Originally posted by jpnz I think most people understand that GW2 isn't good enough right now to be shown to the public so not sure why everyone is so defensive about it.
This comment would make sense if it hadn't already been playtested by the public at two previous gaming conventions, most notably PAX at the same time as the Charr race reveal
In the cut-throat gaming industry, not being in the news, is bad news.
Except they ARE in the news. They are in the news for NOT being there. Choosing to SNUB some event or organization is as much a form of publicity as attending one.
Whether the line about not attending E3 because it's a press/insider event rather then a fan event is actualy true or not it's also not a bad form of PR in and of itself....alot of gamers (i.e. people who they actualy want to sell GW2 to) aren't all thrilled about the industry press or other industry insiders in general.
Maybe they just dont want to visit every single convention/show because it would take too much time. Their reasoning about preferring to show their game to fans just makes picking where to go easier. Another possible reason could be their development progress. If a show happens to take place at a certain point in their development, they might actually have something new to show.
Do all the other developers visit all large conventions?
People, ANet also didn't show up on E3 last year but they did at the other conventions, it's a decision they made not to show up there and they're not the only game company who doesn't show up at E3 events anymore. It isn't THE must-be-there event for game companies anymore, it's just one of the many events.
As for the whole discussion going on in this thread, from what I quickly glanced of it, man, this whole e-peen discussions of 'my game is bigger and better than yours, na na na na' that you can find in threads like this (or other GW2 threads, or Rift or SWTOR threads for that matter), give it a rest Liking a game is ok, but when it pairs with feeling the need to bash other games that aren't the one you like, then it just becomes plain silly.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
I love how innovative Anet is at dynamically snubbing the press.
Thats pretty much what Im hearing here. Next.
How are you hearing that? No one is saying that. What does that even mean?
No, what people are saying is that they're thankful that ArenaNet is choosing to communicate directly with their fans instead of forcing their fans to go through a middle-man (the press). I would call a straw-man on this, but... that's not even necessary. It's ridiculous. You're hearing people say... what? Really? I'm a bit lost for words at that.
And moreover, it's even more ludicrous to act like it's a bad thing to snub the press, as in this day and age of damn near instant communication (you know, the Internet), the press is becoming obsolete, a group of everyday people who've never even considered being official press people can have as much presence as gaming journalists. Except the problem with E3 is that E3 lets onoe group in (the press) without the other, despite both groups having equal weight and presence here.
What you're not seeing is that due to that the E3 itself is becoming obsolete and needs to reinvent itself to be more like PAX if it's going to survive. As has been mentioned, other companies have been jumping ship off of E3, ArenaNet isn't the only one. Even Blizzard doesn't bother, Blizzard does their own convention instead, and other large developers like Rockstar just think that E3 isn't worth the time of day. What's happening here is that an even bigger problem is being underlined.
The E3 is a dying beast. It's a brave new world, and artifacts of the old world (like, for exampple, giiant record companies) either need to get with the program or be left behind or stampled underfoot by the march of progress. E3, itself, is a relic. If this wasn't true then you'd have all the big companies there. You're bound to be a fan of at least one of the developers bailing on E3, yeah? So surely you can see that. You must be able to see that. What ArenaNet are doing here isn't anything new or incredible, ArenaNet is just slightly ahead of the curve business-wise, along with Blizzard, Rockstar, and the others whom also are.
The thing is is that some companies are frugal enough to be able to smell a dying venture a while away. The E3, right now, isn't healthy. This year's E3 wasn't actually anything special (I was following it) and didn't have much in the way of new information. People have been describing it as one of the worst examples of the E3 show thus far. And I can understand why. I'd be willing to bet you real money that next year's E3 will see even more bailing developers, and the year after that will, too. And then the only option the E3 show will have will either be to change or die.
The press, itself, is becoming obsolete. The gaming press is no different to any other form of journalism. Newspapers are being phased out much like gaming magazines, in favour of the Internet and online devices. So a show that's only for the press can't have much of a life left to it. It just creates a pointless middle-man that people don't want to have to deal with. So ArenaNet not being at the E3 show--along with a lot of other big names not being there--underlines a problem with the E3 show itself.
When Blizzard put together Blizzcon, they decided to siidestep the presses so that they could get in touch with their fans, and provide fun things for their fans that they couldn't at shows like the E3. And currently gaming conventions are very, very popular. PAX, for one, being one of the most popular out there. ArenaNet/NCsoft could've created their own convention, but why bother? PAX is a perfectly good convention for them to show up at, so is GamesCon, and Comic-Con. All of these are conventions which sidestep the increasingly obsolete press.
Now, if you're a smart and modern sort of guy, you should be able to figure out the objectivity in what I'm saying, here. I'm not talking out of my arse or even subjectively, what I'm talking about here is objective fact. We've been watching the growing obsolescence of certain real world elemnets for a while now, all thanks to the Internet. Brick & Mortar stores for PC games? Dying or dead. Why bother when you can buy them online? Certain high street shops? Again, dying or dead if the Internet can provide. Non-local newspapers? Dying or dead. Gaming magazines? Dying or dead. (My personal favourite in the UK died a bit back, but it had suffered an unofficial death two years ago. It was sad watching it continue to flounder on until finally it was mercifully put down.)
Why is this happening? The Internet makes them irrelevant. They're not necessary any more.
And why have a trade show to show things to the press, which the press shows to the gamers, when you can just slap up a trailer on your own site, and then let your fans talk about it at your own conventions, or at conventions you visit? Again, this is all because of the Internet.
You might not like what I'm saying, but again, if you're a smart and modern sort of person you'll understand it.
I'm an old fart but even I know that sometimes you just have to get with the times.
And the E3 is either on its way out or will eventually be reinvented as a PAX- or GamesCom-like convention. When that happens I can likely see ArenaNet turning up again, because when that happens there will be fans there, and the press will be there too, but they'll just be this floundering, dying beast that everyone ignores. And that's the way things are.
