appearance for his Gearbox showcase. You remember, the one which recycled footage that had already been revealed the previous month and existed simply to showcase Randy touring the Borderlands movie set squealing like a school girl at things he wasn't allowed to show the camera. Prime time E3, everybody!

We have the summer games fest to fill the void, a festival which actually manages to sync up to the gamers around the world in a very real way thanks to Steam integration, providing demos and early looks that anyone with a Steam account can play free of charge, which is of course something that E3 was never able to do. You see, E3 was very much a holdover from the old world of conventions, where the biggest interaction that the consumer could expect with the creators were in ESA's formal presentation standard. Now we have social media routes, and official Youtube channels and Twitter threads and Steam blogs and personal online event shows, and everything that the industry needed to totally blow past E3 and appeal directly to the people who love their games. The success story of titles like Vampire Survivors, Valhiem and other E3 absent games are proof that the grass routes can sometimes be all that you need.

The ESA, on the otherhand, were mere weeks away from the event before they had to cancel it, meaning that the LA convention centre was already booked in their name and it probably cost exorbitant fees for cancellation. But probably not as much as they were set to lose after literally everyone bailed on them, including the company so pitifully bad with it's business decisions that they've gone full Crypto of late. (Never go full crypto.) Of course, this decentralisation of the 'show' format is going to have the knock on effect of further segmenting and isolating fandoms of certain companies- (I can never figure out when those Playstation events are happening until the night after) but the relative release of load on the brunt of the actual studios making these games is probably better for the health of everyone.

As a culture we had begun to get sick of all those times when a company with nothing to show for an upcoming title has been forced to scramble about and haphazardly stick something together that they know is going to be a disappointment but they have no choice because E3 is a deadline that cannot be moved. Show everyone a pretty CG cutscene that you hired an external studio to put together and hope that keeps the wolves at bay and busy whilst the real work goes on frantically behind the scenes. Or maybe even cut out some time from real development to work on a vertical slice that is going to be pulled apart and dissected by a public audience as though they're a gladiatorial retinue deciding the fate of the game. Along the way, maybe you'll do a Ubisoft and create a slice of game far beyond what you've already made and probably beyond what you're even capable of achieving on current hardware- still, you'll have won over the ravenous crowd for today; and that's good enough, right?

I already buried E3 in my heart back when it was delayed following Covid, because we all knew the direction it was going. When Microsoft and Sony pulled out of the 2023 event, it was without a batted eyelash that we all just accepted the news, because of course they did- who even knew it was still happening? It's honestly quite galling that the ESA waited for so long to pull the plug on every one else, as though Ubisoft were the only glue holding the event together. "Oh no, it can't possibly be a successful show without the obligatory too-long 'Just Dance' showcase that Ubisoft always pulls! Guess we're going to have to cancel it..." I don't feel sorry, and I don't like the ESA so I don't feel bad. I actually look forward to reading about E3 as the historical footnote is should have been 8-10 years ago. Good riddance.

E3 2033 is looking lonely...

 Looking like a short show this year...

The Electronic Entertainment Expo, I think, was a staple of the gaming world not all that long ago, even if it does feel like decades past to consider out loud. E3 was the one time in the year that every gamer rushed home early, busy-tailed and wide-eyed, eager to gaze in amazement at the latest spring-up-wonder cooked up in that ol' dream factory from LA! Wha- Hollywood? No, no- I'm talking the LA convention centre; where studios of all sizes battled each other with overly expensive bids to try and win a tiny booth in a packed warehouse which was always inevitably dominated by the prevailing three: Nintendo, Microsoft and PlayStation. The holy trinity of gaming. Other faces would come and go, rise and fall, but the three titan pillars of our industry proved to all staunch foundations upon which this industry event stood. As such, you can probably imagine how the ground must have fallen out from under the new E3 organisers for 2023 when all those three big boys refused to provide a presence for the upcoming year's showcase. (Ouch, rejection is never easy...)

