“relevant companies”

Complaining is of course inevitable when E3 is scaled down to facilitate only the “relevant companies” instead of 25,000+ horny teenagers. Ironically, while most game-related professionals pride themselves with games as “serious” and as being “art,” their annual convention so far seemed to revolve around less noble motivations. In my mind, it’s particularly the always-happy-to-get-free-stuff-crowd disguised as editors and journalists that are pissed that they’re either not invited at all, or, if they are, have to schlep around between different venues.

Sure enough, trade shows are about getting some free publicity. But do we really need another 3-day spectacle of demos that show us games that may come out whenever? If you want to talk about fluffy, strangely normative ideas for game design, you can always visit GDC and discuss at length what the industry should be, regardless of what it is.

And I’ll just say it straight out: most people on the production side of game design seem to still think they’re some kind of gift to the entertainment industry. After the institution of a ‘game cannon’ and a relentless series of serious games conventions, I’ve become skeptical about whether such goals are at all feasible. On more than one occasion I’ve heard proud designers go on about what glorious ideas they could realize, if only their company would hire more people, provide them with more resources, and more time. Obviously I want the world to be saved like everyone else, but avoiding the nuts and bolts of such a process is tantamount to being an armchair revolutionist. Rhetorically, instead of actively complaining about how things should be, why not just refuse to cooperate with a system with which you disagree? So, yes, I’m all for a convention that makes room for the people who actually make stuff and less so for the people that mostly talk about making stuff.

The icky term here is relevance. From a quote:

“It appears that all E3 has done is keep the big companies, weed out the up-and-comers and make the show less convenient for those attending.” [Darren Gladstone, senior editor at Games for Windows magazine]

“…it’s actually set up to accommodate a smaller group of more relevant game industry professionals” [Sean Kauppinen, vp at Kohnke Communications]

Considering it’s ‘invitation only,’ does that mean the big names get to decide who gets to come? So do they determine who is relevant? I’m not sure what to make of that, but I think it’s good to scale down the nonsense-factor. Just like every other entertainment industry, there’s a select group of companies that run 90% of the business (music, film, TV, etc.). So I don’t see why the games industry would be different. Considering the endless success of Madden’s football series, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of reason for EA to change its formula. If you don’t like exclusive events such as E3, then stop buying the games.