Despite that. They're using this opportunity to get interviews done on the side. So they're still using this time period for some form of announcement.
Originally posted by Dream_Chaser Originally posted by Foomerang I love how innovative Anet is at dynamically snubbing the press. Thats pretty much what Im hearing here. Next.
How are you hearing that? No one is saying that. What does that even mean? No, what people are saying is that they're thankful that ArenaNet is choosing to communicate directly with their fans instead of forcing their fans to go through a middle-man (the press). I would call a straw-man on this, but... that's not even necessary. It's ridiculous. You're hearing people say... what? Really? I'm a bit lost for words at that. And moreover, it's even more ludicrous to act like it's a bad thing to snub the press, as in this day and age of damn near instant communication (you know, the Internet), the press is becoming obsolete, a group of everyday people who've never even considered being official press people can have as much presence as gaming journalists. Except the problem with E3 is that E3 lets onoe group in (the press) without the other, despite both groups having equal weight and presence here. What you're not seeing is that due to that the E3 itself is becoming obsolete and needs to reinvent itself to be more like PAX if it's going to survive. As has been mentioned, other companies have been jumping ship off of E3, ArenaNet isn't the only one. Even Blizzard doesn't bother, Blizzard does their own convention instead, and other large developers like Rockstar just think that E3 isn't worth the time of day. What's happening here is that an even bigger problem is being underlined. The E3 is a dying beast. It's a brave new world, and artifacts of the old world (like, for exampple, giiant record companies) either need to get with the program or be left behind or stampled underfoot by the march of progress. E3, itself, is a relic. If this wasn't true then you'd have all the big companies there. You're bound to be a fan of at least one of the developers bailing on E3, yeah? So surely you can see that. You must be able to see that. What ArenaNet are doing here isn't anything new or incredible, ArenaNet is just slightly ahead of the curve business-wise, along with Blizzard, Rockstar, and the others whom also are. The thing is is that some companies are frugal enough to be able to smell a dying venture a while away. The E3, right now, isn't healthy. This year's E3 wasn't actually anything special (I was following it) and didn't have much in the way of new information. People have been describing it as one of the worst examples of the E3 show thus far. And I can understand why. I'd be willing to bet you real money that next year's E3 will see even more bailing developers, and the year after that will, too. And then the only option the E3 show will have will either be to change or die. The press, itself, is becoming obsolete. The gaming press is no different to any other form of journalism. Newspapers are being phased out much like gaming magazines, in favour of the Internet and online devices. So a show that's only for the press can't have much of a life left to it. It just creates a pointless middle-man that people don't want to have to deal with. So ArenaNet not being at the E3 show--along with a lot of other big names not being there--underlines a problem with the E3 show itself. When Blizzard put together Blizzcon, they decided to siidestep the presses so that they could get in touch with their fans, and provide fun things for their fans that they couldn't at shows like the E3. And currently gaming conventions are very, very popular. PAX, for one, being one of the most popular out there. ArenaNet/NCsoft could've created their own convention, but why bother? PAX is a perfectly good convention for them to show up at, so is GamesCon, and Comic-Con. All of these are conventions which sidestep the increasingly obsolete press. Now, if you're a smart and modern sort of guy, you should be able to figure out the objectivity in what I'm saying, here. I'm not talking out of my arse or even subjectively, what I'm talking about here is objective fact. We've been watching the growing obsolescence of certain real world elemnets for a while now, all thanks to the Internet. Brick & Mortar stores for PC games? Dying or dead. Why bother when you can buy them online? Certain high street shops? Again, dying or dead if the Internet can provide. Non-local newspapers? Dying or dead. Gaming magazines? Dying or dead. (My personal favourite in the UK died a bit back, but it had suffered an unofficial death two years ago. It was sad watching it continue to flounder on until finally it was mercifully put down.) Why is this happening? The Internet makes them irrelevant. They're not necessary any more. And why have a trade show to show things to the press, which the press shows to the gamers, when you can just slap up a trailer on your own site, and then let your fans talk about it at your own conventions, or at conventions you visit? Again, this is all because of the Internet. You might not like what I'm saying, but again, if you're a smart and modern sort of person you'll understand it. I'm an old fart but even I know that sometimes you just have to get with the times. And the E3 is either on its way out or will eventually be reinvented as a PAX- or GamesCom-like convention. When that happens I can likely see ArenaNet turning up again, because when that happens there will be fans there, and the press will be there too, but they'll just be this floundering, dying beast that everyone ignores. And that's the way things are. Welcome to the future. Wow you took that way too literally heh.
I love how innovative Anet is at dynamically snubbing the press.
Thats pretty much what Im hearing here. Next.
Only ppl, I can see who can be realy pissed that Anet skipped press event are game journalists, are u one of them ? Bad luck :P Personaly couldnt care less, if they annouce things on some press event or on their web site.
I love how innovative Anet is at dynamically snubbing the press.
Thats pretty much what Im hearing here. Next.
Choosing not to go to 1 specific convention, which they havent attended in several years for several reasons.... is snubbing the press? People made up a lo tof the same crap abotu ANET not attending E3 last year, or things like Madeaux claiming they have nothing to show.... then about a week or 2 later they started releasing tons of information about the game that got everyone hyped about GW2 and have continued to do so since. Like others have said, they care about impressing their fans, not the suits. Fans dont go to E3, thats just one of the reasons why they dont go. To them, its a waste of time & money. They can get just a smuch publicity releasing the information themselves instead of doing it through E3.
Can't beleive this thread has gone this many pages.
Honestly, who really cares if they are E3 or not? It's already been said, but E3 has really lost it's luster the past few years. I have no idea why, I am not an industry analyst, but every year it seems a little less popular. Hell, I didn't even pay attention to really anything this week that dealt with E3. There was hardly any new info released except for some game trailers and a look at an ugly Nintendo controller. Wooptidoo.