For this year the unlucky runners of the E3 showcase are going to be veteran convention organisers 'ReedPop', known for their work in pulling off Star Wars Celebrations, PAX and New York Comic Con. All of that experience tells me that they're not going to exactly have their spirit broken simply because the big boys don't want to show up to their show, but I do wonder if ReedPop have weighed up exactly the size of the shoes they're stepping into. The ESA have been the whipping boys of online discourse surrounding industry marketing disaster events for the past few years for the way that they've handled trying to pull off E3. Every idea that the ESA tossed around just stunk of 'we don't know how to appeal to gamers' in their attempt to appeal to a more 'generalised demographic'. Although I will give the old E3 kudos for tricking Disney XD into airing E3 without realising that the event would be full of 15+ rated games that parents do not want their children to be watching on the big TV at home.

With ReedPop there's a hope that given their experienced familiarity with nerd culture and even with the various worlds of gaming specifically, we won't be seeing a bevy of out-of-touch organisers turning to desperate means in order to get attention. Such as seeking out celebrities to be hosts because of the Keanu Reeves moment during Cyberpunk's conference, which in turn totally misses the point of why that moment worked and how soundly that special moment would have been ruined with a resulting influx of unnecessary cameos. Although that may be something of a vain hope after all those bubbling rumours that some facet of ReedPop's management has caused an upset among potential attendees. Although there's no evidence to back it up so far, there's a possibility that Nintendo walked away because of ReedPops wanting conduct. Or maybe they just heard that Microsoft wasn't coming and didn't want to be alone. That's a very real possibility too.

Whatsmore, I can't help but wonder if the cultural need for E3 hasn't passed all of us by given the rise of Geoff Keighley's Game Awards which seems deadest on fulfilling the gap left by E3 within our culture. Long ago the community once came to E3 looking for the low down on their exciting upcoming games of the year, only to become increasingly frustrated as more and more companies started coming to E3 with nothing but CG trailers that could have just as easily made it onto their Youtube page without all the expensive and wasteful fanfare. Yes, E3 is a massive marketing machine, but it's a marketing event that should provide enough stage time to really give time to dive into the specifics of gameplay with back-up footage. Failing that, E3 is just a barrage of trailers totally undeserving of hosts or a physical stage at all. The Game Awards pulled that off better last year than E3 managed in it's past three events. The balance of power has shifted.

Now to be fair, this mass withdrawal of all the big studios out of the E3 lineup dpes not, as it might seem, come totally out of nowhere. PlayStation actually pulled out all the way back in 2019 in order to save all of their reveals and gameplay previews for their dedicated 'State of Play' showcase event which they've thrived using exclusively throughout their recent years. Nintendo has their special 'Direct' conference which always could have replaced their E3 slot, but until this year never actually had to. And with the recent Microsoft-Bethesda conference which recently managed to shadow drop a half priced game that has performed well enough to out-earn Forspoken in their shared release week, the big M have proven theirs is a formula worth sticking to as well. E3 is a time investment and a secondary deadline that has sat on the back of development studios for decades, being set free of that schedule is a godsend for many.

In their absence, the other studios who show up are going to have their chance to really step up and try to fill the perilous void. But given that each of those three big studios usually had entire days dedicated just to them and the games under their purview- the whole E3 event is inevitably going to feel smaller this time around no matter what happens. Square Enix have a lot going on, but they rarely know how to properly show it off. (Kingdom Hearts 4 footage would be appreciated, thanks bunches.) Embracer Group could really do with setting up some sort of presence given their unholy number of studios they've collected like some sort of 'Avengers' of developers; but they prefer to remain on the outskirts like anime supervillains. And I'd love for Gearbox to make a longer showcase so we can see Randy Pitchford steal even more time away from his own studio to show us his home videos of him visiting movie sets and whatever else catches his fancy. (Maybe he can have horse riding lessons and show us a montage of his progress- the possibilities are endless!)

