Sign on Options
Theme:
To Dark

Game companies controlling E3 invites

  • By Curt Feldman, GameSpot
  • Posted Nov 6, 2006 3:36 pm PT

ESA members to create attendee list, not the ESA itself. Want to attend? Write your local game publisher.

The plot thickened today in the continuing saga of the E3 Media and Business Summit, aka the new Electronic Entertainment Expo (not to be confused with the other "new E3").

ESA president Doug Lowenstein, speaking to GameSpot today, said unlike previous E3's where the E3 Expo division of the ESA managed attendance, this coming year the ESA will have a mostly hands-off policy.

"[The] ESA does not control invites," Lowenstein said. According to Lowenstein, his organization will be provided names from ESA members and use that as the basis for generating a list of invitees.

"[T]he point is for attendees to be the people participants want to see in one-on-one meetings...[but] that is not for me to say or influence."

Emphasizing the role ESA will play in the invitation process, he said it would be limited. "Again, we are not making any independent decisions, nor will we have our own private list other than names I feel important to see for ESA purposes," he said.

So exactly how does one get on the E3 list? Lowenstein had this bit of advice: "I'd go to ESA members and make your case." ESA members include most major game publishers, such as Electronic Arts and Activision, as well as the big three console makers--Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony. When the shrunken E3 Media and Business summit was announced earlier this year, many suspected pressure from cost-conscious ESA members as being the primary impetus for the downsizing.

63 Comments

  • chrisdojo

    Posted Nov 8, 2006 5:31 am GMT

    interesting. guess each company could invite fanboys to make their products look more popular than they really are.

  • Meskamo

    Posted Nov 8, 2006 1:02 am GMT

    like games companies are actually going to allow the general public into thier expo out of the goodness of thier hearts. most likely if anything we'll have to pay for the privilege

  • Felaipes

    Posted Nov 7, 2006 7:18 pm GMT

    8/

  • GenTaylor84

    Posted Nov 7, 2006 5:08 pm GMT

    man the esa are stupid and i loved the booth babes they should have been naked

  • -HCMF-

    Posted Nov 7, 2006 4:58 pm GMT

    dead

  • lagreendown

    Posted Nov 7, 2006 4:50 pm GMT

    E3 gone forever

  • OfficialBed

    Posted Nov 7, 2006 1:34 pm GMT

    sounds good to me

  • Doolum

    Posted Nov 7, 2006 1:26 pm GMT

    whatever it is i am no longer looking forward for next years E3.i used to like E3 as it were before now downsized,no thank you sir,i'll wait for TGS.

  • Rimsa_Laded

    Posted Nov 7, 2006 11:07 am GMT

    Better than the pornfests E3 used to be.

  • sieg6529

    Posted Nov 7, 2006 9:57 am GMT

    If turning E3 into a mostly corporate exhibition doesn't hurt the companies' profits, which is yet to be seen, then that's the way they're going to run the show from now on. Honestly, who needs to be the first gamer to glimpse the next installment of Mario, GTA, or Halo?

  • cjcr_alexandru

    Posted Nov 7, 2006 9:45 am GMT

    First line of the title: "Game companies controlling E3". True. Very true.

  • ocdog45

    Posted Nov 7, 2006 8:53 am GMT

    invite me!!!!!!

  • Supreme_Fantasy

    Posted Nov 7, 2006 8:47 am GMT

    How can E3 gone?...Now ESA is replacing E306. Whatever!

  • rudyHG

    Posted Nov 7, 2006 8:27 am GMT

    Gorrammit people, EA =/= the entire ESA. Are they a major part of the scene? Yes, but they are not the unquestioned lords and masters of all things digital.

    Frankly, we're not going to know a meaningful thing about the new E3 until July when it's over. Face it, this first year is going to be a huge experiment and complaining about things now is meaningless, since they're probably going to be changing things quite a bit during the next 3 years to find a working formula.

    I'm sorry you all didn't get to go before - it was a real memorable experience to be sure - but going all Nader with your "OMG EA is teh evil corparation that eats babies!!!!!shiftplusone" mantra just makes you look foolish. There is always going to be a need to excite fans with incomplete demos, grandiose spectacle, and half-naked women. It's just not going to be up to the ESA to do it anymore. And I don't blame them for not wanting that responsibility.

  • Conjuredevil

    Posted Nov 7, 2006 8:04 am GMT

    bye bye E3!!