Yeah, that's pretty much how I felt. It was largely a yawnfest. I mean, developers and publishers started to figure out that they could communicate directly with their users years ago, probably somewhere around '06 or '07, and that's when the death knell was sounded for games journalism (in every field other than entirely subjective features and reviews, which are handled just as well by blogs as by magazines) and the E3 show itself. E3 is a dinosaur.
All I got out of E3 was a bunch of trailers, some footage that made a game I was dubious about look worse, and adverts. Yep, that's entirely worthwhile, that is. But what, again, publishers and developers are realising is that if they just throw their trailers at the Internet - they spread. Youtube and various other video services help with this. And that way their stuff is seen by a far wider variety of people. E3 has always been about just canned footage, trailers, and adverts, but those are things that are better served by other avenues.
I can't believe that anyone puts any stock in E3 these days, either, but I imagine them to be somewhat decrepit too if they haven't realised the truths that I have. This is the age of the Internet, of a more free exchange of knowledge, ideas, and entertainment without barriers. What purpose does E3 serve? None, really. And that's why for the past few years E3 has been really memorable. Honestly, anyone could ask themselves whether there was anything that they'd take away from this E3 as something worth remembering, and they'd come up with nothing.
E3, itself, is just sort of floundering, like printed games journalism. A relic from a bygone age. And people wonder why some developers and publishers don't want anything to do with it.
entrepreneur; engineer; politician; sensation? welcome one and all to the era of information
We have the Internet now, anything that the Internet does better won't find a place in this world, and the Internet does better at many things. The Internet does the E3 better than the E3.
Originally posted by Dream_Chaser Yeah, that's pretty much how I felt. It was largely a yawnfest. I mean, developers and publishers started to figure out that they could communicate directly with their users years ago, probably somewhere around '06 or '07, and that's when the death knell was sounded for games journalism (in every field other than entirely subjective features and reviews, which are handled just as well by blogs as by magazines) and the E3 show itself. E3 is a dinosaur. All I got out of E3 was a bunch of trailers, some footage that made a game I was dubious about look worse, and adverts. Yep, that's entirely worthwhile, that is. But what, again, publishers and developers are realising is that if they just throw their trailers at the Internet - they spread. Youtube and various other video services help with this. And that way their stuff is seen by a far wider variety of people. E3 has always been about just canned footage, trailers, and adverts, but those are things that are better served by other avenues. I can't believe that anyone puts any stock in E3 these days, either, but I imagine them to be somewhat decrepit too if they haven't realised the truths that I have. This is the age of the Internet, of a more free exchange of knowledge, ideas, and entertainment without barriers. What purpose does E3 serve? None, really. And that's why for the past few years E3 has been really memorable. Honestly, anyone could ask themselves whether there was anything that they'd take away from this E3 as something worth remembering, and they'd come up with nothing. E3, itself, is just sort of floundering, like printed games journalism. A relic from a bygone age. And people wonder why some developers and publishers don't want anything to do with it. entrepreneur; engineer; politician; sensation? welcome one and all to the era of information We have the Internet now, anything that the Internet does better won't find a place in this world, and the Internet does better at many things. The Internet does the E3 better than the E3.
Agreed. Its been about ten years since E3 was any good.
Originally posted by Dream_Chaser Yeah, that's pretty much how I felt. It was largely a yawnfest. I mean, developers and publishers started to figure out that they could communicate directly with their users years ago, probably somewhere around '06 or '07, and that's when the death knell was sounded for games journalism (in every field other than entirely subjective features and reviews, which are handled just as well by blogs as by magazines) and the E3 show itself. E3 is a dinosaur. All I got out of E3 was a bunch of trailers, some footage that made a game I was dubious about look worse, and adverts. Yep, that's entirely worthwhile, that is. But what, again, publishers and developers are realising is that if they just throw their trailers at the Internet - they spread. Youtube and various other video services help with this. And that way their stuff is seen by a far wider variety of people. E3 has always been about just canned footage, trailers, and adverts, but those are things that are better served by other avenues. I can't believe that anyone puts any stock in E3 these days, either, but I imagine them to be somewhat decrepit too if they haven't realised the truths that I have. This is the age of the Internet, of a more free exchange of knowledge, ideas, and entertainment without barriers. What purpose does E3 serve? None, really. And that's why for the past few years E3 has been really memorable. Honestly, anyone could ask themselves whether there was anything that they'd take away from this E3 as something worth remembering, and they'd come up with nothing. E3, itself, is just sort of floundering, like printed games journalism. A relic from a bygone age. And people wonder why some developers and publishers don't want anything to do with it. entrepreneur; engineer; politician; sensation? welcome one and all to the era of information We have the Internet now, anything that the Internet does better won't find a place in this world, and the Internet does better at many things. The Internet does the E3 better than the E3.
Well, I see what you mean, however E3 has evolved... I was actually there this year (Just got home last night and Jet Lag is a nightmare)
Yes, lots of trailers, however a lot of what was shown on the main stage was actually being played by the developers and was actually ingame footage
The thing about E3 is it is also mainly the place the hardware companies show off tech, not just games. Nintendo unveiling the Wii U (WEEOOO ) was awesome, and yes, that new controller loos and feels as cool in your hand as it does on screen, its an awesome bit of tech
E3 was always really for the companies to come together and a lot of back room discussions happen between the games companies and hardware companies for who is gonna get what... Gamescon is the event for the games and the people who play them
but as a journalist myself? this was the best E3 for the last decade
Anything mentioned here can happen outside of E3, and via the Internet.
Anything that happened at E3 can happen better at cons, without restrictions (including hardware shows).
What jouranlists get to see isn't what gamers get to see. The prevailing feeling across a number of gaming sites is that this was the worst E3 thus far. What a journalist gets to see is irrelevant, as they're a tiny and increasingly obsolete minority. What the consumers themselves see is everything. If the consumers say that the E3 sucked, then it sucked.
Regarding back room deals, those shouldn't happen anyway unless it's public, but that's just my opinion. And if they must happen then you don't really needt he E3 for that. Either that or you could just turn the E3 into a corporate-only tradeshow, which is about the only use it would have.