The dominance of the AAA landscape of gaming lasted for so very long through the same means that Hollywood propagates it's most expensive projects. Marketing excess. But not only has the tight weave of marketing unravelled in recent years with the sleeper hits of Vampire Survivors and Valhiem domineering recent charts, the aforementioned Hi-Fi Rush beating out Forspoken is a perfect example that traditional marketing is no longer the sure route to riches it once was. Luck is a major factor, trust is just as strong but word of mouth is king. And word of mouth sounds so much better coming from the vocal cords of a human being rather than the bowels of a marketing machine. E3 might not be the catapult to success anymore, or at the very least it's not the only catapult; even if it might still be the most expensive.

When the ESA retired E3 it was amidst a whirlwind of bad vibes and sparked controversy, a storm that might have been weathered if they communicated themselves a bit clearer, but here we are. I think a lot of the really in-tune members of the gaming community were happy to let E3 sunset off and never bother a one of us again, such that most of us find this return a bit too little too late. Maybe if they got the big boys to come down and deliver a knock out E3 the community would reconsider, but with the line-up we're looking at I wouldn't be surprised if this year's E3 is a quickly forgotten footnote with little to show for itself. Maybe what the ESA are shooting for is that one last inglorious disappointment to let everyone know once and for all that what they have truly is irrelevant, and that the age of conventions is finally long past. 

E3 is dead.

F's in the chat

Corona claims it's next victim, and boy was he little more than a babe. Only 25 years old and the poor old Electronic Entertainment Expo has been put out to pasture. It's joined the big convention centre in the sky. It has shuffled off it's mortal coil. E3 is dead. Now, usually at such an announcement the protocol is to announce "___ is dead, Long live ___". It's a tradition that dates back to royalty to signify that whilst this individual is no more the royal succession continues on, but you'll notice that I have forgone that little addendum for a pointed purpose: I'm unsure if there will be another E3, let me explain why.

Over the past few days there a certain electricity that was running through the gaming news cycle as everybody with a source to their name was catching the coming shock-waves of something big. This is beyond the very public indications that all was not right in paradise, such as the ESA parting ways with the company they had bought aboard to help organise the event only a handful of months after announcing their partnership, and the bevy of studios announcing that they were going to pull out. Then there this little international incident known as the Corona outbreak which is so threatening to large gatherings of people that there's talk to cancel the Olympics. (Although if you're a Brit I'd imagine that the impending cancellation of the football season is more important. I wouldn't know, I'm no fan.) Corona already managed to cancel one potential gaming event and severely scale-down another, but the ESA still assured us that everything would still be full steam ahead despite the Coronavirus.

Well all that changed the day before yesterday when news started to flood out from the various companies who would be expected to attend and essentially make this event, apparently they received the news first. Now, I don't know who was technically the first to break the silence, as the official announcement was due for Wednesday, but the first message I saw was put out by Devolver Digital of all people, and some deep part of me really hopes they got the pleasure of breaking this one. Whoever said it first, the message rings just as true; 'E3 has been cancelled for the year' and now everyone can resort to breaking down and hyperventilating into bags like always. (Heck, E3 is literally the only event all year that I look forward to so I might as well go lay down in traffic.) Although to be fair I think the folk who are most distraught about this turn of events is the marketing companies who put all their chips into this yearly staple. So I guess that means Cyberpunk 2077's presentation is going to have to be a little more 'online' this year. (That's no biggie, though. It suits the aesthetic, afterall.)

But is this really the end of the world like us melodramatics are making it out as, or really for the best as it paints a precedent that we really should follow for the foreseeable future: a year with no E3? I'd imagine that if you happen to be part of Devolver Digital you've likely settled on the latter, as those folk have done little to hide their disdain of E3 over the years. Time after time again they've dedicated a portion of their E3 conferences to actively mocking the style of E3, the shape of the event or the AAA landscape in general, which is part of the reason that I hope they're just soaking up this development with glee. (They've said it's playful but there's only so many times that you can punch someone in the gut whilst holding a smile before it starts to feel a little mean-spirited.) Their grievances are transparent; E3 is outdated, too expensive and too limiting. (They've never publicly bashed the ESA for also being a little corrupt, but I'd imagine they're probably at odds with that too.)