  • FallenOneX

    Posted Nov 7, 2006 7:41 am GMT

    Uh, no again. The money came from every company that had a booth at E3. The rising costs came from trying to make each booth bigger and louder than the others. "Booth babes" cost money, as well as all the swag they handed out. It seems that it was easier to just start over from scratch than to actually make up some rules and put them into effect. Some developers brought up the point of how they'd have to halt work on a game mid-cycle just to make a demo for E3. This would be a great reason to change things, if the new E3 doesn't have any demos. But if they weren't going to have demos, why would they need an event to hold a few press conferences? Every company is perfectly capable of holding their own P.C.'s whenever the heck they feel like it during the year. Personally, while I would have loved to hve gone to the old E3, this new system is more business oriented and may do some good for the industry. But the idea of "E3" being held at various locations just sounds stupid. Holding the event at one large hotel with many conference rooms would work just fine. That way, everyone attending would already be where they needed to be. But that would make some sort of sense, wouldn't it?

  • LordAndrew

    Posted Nov 7, 2006 7:13 am GMT

    Maybe Mad Catz will let me in.

  • SwimPUNK

    Posted Nov 7, 2006 5:55 am GMT

    ...No. The money that was wasted in E3 came out of the pockets of the big companies, so it came a problem. Don't cry because you never got the chance to take picture with booth babes and wait in line for three hours just to play a game that is totally unpolished.

  • Blazer88

    Posted Nov 7, 2006 4:56 am GMT

    I see nothing good about the death of the E3. Some might say it was wasted money that they can now put into making better games but they are fools. Like any other business extra money goes into the pockets of the CEO's and such. Gaming becoming ever more business-like and corporate is not a good thing no matter how you look at it.

  • KingofTrolls

    Posted Nov 7, 2006 4:36 am GMT

    KIlling the real E3 is like killing a major advertising sceme. They don't realize how much publicity it got and thats where alot of sales came in. This is going to hurt developers for advertising and marketing new product.

  • cuitexcutei

    Posted Nov 7, 2006 3:56 am GMT

    Salute to E3 / ( - - )

  • evolutionex

    Posted Nov 7, 2006 3:48 am GMT

    RiP E3 :*(

  • MSG-Deathscythe

    Posted Nov 7, 2006 3:16 am GMT

    this is just bs. they are "modifying" e3 because they can't have their "meetings" due to the chaos on the show floor. why can't they just hold their meetings in a conference room or something and let the people who puts the money in their pockets have a grand time checking out the games that are on display? if esa loses this event to idc, gamepro or any other entity, i have no sympathy for them. how is this for sending invites: let gamespot send them to their members so the true gamers can all be there?

  • rikardo10

    Posted Nov 7, 2006 3:13 am GMT

    that sucks man, well at least its public once again,

  • West_Side_LOgic

    Posted Nov 7, 2006 2:21 am GMT

    E3 is dead. let the gaming developers wallow in their own delusional grandeur forgetting that gamers (consumers) are what got them their wealth in the first place.

  • sinceps1

    Posted Nov 7, 2006 12:23 am GMT

    by king link2:
    "but giving it all to these 5 companies means small companies will have 0 shot at getting any attention (if even invites)"

    I'm pretty sure that the invites are only for press and that companies will be able to go to the "E3 business summit" as they are calling it now. I think this might go either way but thats just my oppinion... Good or bad I guess we'll see in june next year.... (why is it in summer now?)

  • onelonehawk

    Posted Nov 6, 2006 11:49 pm GMT

    undox and dnzperson i do not agree with you people cuz E3 might have been for the people in the indutry in begining but till E3.06 it had become more than that and people like us (gamers) had a very good chance to get their hands on the upcoming content under one umbrella on which now only VIPs and game journalist whould get.

  • selbie

    Posted Nov 6, 2006 11:47 pm GMT

    Just make up a fake website and say your a journalist covering the event

  • Nosferatu220

    Posted Nov 6, 2006 10:09 pm GMT

    All because Sony and Microsoft threw a child's fit. What a bunch of wimps.

  • Glordit

    Posted Nov 6, 2006 9:33 pm GMT

    It was my Biggest Fantacy to go to E3 but now... its lost for ever... Oh well There is always X07' or TGS and a whole lot more right, but thell never be the same as E3.