The E3 is still a floundering, dying beast (much like journalism itself) versus the Internet. Anyone who's watched the decrease in saleable printed magazines, or stores that carry things that don't need personal interaction, knows this. You can't really do a clothes shop on the Internet, so those are still common, but where I live there isn't an entertainment store (of any kind) for miles now. There used to be stores that were dedicated to music, some for films (and rentals), and some for videogames. The only stores that still manage to exist are those that either handle rentals or trade-ins, and that's all they subsist on. The rest are all gone. All the stores that were dedicated to providing new entertainment are all gone.
That's the age of information - anything that's irrelevant gets brushed aside by the march of progress. And the E3 has been deemed irrelevant by many people, because the majority get nothing out of it. Unlike say PAX, or GamesCom, or other conventions. As a tradeshow alone E3 works, but that's the only way that it can work, and E3 has only three choices for a continued future.
Close their doors completely, and call it quits.
Become a tradeshow.
Open it all up to the public and make it a convention.
What some people aren't seeing is how irrelevant some things might be, or even how irrelevant they might be in this modern world of ours, which is an unpleasant truth but a truth nonetheless. The Wii U has been widely ridiculed, not respected, from all that I've seen. It's not got a good rep thus far. Why? People have only heard talking head journalists yammer about it, and they are not impressed. Now, if the Wii U had shown at a con, where actual gamers could get their hands on it, it might have been a different story.
As I've already pointed out, a number of developers, publishers, and engineers realise this. Whether it's hardware or software, it doesn't matter, you'll find that there are people jumping ship and going elsewhere. The amount of people signing up for E3 each year is less and less and this is a fact (do your research and you'll know this to be true as well). This is because they realise that without direct contact with their gamers, gamers are onlly going to feel a distant connection with whatever's on show, and there is going to be bitterness there.
Yes, it's cool for the journalists that go, but for the gamers, the consumers, and the people that actually matter, it's irrelevant. Look at the reaction to the trailers this year, I've been watching a whole lot of meh, myself. The reaction to the Wii U, as I said, has been utter ridicule, and this is because of that disconnect. It's great for the journalists, but it creates unrest in the consumers, people are becoming disenchanted and disenfranchised with the E3 and rightly so! Why should they be interested in the Wii U when no one they know has seen it first hand, and has only been touched by a bunch of talking heads who act as though they've been paid off to talk it up?
Yeah.
There's the problem. The Internet is about real people and the E3 discludes real people. That's why it's a dinosaur. If people were going to the E3 as consumers, to a consumer convention, then the E3 would be relevant to 2011. But if you look at the world today, in 2011, this brave new world of information that we're all a part of, then you begin to realise that many people are asking what the point of things like E3 is. Hence my conclusion, that E3 will either adapt and change itself or it'll die. It'll either become a tradeshow purely about hardware and deals, or it'll become a convention, or it'll just die off.
For years now PAX has been more popular with gamers and consumers, the people who matter, than E3 has been.
This is just the march of progress. Some things can't evolve and adapt to our new world, and they'll either have to stand aside, join the march, or be trampled. I know some people live in the past and that's very unfortunate for them, but you have to take into account the youngsters whom for them this will have been the only world they know, and all this freedom of information will be a natural part of them. A survey in '08 said that there were four babies being born every second, and this is the world for the young or those who can adapt.
The E3 was important... ten years ago. Before the Internet became a thing. But now the Internet is a thing. It's a big, great important thing that changes the lives of billions of people every day. And children are being born into the Internet. And if you were to ask someone who's familiar with all this information whether they saw any point to a show which handed information only to journalists, so that they'd have to get the information from them, they'd ask you why they can't just get the information from the source. And they'd be right.
ArenaNet puts their trailers up on their site. And we all get them straight from the source.
E3 is pointless for gamers because they weren't involved in the gameplay experiences the talking heads are yammering about, and they're left feeling disconnected by the experience, since it's not just everyday people who're visiting this thing.
E3 is pointless for trailers because developers and publishers have their own sites which can serve up trailers and will be around the Internet faster than any journalist could spread that news.
E3 is pointless for news, because anything that's released from an official source gets around anyway - talked about on Twitter, blogs, and gaming forums.
So, as I said, that means that the only real purpose for the E3 is to become a convention, a tradeshow, or to just give it up.
The funny thing is is that E3 has already reinvented itself once, but it reinvented itself the wrong way, and in the opinion of many gamers (and you can read about the opinions of this online, just do some web searches regarding the new approach of the E3 show) it was the wrong choice. E3 continues to make bad chioces and it continues to be irrelevant to the average gamer.
This thread is pointless because of this question: If the E3 is irrelevant to the vast majority of gamers, who're modern people with access to the Internet, then why on earth or by any valid and logical reasoning should ArenaNet be there?
Answer that question and the whole point of this thread becomes null.
In Summary: How dare you mortals questions anything that A-net does! Blaspheme! Unlcean! Unclean! Begone with you!
In Summary: madeux knows more about ANet and NCSoft and their motivations and inner workings than any meager ANet fanboi/gurl. Bow down to the superior and wholly unbiased shadow knowledge possessed by madeux!
E3 isn't about quality games anymore, it's about finding stupid people with lots of money to buy Disney's business pitch that 'She's So Raven' would make a "hip and popular game for cool kids".
And what is wrong with that? video games have always been more about kids and less about adults.
according to the esa, the average gamer is 37 years old.
Besides E3 being ridiculously expensive the only new thing we would have seen is dressed up E3 girls surrounding GW2.
Which isn't exactly a bad idea but ArenaNet has been great on releasing information and news on the game and will be attending the upcoming conventions that focus more on the players.
It's just my opinion but I think they are doing a kickass job on how they are handling things and releasing information.
Heh, I read Dream_chasers post and just had to laugh out loud... he just shows how little he knows about business...