Even before any of this there were big changes being forced upon E3 by outside forces, such as Sony pulling out of the event last year and this year, despite having several high profile titles that positively needed some dedicated advertising space. Then there is the pulling out of Geoff Keighley from the event, who left with a bevy of unsettlingly vague comments about the event which only inspired dubiety across his Twitter-sphere. Then there is the general distaste that was rising in the public's opinion of this E3 due to leaked details about how the ESA were planning to flood the event with celebrities and all manner of embarrassing show-piece events.

Of course, this doesn't mean that there won't be any event coming this June, and that is the reason why us gamers still have a reason to hold-off on the noose for a little bit longer. You see, whilst the ESA can't get their huge commission for selling overpriced halls to the E3 crowd, they still set a precedent for all major game marketing happening at once. (Which, now that I think about it, is ludicrously weird and competitive. How do they do it?) As such, plans are being drawn up for a digital version of E3 to be hosted and to be fair, even if that doesn't ultimately pan, it doesn't cost these companies much to buy a camera, some lights, a green screen and host their own show in the office. Nintendo have been doing it for years, Sony have started it, why shouldn't everyone get on this bandwagon?

The danger of this precedent, a least in the eyes of the E3 showrunners, is that the second these companies realise this, along with how much they've been wasting on renting showrooms all these years, E3 will suddenly become redundant. And part of me says; good, the sooner the better. Back when the AAA market used to stand for high quality games, it meant something important to see them all together at the same event; but now a great game can be made by anyone with the right drive and enough time on their hands, so why should be even bother with these theatrics anymore? If we think back to the most influential games of the last few years then you'd note that a good deal of them were indie titles that never had the benefit of an E3 showcase; Fnaf, (Say what you will about the games, they were influential) Undertale and DDLC are just a few off the top of my head.

So E3 is redundant and E3 is dead. Or to be more precise, E3 2020 is dead. Although I have a suspicion that this death may stick around. Perhaps I'm being a tad unfair and there is a future for E3 in a complete overhaul of their brand, I've said as much before and Geoff Keighley seems to want that very much according to his Tweets, but I think it's far too little too late now. Besides, I'm personally not much of a fan of any one company, especially the ESA, holding control over which high budget game gets seen and which doesn't. It's just like the old Philosopher Kanye said: "No one man should have all that power." (Okay, I'm getting a little off track, I should probably wrap this up.) With mixed feelings I bid adieu to the only tradition that I ever swore to, may something better rise from it's ashes.

Scapegoating and Games

Hey everyone, Look over there!

I really didn't want to write this blog. I wanted to ride it out and see where the chips fell before I threw in my two cents but the more I think about it the more I realize that this could be the catalyst for something terrible. I know I affirm that often in regards to the lootbox fiasco, but I believe that this time video games are going top be victim to a hell not of it's own creation, but of politicians'. Of course I'm talking about the recent assault on the concept of video games that has risen ever since the rash of shootings in America.

It takes little insight to see that there is something deeply wrong in America right now. The most recent mass shooting that occurred was the 32nd to happen this year and we've still have 4 months left until 2020. I am genuinely uncomfortable to look at the news every time that I see America in the headline, for fear of some new horrific event. Whenever this happens all the world can do is watch and wonder when it will happen again, and it's starting to feel like these attacks are inevitable at this point.

The worst part is, no one in power seems to have any idea how to prevent them from happening. Even the least rational individuals agree that these are likely the result of deep seeded mental health issues that need more than a weekend's worth of attention to rectify. They argue that serious steps need to be taken to prevent these attacks from happening, and it would certainly help if this steps where spearheaded from the highest office of the land. Unfortunately the American President and his cronies have a scapegoat in mind.

Clearly, as this topic in on my blog, you can see where this is going. Following the attacks in Texas and Ohio, several American political figures came out in order to veer the conversation as far away from 'gun control' as possible. Video games were one of the big targets caught in that misdirect. On August 5th President Donald Trump made an address in which he highlighted 'grisly and grusome' video games, saying that something 'must happen' towards their regulation and that 'it must happen immediately'. Since then he has proceeded to do nothing on the matter (of course), and has just sat back and watched twitter melt down after his comments.