  • Nawras

    Posted Nov 6, 2006 8:57 pm GMT

    Now we get even more biased news from the shows

  • Mam00th

    Posted Nov 6, 2006 8:50 pm GMT

    R.I.P. E3 :'(

  • Saije

    Posted Nov 6, 2006 8:14 pm GMT

    I think big companies far to often forget who "Made" this industry. It certainly wasn't giant corporations or your standard **** in man who thinks hes better then your common gamer cause hes IN the industry. It was gamers who made the gaming industry, me, you, any gamer. This is disgusting because E3 was for the gamers, it was for us, so we could see the new games, get a taste of where gaming is going. I never went to E3 so this will not have any impact on me personally but this is one step in the wrong direction for gaming, away from the audience who made it what it is today and toward the corporations who are going to ruin it if something isn't done to stop them. Im sick of the corporations dissing on the gamer, and thinking "They arn't part of the industry!"

    Newsflash. . . WE ARE THE INDUSTRY, without us your profits go nowhere so F*** off.

  • Xrm150

    Posted Nov 6, 2006 8:11 pm GMT

    who cares...thats was gamespot is here for. its a year around e3

  • kinglink2

    Posted Nov 6, 2006 8:03 pm GMT

    Perhaps you should read, EA is in control of invites with Activision and the systems. If you don't think EA is going to control the board you're mistaken. Nintendo is the only one who wouldn't give if EA jumps off a cliff, the other two would bend over and offer themselves to EA since they know that's money.

    Activision is big, but EA will control this like hell. ESA should have stepped up but giving it all to these 5 companies means small companies will have 0 shot at getting any attention (if even invites) and people who go against EA or Activision will not be invited at all.

    If E3 was dying before, this will throttle it. It'll be interesting for another couple years and then die.

  • dnzperson

    Posted Nov 6, 2006 7:50 pm GMT

    undox - I totally agree.

    urine72 - The expo is for people in the industry, not the gamers - but I think they should still let the press in on the invites list (which they probably will). Because there's nothing better than free advertising ;-)

  • Sabooya

    Posted Nov 6, 2006 7:47 pm GMT

    R.I.P. E3 06

  • mikethemonkey

    Posted Nov 6, 2006 7:46 pm GMT

    Who cares!?

  • Demon-Draco

    Posted Nov 6, 2006 7:46 pm GMT

    E3 matters not to me, another sad page in gaming history.

  • liljon546

    Posted Nov 6, 2006 7:40 pm GMT

    What about G4 and different video game websites, what do they do they report from E3? This is a bad move for gaming

  • undox

    Posted Nov 6, 2006 6:53 pm GMT

    It is understandable that they would want to control who can attend the new E3. If you ever gone any similar conventions like Digital Life, than you know why they need to control the guest list. If you want to play video game, there is always your local Toys 'R' Us or GameStop.

  • evilyoda861

    Posted Nov 6, 2006 6:37 pm GMT

    Never went or cared for it.

  • urine72

    Posted Nov 6, 2006 6:36 pm GMT

    Does this mean G4TV wont be able to due there annual coverage? I think these big shots are forgeting who these games are being made for.

  • halofreak3487

    Posted Nov 6, 2006 6:09 pm GMT

    |

  • Carl0009

    Posted Nov 6, 2006 5:50 pm GMT

    E3 is fading away...

  • AgileNate

    Posted Nov 6, 2006 5:43 pm GMT

    What about that Gamepro expo type thing that looked good. Stupid E3 forgot that the fans are the ones interested in games and now kicked them to the curb by not letting them see games for themselves. I hope that Gamepro expo makes E3 think of what they had.

  • brh51280

    Posted Nov 6, 2006 5:26 pm GMT

    kinglink2
    With EA at the helm can anyone be happy? I agree with everything but this is first sign that it's completely been destroyed.

    Hell have a site that slams EA or grades to harshly? You won't see this event.

    Learn to read: its the eSa not EA
    EA is a member of the ESA, but not at the helm dummy

  • chriskzoo

    Posted Nov 6, 2006 4:54 pm GMT

    For the industry, this is good news. E3 just became a sea of Gamestop employees and the like looking for free swag.

  • kinglink2

    Posted Nov 6, 2006 4:45 pm GMT

    With EA at the helm can anyone be happy? I agree with everything but this is first sign that it's completely been destroyed.

    Hell have a site that slams EA or grades to harshly? You won't see this event.

Subscribe to GameSpot's YouTube Channel

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!