His "opinion" about back room deals just shows this even more so
Nothing wrong with "back-room deals" but you don't really need to shell out for plane tickets, hotel tickets, promo-booths, convention tickets and most importantly DAYS of productive work for critical staff....when you could achieve the same result with some web-conferencing software, an internet connection and a couple hours blocked out on your Outlook Calendar.
Originally posted by GrumpyMel2 Originally posted by Lonesamurai1 Heh, I read Dream_chasers post and just had to laugh out loud... he just shows how little he knows about business... His "opinion" about back room deals just shows this even more so
Nothing wrong with "back-room deals" but you don't really need to shell out for plane tickets, hotel tickets, promo-booths, convention tickets and most importantly DAYS of productive work for critical staff....when you could achieve the same result with some web-conferencing software, an internet connection and a couple hours blocked out on your Outlook Calendar. Totally agree, except for one big thing...
the press is bought, not just by money, but also by fun and shiny things
I was hoping this thread would die an ignoble death.
Still, since it's back... nice to see that GrumpyMel actually caught what I was talking about, that there's absolutely no point to fly out to the E3 just to make backroom deals. Methinks the lonesamurai mght have reading comprehension issues, which is amusing since he's insulting the intelligence of others. But hey! What can you do? It's so hard to find good forum readers these days.
(Also, can't help but wonder if those going on the attack aren't just butthurt journalists. Bet'cha they are! Or at least heavily involved with the journalism industry. Self-important stick-in-the-muds. :P)
Originally posted by Dream_Chaser I was hoping this thread would die an ignoble death. Still, since it's back... nice to see that GrumpyMel actually caught what I was talking about, that there's absolutely no point to fly out to the E3 just to make backroom deals. Methinks the lonesamurai mght have reading comprehension issues, which is amusing since he's insulting the intelligence of others. But hey! What can you do? It's so hard to find good forum readers these days. (Also, can't help but wonder if those going on the attack aren't just butthurt journalists. Bet'cha they are! Or at least heavily involved with the journalism industry. Self-important stick-in-the-muds. :P)
oh I am definitely a butt hurt journalist... but I am a butthurt journalist that got to play a lot of cool new stuff before the public did last week while I was at E3
no, not having a go, the point, as I said is for the press to play stuff to preview it first, and then real people get to play them at later ones... its all previews anyway and ways to get free advertising
ok, lets say there was no press event like E3... press, like myself trying to do a job, which we get paid to do (well some of us, not all of us work for MMORPG or IGN) and trying to get to play the demo's and see the new tech, at the same time as muscling past joe public just wouldn't work
Comments
If you had typed 'press' instead of public I wouldn't have as much problem with what you said.
I love how innovative Anet is at dynamically snubbing the press.
Thats pretty much what Im hearing here. Next.
Except they ARE in the news. They are in the news for NOT being there. Choosing to SNUB some event or organization is as much a form of publicity as attending one.
Whether the line about not attending E3 because it's a press/insider event rather then a fan event is actualy true or not it's also not a bad form of PR in and of itself....alot of gamers (i.e. people who they actualy want to sell GW2 to) aren't all thrilled about the industry press or other industry insiders in general.
Maybe they just dont want to visit every single convention/show because it would take too much time. Their reasoning about preferring to show their game to fans just makes picking where to go easier. Another possible reason could be their development progress. If a show happens to take place at a certain point in their development, they might actually have something new to show.
Do all the other developers visit all large conventions?
? This thing again?
People, ANet also didn't show up on E3 last year but they did at the other conventions, it's a decision they made not to show up there and they're not the only game company who doesn't show up at E3 events anymore. It isn't THE must-be-there event for game companies anymore, it's just one of the many events.
As for the whole discussion going on in this thread, from what I quickly glanced of it, man, this whole e-peen discussions of 'my game is bigger and better than yours, na na na na' that you can find in threads like this (or other GW2 threads, or Rift or SWTOR threads for that matter), give it a rest
Liking a game is ok, but when it pairs with feeling the need to bash other games that aren't the one you like, then it just becomes plain silly.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
How are you hearing that? No one is saying that. What does that even mean?
No, what people are saying is that they're thankful that ArenaNet is choosing to communicate directly with their fans instead of forcing their fans to go through a middle-man (the press). I would call a straw-man on this, but... that's not even necessary. It's ridiculous. You're hearing people say... what? Really? I'm a bit lost for words at that.
And moreover, it's even more ludicrous to act like it's a bad thing to snub the press, as in this day and age of damn near instant communication (you know, the Internet), the press is becoming obsolete, a group of everyday people who've never even considered being official press people can have as much presence as gaming journalists. Except the problem with E3 is that E3 lets onoe group in (the press) without the other, despite both groups having equal weight and presence here.
What you're not seeing is that due to that the E3 itself is becoming obsolete and needs to reinvent itself to be more like PAX if it's going to survive. As has been mentioned, other companies have been jumping ship off of E3, ArenaNet isn't the only one. Even Blizzard doesn't bother, Blizzard does their own convention instead, and other large developers like Rockstar just think that E3 isn't worth the time of day. What's happening here is that an even bigger problem is being underlined.
The E3 is a dying beast. It's a brave new world, and artifacts of the old world (like, for exampple, giiant record companies) either need to get with the program or be left behind or stampled underfoot by the march of progress. E3, itself, is a relic. If this wasn't true then you'd have all the big companies there. You're bound to be a fan of at least one of the developers bailing on E3, yeah? So surely you can see that. You must be able to see that. What ArenaNet are doing here isn't anything new or incredible, ArenaNet is just slightly ahead of the curve business-wise, along with Blizzard, Rockstar, and the others whom also are.
The thing is is that some companies are frugal enough to be able to smell a dying venture a while away. The E3, right now, isn't healthy. This year's E3 wasn't actually anything special (I was following it) and didn't have much in the way of new information. People have been describing it as one of the worst examples of the E3 show thus far. And I can understand why. I'd be willing to bet you real money that next year's E3 will see even more bailing developers, and the year after that will, too. And then the only option the E3 show will have will either be to change or die.