The others have come out with statements just as asinine. House minority leader Kevin Mccarthy conducted a full stream consciousness during an interview inwhich he glided from topic to topic with all the grace of a drunkard on roller skates. One his many digression took aim at video games which he claimed "Dehumanized individuals (and others)". He also shared that he always held some worry about what problems these games may have on "Future generations (and others)", and cited unspecific, "Studies" that allegedly highlight "What it does to individuals (and others)". (Jeez, I don't who these 'others' are but they sound like they're gonna be in real trouble soon.)

Then there are the comments that irk me the most. It makes sense to me that trump would want to shift blame onto someone else, its what he's best at. And Kevin McCarthy wasn't so much specifically targeting games as much as he was vomiting out word soup and video games ended up in there somehow. Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, on the other hand, should feel something of an obligation to have some integrity regarding a tragedy that occurred in his base state. First off, there is the part where he calls this an "Evil act, and lets condemn it for what it is 'Evil'". (Nice bit of lip service in order to fabricate the illusion of a intensity. Politics talk 101.) Dan then asks: what's changed in America. "We've always had guns, we've always had evil, but what's changed in this rash of shooting?" Oh, well obviously it's the "Video game industry that teaches young people to kill." Dan also goes on to throw out that meaningless word "Studies", without indicating exactly which one of these mythical studies he is referring to. Truly an erudite intellectual of a man.

All of this echoes reactionary events that we have seen from these kinds of people before. Politicians have been rallying against video games for years, blaming them for all the world's ills. In this light, it is easy for the average gamer to roll their eyes and discount it all, just like I did. But something about this incident, likely the attention raised by the president himself, has this usually harmless rhetoric turning into actual action.

Wallmart, the most popular supermarket chain in America, had a knee jerk reaction in which they ordered all promotional material "promoting violence" to be immediately taken down, particularly those relating to "Movies, shows and games." (All this happened despite the fact that Wallmart still openly and happily sells guns and ammunition.) Then there was the time when ESPN pulled their main channel footage of an Apex Legend tournament. (The footage would still be viewable online and on their ancillary channels, so they clearly didn't care that much.) All of this is clearly just posturing for image reasons, but it sets a dangerous precedence of what will happen when, and at this point it feels like a matter of when, the next horrific shooting happens.

Video games already have a ludicrously big spotlight on them with the whole lootbox fiasco I mentioned earlier and in several other blogs. The government are looking to take a stance in actively censoring predatory practises because the obstinate idiots in the ESA refuse to self regulate the industry. In the past the ESA have come to the defence of video games in situations like these, stating actual studies and reasons why video games and violence have no direct correlation.

Recently, however, the ESA have been actively eroding their goodwill in the lobbyist-sector with these moronic defenses of a frankly in-defensible practise. Each time they make stupid excuse on behalf of gaming executives' greedy practises, the governmental bodies roll their eyes and start to see the ESA for the clowns they are. Soon they won't be able to defend us from the politicians call for regulation and then we'll all feel the blowback; publishers, developers and consumers.

I wish I had a happier note to end this on. I wish I could say; "At least we know this backlash won't lead to anything" or "Well when they're done attacking video games, the government will have to face the real causes of these tragedies.", but we all know that's not how the world works. The White House has already forgotten about this affair and the gaming industry is the one left holding the bag. All of these misfortunes; the lootbox scandal, GTA's casino and now receiving blame for mass shootings, all seem to be piling up on gaming at the same time and I don't know how much it can take.

Everyone wants to point their fingers at someone and claim that they're the problem, it's reductive and doesn't solve the problem but it keeps people happy. This is a cluster that is far more nuanced then anyone seems willing to treat it, including myself. I'm getting a headache just thinking about the litany of factors involved, so much so that I'm tempted to just give up and blame video games too. I don't know how this will all play out, but I have a feeling it won't be pretty for everyone's favourite pastime.