The press, itself, is becoming obsolete. The gaming press is no different to any other form of journalism. Newspapers are being phased out much like gaming magazines, in favour of the Internet and online devices. So a show that's only for the press can't have much of a life left to it. It just creates a pointless middle-man that people don't want to have to deal with. So ArenaNet not being at the E3 show--along with a lot of other big names not being there--underlines a problem with the E3 show itself.
When Blizzard put together Blizzcon, they decided to siidestep the presses so that they could get in touch with their fans, and provide fun things for their fans that they couldn't at shows like the E3. And currently gaming conventions are very, very popular. PAX, for one, being one of the most popular out there. ArenaNet/NCsoft could've created their own convention, but why bother? PAX is a perfectly good convention for them to show up at, so is GamesCon, and Comic-Con. All of these are conventions which sidestep the increasingly obsolete press.
Now, if you're a smart and modern sort of guy, you should be able to figure out the objectivity in what I'm saying, here. I'm not talking out of my arse or even subjectively, what I'm talking about here is objective fact. We've been watching the growing obsolescence of certain real world elemnets for a while now, all thanks to the Internet. Brick & Mortar stores for PC games? Dying or dead. Why bother when you can buy them online? Certain high street shops? Again, dying or dead if the Internet can provide. Non-local newspapers? Dying or dead. Gaming magazines? Dying or dead. (My personal favourite in the UK died a bit back, but it had suffered an unofficial death two years ago. It was sad watching it continue to flounder on until finally it was mercifully put down.)
Why is this happening? The Internet makes them irrelevant. They're not necessary any more.
And why have a trade show to show things to the press, which the press shows to the gamers, when you can just slap up a trailer on your own site, and then let your fans talk about it at your own conventions, or at conventions you visit? Again, this is all because of the Internet.
You might not like what I'm saying, but again, if you're a smart and modern sort of person you'll understand it.
I'm an old fart but even I know that sometimes you just have to get with the times.
And the E3 is either on its way out or will eventually be reinvented as a PAX- or GamesCom-like convention. When that happens I can likely see ArenaNet turning up again, because when that happens there will be fans there, and the press will be there too, but they'll just be this floundering, dying beast that everyone ignores. And that's the way things are.
Welcome to the future.
Despite that. They're using this opportunity to get interviews done on the side. So they're still using this time period for some form of announcement.
http://www.gamerzines.com/mmo/previews/interview-guild-wars-2-pt1.html
http://tap-repeatedly.com/2011/06/10/exclusive-interview-arenanets-jon-peters-and-jonathan-sharp/
No, what people are saying is that they're thankful that ArenaNet is choosing to communicate directly with their fans instead of forcing their fans to go through a middle-man (the press). I would call a straw-man on this, but... that's not even necessary. It's ridiculous. You're hearing people say... what? Really? I'm a bit lost for words at that.
And moreover, it's even more ludicrous to act like it's a bad thing to snub the press, as in this day and age of damn near instant communication (you know, the Internet), the press is becoming obsolete, a group of everyday people who've never even considered being official press people can have as much presence as gaming journalists. Except the problem with E3 is that E3 lets onoe group in (the press) without the other, despite both groups having equal weight and presence here.
What you're not seeing is that due to that the E3 itself is becoming obsolete and needs to reinvent itself to be more like PAX if it's going to survive. As has been mentioned, other companies have been jumping ship off of E3, ArenaNet isn't the only one. Even Blizzard doesn't bother, Blizzard does their own convention instead, and other large developers like Rockstar just think that E3 isn't worth the time of day. What's happening here is that an even bigger problem is being underlined.
The E3 is a dying beast. It's a brave new world, and artifacts of the old world (like, for exampple, giiant record companies) either need to get with the program or be left behind or stampled underfoot by the march of progress. E3, itself, is a relic. If this wasn't true then you'd have all the big companies there. You're bound to be a fan of at least one of the developers bailing on E3, yeah? So surely you can see that. You must be able to see that. What ArenaNet are doing here isn't anything new or incredible, ArenaNet is just slightly ahead of the curve business-wise, along with Blizzard, Rockstar, and the others whom also are.
The thing is is that some companies are frugal enough to be able to smell a dying venture a while away. The E3, right now, isn't healthy. This year's E3 wasn't actually anything special (I was following it) and didn't have much in the way of new information. People have been describing it as one of the worst examples of the E3 show thus far. And I can understand why. I'd be willing to bet you real money that next year's E3 will see even more bailing developers, and the year after that will, too. And then the only option the E3 show will have will either be to change or die.
The press, itself, is becoming obsolete. The gaming press is no different to any other form of journalism. Newspapers are being phased out much like gaming magazines, in favour of the Internet and online devices. So a show that's only for the press can't have much of a life left to it. It just creates a pointless middle-man that people don't want to have to deal with. So ArenaNet not being at the E3 show--along with a lot of other big names not being there--underlines a problem with the E3 show itself.
When Blizzard put together Blizzcon, they decided to siidestep the presses so that they could get in touch with their fans, and provide fun things for their fans that they couldn't at shows like the E3. And currently gaming conventions are very, very popular. PAX, for one, being one of the most popular out there. ArenaNet/NCsoft could've created their own convention, but why bother? PAX is a perfectly good convention for them to show up at, so is GamesCon, and Comic-Con. All of these are conventions which sidestep the increasingly obsolete press.
Now, if you're a smart and modern sort of guy, you should be able to figure out the objectivity in what I'm saying, here. I'm not talking out of my arse or even subjectively, what I'm talking about here is objective fact. We've been watching the growing obsolescence of certain real world elemnets for a while now, all thanks to the Internet. Brick & Mortar stores for PC games? Dying or dead. Why bother when you can buy them online? Certain high street shops? Again, dying or dead if the Internet can provide. Non-local newspapers? Dying or dead. Gaming magazines? Dying or dead. (My personal favourite in the UK died a bit back, but it had suffered an unofficial death two years ago. It was sad watching it continue to flounder on until finally it was mercifully put down.)
Why is this happening? The Internet makes them irrelevant. They're not necessary any more.
And why have a trade show to show things to the press, which the press shows to the gamers, when you can just slap up a trailer on your own site, and then let your fans talk about it at your own conventions, or at conventions you visit? Again, this is all because of the Internet.
You might not like what I'm saying, but again, if you're a smart and modern sort of person you'll understand it.
I'm an old fart but even I know that sometimes you just have to get with the times.
And the E3 is either on its way out or will eventually be reinvented as a PAX- or GamesCom-like convention. When that happens I can likely see ArenaNet turning up again, because when that happens there will be fans there, and the press will be there too, but they'll just be this floundering, dying beast that everyone ignores. And that's the way things are.
Welcome to the future.
Wow you took that way too literally heh.
Only ppl, I can see who can be realy pissed that Anet skipped press event are game journalists, are u one of them ? Bad luck :P Personaly couldnt care less, if they annouce things on some press event or on their web site.
Choosing not to go to 1 specific convention, which they havent attended in several years for several reasons.... is snubbing the press? People made up a lo tof the same crap abotu ANET not attending E3 last year, or things like Madeaux claiming they have nothing to show.... then about a week or 2 later they started releasing tons of information about the game that got everyone hyped about GW2 and have continued to do so since. Like others have said, they care about impressing their fans, not the suits. Fans dont go to E3, thats just one of the reasons why they dont go. To them, its a waste of time & money. They can get just a smuch publicity releasing the information themselves instead of doing it through E3.
Can't beleive this thread has gone this many pages.
Honestly, who really cares if they are E3 or not? It's already been said, but E3 has really lost it's luster the past few years. I have no idea why, I am not an industry analyst, but every year it seems a little less popular. Hell, I didn't even pay attention to really anything this week that dealt with E3. There was hardly any new info released except for some game trailers and a look at an ugly Nintendo controller. Wooptidoo.
Yeah, that's pretty much how I felt. It was largely a yawnfest. I mean, developers and publishers started to figure out that they could communicate directly with their users years ago, probably somewhere around '06 or '07, and that's when the death knell was sounded for games journalism (in every field other than entirely subjective features and reviews, which are handled just as well by blogs as by magazines) and the E3 show itself. E3 is a dinosaur.
All I got out of E3 was a bunch of trailers, some footage that made a game I was dubious about look worse, and adverts. Yep, that's entirely worthwhile, that is. But what, again, publishers and developers are realising is that if they just throw their trailers at the Internet - they spread. Youtube and various other video services help with this. And that way their stuff is seen by a far wider variety of people. E3 has always been about just canned footage, trailers, and adverts, but those are things that are better served by other avenues.
I can't believe that anyone puts any stock in E3 these days, either, but I imagine them to be somewhat decrepit too if they haven't realised the truths that I have. This is the age of the Internet, of a more free exchange of knowledge, ideas, and entertainment without barriers. What purpose does E3 serve? None, really. And that's why for the past few years E3 has been really memorable. Honestly, anyone could ask themselves whether there was anything that they'd take away from this E3 as something worth remembering, and they'd come up with nothing.
E3, itself, is just sort of floundering, like printed games journalism. A relic from a bygone age. And people wonder why some developers and publishers don't want anything to do with it.
entrepreneur; engineer; politician; sensation? welcome one and all to the era of information
We have the Internet now, anything that the Internet does better won't find a place in this world, and the Internet does better at many things. The Internet does the E3 better than the E3.
Yes, lots of trailers, however a lot of what was shown on the main stage was actually being played by the developers and was actually ingame footage
The thing about E3 is it is also mainly the place the hardware companies show off tech, not just games. Nintendo unveiling the Wii U (WEEOOO
) was awesome, and yes, that new controller loos and feels as cool in your hand as it does on screen, its an awesome bit of tech
E3 was always really for the companies to come together and a lot of back room discussions happen between the games companies and hardware companies for who is gonna get what... Gamescon is the event for the games and the people who play them
but as a journalist myself? this was the best E3 for the last decade
I think my point was missed.
I'll elaborate.
Anything mentioned here can happen outside of E3, and via the Internet.
Anything that happened at E3 can happen better at cons, without restrictions (including hardware shows).
What jouranlists get to see isn't what gamers get to see. The prevailing feeling across a number of gaming sites is that this was the worst E3 thus far. What a journalist gets to see is irrelevant, as they're a tiny and increasingly obsolete minority. What the consumers themselves see is everything. If the consumers say that the E3 sucked, then it sucked.
Regarding back room deals, those shouldn't happen anyway unless it's public, but that's just my opinion. And if they must happen then you don't really needt he E3 for that. Either that or you could just turn the E3 into a corporate-only tradeshow, which is about the only use it would have.
The E3 is still a floundering, dying beast (much like journalism itself) versus the Internet. Anyone who's watched the decrease in saleable printed magazines, or stores that carry things that don't need personal interaction, knows this. You can't really do a clothes shop on the Internet, so those are still common, but where I live there isn't an entertainment store (of any kind) for miles now. There used to be stores that were dedicated to music, some for films (and rentals), and some for videogames. The only stores that still manage to exist are those that either handle rentals or trade-ins, and that's all they subsist on. The rest are all gone. All the stores that were dedicated to providing new entertainment are all gone.
That's the age of information - anything that's irrelevant gets brushed aside by the march of progress. And the E3 has been deemed irrelevant by many people, because the majority get nothing out of it. Unlike say PAX, or GamesCom, or other conventions. As a tradeshow alone E3 works, but that's the only way that it can work, and E3 has only three choices for a continued future.
Close their doors completely, and call it quits.
Become a tradeshow.
Open it all up to the public and make it a convention.
What some people aren't seeing is how irrelevant some things might be, or even how irrelevant they might be in this modern world of ours, which is an unpleasant truth but a truth nonetheless. The Wii U has been widely ridiculed, not respected, from all that I've seen. It's not got a good rep thus far. Why? People have only heard talking head journalists yammer about it, and they are not impressed. Now, if the Wii U had shown at a con, where actual gamers could get their hands on it, it might have been a different story.
As I've already pointed out, a number of developers, publishers, and engineers realise this. Whether it's hardware or software, it doesn't matter, you'll find that there are people jumping ship and going elsewhere. The amount of people signing up for E3 each year is less and less and this is a fact (do your research and you'll know this to be true as well). This is because they realise that without direct contact with their gamers, gamers are onlly going to feel a distant connection with whatever's on show, and there is going to be bitterness there.
Yes, it's cool for the journalists that go, but for the gamers, the consumers, and the people that actually matter, it's irrelevant. Look at the reaction to the trailers this year, I've been watching a whole lot of meh, myself. The reaction to the Wii U, as I said, has been utter ridicule, and this is because of that disconnect. It's great for the journalists, but it creates unrest in the consumers, people are becoming disenchanted and disenfranchised with the E3 and rightly so! Why should they be interested in the Wii U when no one they know has seen it first hand, and has only been touched by a bunch of talking heads who act as though they've been paid off to talk it up?
Yeah.
There's the problem. The Internet is about real people and the E3 discludes real people. That's why it's a dinosaur. If people were going to the E3 as consumers, to a consumer convention, then the E3 would be relevant to 2011. But if you look at the world today, in 2011, this brave new world of information that we're all a part of, then you begin to realise that many people are asking what the point of things like E3 is. Hence my conclusion, that E3 will either adapt and change itself or it'll die. It'll either become a tradeshow purely about hardware and deals, or it'll become a convention, or it'll just die off.
For years now PAX has been more popular with gamers and consumers, the people who matter, than E3 has been.
This is just the march of progress. Some things can't evolve and adapt to our new world, and they'll either have to stand aside, join the march, or be trampled. I know some people live in the past and that's very unfortunate for them, but you have to take into account the youngsters whom for them this will have been the only world they know, and all this freedom of information will be a natural part of them. A survey in '08 said that there were four babies being born every second, and this is the world for the young or those who can adapt.
The E3 was important... ten years ago. Before the Internet became a thing. But now the Internet is a thing. It's a big, great important thing that changes the lives of billions of people every day. And children are being born into the Internet. And if you were to ask someone who's familiar with all this information whether they saw any point to a show which handed information only to journalists, so that they'd have to get the information from them, they'd ask you why they can't just get the information from the source. And they'd be right.
ArenaNet puts their trailers up on their site. And we all get them straight from the source.
E3 is pointless for gamers because they weren't involved in the gameplay experiences the talking heads are yammering about, and they're left feeling disconnected by the experience, since it's not just everyday people who're visiting this thing.
E3 is pointless for trailers because developers and publishers have their own sites which can serve up trailers and will be around the Internet faster than any journalist could spread that news.
E3 is pointless for news, because anything that's released from an official source gets around anyway - talked about on Twitter, blogs, and gaming forums.
So, as I said, that means that the only real purpose for the E3 is to become a convention, a tradeshow, or to just give it up.
The funny thing is is that E3 has already reinvented itself once, but it reinvented itself the wrong way, and in the opinion of many gamers (and you can read about the opinions of this online, just do some web searches regarding the new approach of the E3 show) it was the wrong choice. E3 continues to make bad chioces and it continues to be irrelevant to the average gamer.
This thread is pointless because of this question: If the E3 is irrelevant to the vast majority of gamers, who're modern people with access to the Internet, then why on earth or by any valid and logical reasoning should ArenaNet be there?
Answer that question and the whole point of this thread becomes null.
/thread
In Summary: How dare you mortals questions anything that A-net does! Blaspheme! Unlcean! Unclean! Begone with you!
In Summary: madeux knows more about ANet and NCSoft and their motivations and inner workings than any meager ANet fanboi/gurl. Bow down to the superior and wholly unbiased shadow knowledge possessed by madeux!
Heh, I read Dream_chasers post and just had to laugh out loud... he just shows how little he knows about business...
His "opinion" about back room deals just shows this even more so
according to the esa, the average gamer is 37 years old.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20069682-17/a-childs-hobby-average-gamer-is-37-years-old/
data from the daedelus study at stanford from 2006 also backs this up.
Games i'm playing right now...
"In short, I thought NGE was a very bad idea" - Raph Koster talking about NGE on his blog at raphkoster.com
Besides E3 being ridiculously expensive the only new thing we would have seen is dressed up E3 girls surrounding GW2.
Which isn't exactly a bad idea but ArenaNet has been great on releasing information and news on the game and will be attending the upcoming conventions that focus more on the players.
It's just my opinion but I think they are doing a kickass job on how they are handling things and releasing information.
Nothing wrong with "back-room deals" but you don't really need to shell out for plane tickets, hotel tickets, promo-booths, convention tickets and most importantly DAYS of productive work for critical staff....when you could achieve the same result with some web-conferencing software, an internet connection and a couple hours blocked out on your Outlook Calendar.
Totally agree, except for one big thing...
the press is bought, not just by money, but also by fun and shiny things
I was hoping this thread would die an ignoble death.
Still, since it's back... nice to see that GrumpyMel actually caught what I was talking about, that there's absolutely no point to fly out to the E3 just to make backroom deals. Methinks the lonesamurai mght have reading comprehension issues, which is amusing since he's insulting the intelligence of others. But hey! What can you do? It's so hard to find good forum readers these days.
(Also, can't help but wonder if those going on the attack aren't just butthurt journalists. Bet'cha they are! Or at least heavily involved with the journalism industry. Self-important stick-in-the-muds. :P)
no, not having a go, the point, as I said is for the press to play stuff to preview it first, and then real people get to play them at later ones... its all previews anyway and ways to get free advertising
ok, lets say there was no press event like E3... press, like myself trying to do a job, which we get paid to do (well some of us, not all of us work for MMORPG or IGN) and trying to get to play the demo's and see the new tech, at the same time as muscling past joe public just wouldn't work