No Right Answer: Jim Sterling Says E3 Isn't Worth It
- Thread starter Firefilm
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I have to admit I have a really hard time caring about E3 these days. I'm a student, I'm only going to play a handful of games a year anyway and most of the stuff I get really excited about comes in the form of trailers on youtube (see: Civilization Beyond Earth).
It's funny how opposite we are. As a student I had so much free time that I played virtually every major release title and even a few MMOs. Now that I'm in the workforce and require actual sleep I have less and less time for games, so the hands-on interviews that come out of E3 tell me so much more about games than the cool trailers that get thrown up. A large part of it is definitely more the fact that I'm starting a family (bachelor life always seems to involve about 500% games), but game time is starting to be an important resource I now have to manage.Pills_Here said:
I have to side with Dan in this particular discussion, even though I see Jim's point. While E3 may "bleed money", I still think that the gaming industry needs a big event with international "prestige" (don't know if that's the right word) to call its own.
And if the game studios really want to save money on something, well if you ask me I wouldn't mind it if developers focused less on visuals. Seriously, I don't get where the idea that cutting-edge graphics are needed for a game to sell well comes from when plenty of games that don't sport the most technically impressive visuals (e.g. Minecraft, Call of Duty, World of Warcraft) become really popular.
And if the game studios really want to save money on something, well if you ask me I wouldn't mind it if developers focused less on visuals. Seriously, I don't get where the idea that cutting-edge graphics are needed for a game to sell well comes from when plenty of games that don't sport the most technically impressive visuals (e.g. Minecraft, Call of Duty, World of Warcraft) become really popular.
Of course Jim won. He's Jim Sterling. To lose would be unthinkable
I disagree on the benefit of E3 for the consumers being that we can see the games. As Jim points out in his response, they kinda tend to lie and hide behind excuses.
I disagree on the benefit of E3 for the consumers being that we can see the games. As Jim points out in his response, they kinda tend to lie and hide behind excuses.
I think E3 has value for the press that Jim doesn't see because of the kind of critic he is: He's a critical one. He tends to take a more negative attitude and point out all the problems with a particular game or a movement in the industry. Just look at the titles of some of his recent Jimquisitions: An Industry of Pitiful Cowards, The Unholy Trinity of Blind Greedy Bastards, The Trap of Gamer Gratitude. I'm not saying that it's wrong to do so, or even that the points he is making aren't true, just that the 'bird's-eye view' of not going to E3 lets him be that critical.
The Escapist as a whole, by having people at E3, can have some people who are more willing to enjoy what's there, to offer hands-on looks that get people interested, and to cover things as they are shown and assess them there, rather than having the entire staff take a disengaged, aloof stance that works to kill excitement. One of the best things about video game journalism is that it is done almost exclusively by fans with no formal training, the kind of people who can give the audience an idea of why they got into games into the first place and some hope for the future, rather than an excessively critical stance.
The Escapist as a whole, by having people at E3, can have some people who are more willing to enjoy what's there, to offer hands-on looks that get people interested, and to cover things as they are shown and assess them there, rather than having the entire staff take a disengaged, aloof stance that works to kill excitement. One of the best things about video game journalism is that it is done almost exclusively by fans with no formal training, the kind of people who can give the audience an idea of why they got into games into the first place and some hope for the future, rather than an excessively critical stance.
Next episode: Is Jim Funnier than the other fat guy?
There's a need for marketing but there's a smart way to spend that money and there's a stupid way. At this point, most people who buy games don't know when e3 is or pay attention to any of the announcements. And many of the people who used to be interested in years past have grown jaded.
I'm not saying game companies shouldn't collectively try and sell us games that are a year away, all at the same time, but there are wiser ways to advertise.
There's a need for marketing but there's a smart way to spend that money and there's a stupid way. At this point, most people who buy games don't know when e3 is or pay attention to any of the announcements. And many of the people who used to be interested in years past have grown jaded.
I'm not saying game companies shouldn't collectively try and sell us games that are a year away, all at the same time, but there are wiser ways to advertise.
Honestly, I have to agree with Jim. I think E3 is a waste of time, money, and really only serves to benefit the companies with the most money. People talk about the industry needing something akin to the Oscar's, but even if we accept that as true, E3 isn't it. The Oscar's, while extremely boring, biased, and generally unwatchable, at least make the attempt to be a celebration of the best that happened in the preceding year.
E3 isn't a celebration of the best we've seen in the last 12 months. It's an attempt by the companies with the most money to dazzle people with promises of things to come, promises they frequently fail to live up to, all in the hope that if they throw enough money into wowing you, they will get you excited enough to spend your money before you even find out if the game is worth buying.
In an industry where these companies are already spending millions on advertising leading up to game releases, this is the worst kind of event we could have. It gives attention to those who can most afford to buy it anyway and will get plenty for free simply because they're established names, while ignoring the people who most need the publicity but will never be able to afford to set up a booth. And all so they can get their grubby mitts into your wallet before the game is even out and you realize what a terrible idea it was to buy it.
Instead of celebrating the best the industry has to offer and drawing attention to the games that deserve it, it celebrates the most dysfunctional aspects in an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of gamers. We don't need an event like E3. It is unequivocally one of the worst things the industry does every years. It wastes money, it misleads, and it takes attention away from the things that really deserve it.
We gamers deserve better than this.
E3 isn't a celebration of the best we've seen in the last 12 months. It's an attempt by the companies with the most money to dazzle people with promises of things to come, promises they frequently fail to live up to, all in the hope that if they throw enough money into wowing you, they will get you excited enough to spend your money before you even find out if the game is worth buying.
In an industry where these companies are already spending millions on advertising leading up to game releases, this is the worst kind of event we could have. It gives attention to those who can most afford to buy it anyway and will get plenty for free simply because they're established names, while ignoring the people who most need the publicity but will never be able to afford to set up a booth. And all so they can get their grubby mitts into your wallet before the game is even out and you realize what a terrible idea it was to buy it.
Instead of celebrating the best the industry has to offer and drawing attention to the games that deserve it, it celebrates the most dysfunctional aspects in an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of gamers. We don't need an event like E3. It is unequivocally one of the worst things the industry does every years. It wastes money, it misleads, and it takes attention away from the things that really deserve it.
We gamers deserve better than this.
It's kinda funny but game dev tycoon got the whole E3 thing right. It's a lot of money and a lot of buzz for your game, only if your going to release it very soon, As the months tick by into the next year the money spent at E3 was just a waste. Aside from that it's just there to sell consoles and video cards.
I stopped paying attention to E3 several years ago when they changed the format away from a Convention and towards a press event. Back when the average fan could go to such an event a lot of the frauds that were trying to pull the wool over our eyes would be exposed and hidden gems would be unveiled. Now since it's all press people they have to be a slight bit more careful about what they say to keep on good standings with publishers, since if they don't they won't get early release copies for review.
I think the comparison to the Oscars is dead on. It's just a bunch of insiders standing around patting themselves on the back while the press hover around in an attempt to convince the public of their own self importance. And just like the Oscars what sells big at the box office often doesn't match with what insiders themselves think is best.
I think the comparison to the Oscars is dead on. It's just a bunch of insiders standing around patting themselves on the back while the press hover around in an attempt to convince the public of their own self importance. And just like the Oscars what sells big at the box office often doesn't match with what insiders themselves think is best.
Its why I only really paid attention to the information about the games being released in the next four to five months, for unless the game is delayed I can't see major changes to the game so I have a better understanding of what I am getting into.Eve Charm said:
The cost of setting up an E3 booth is just the tip of the money-hemorrhaging iceberg. E3 and similar shows are an absolute plague on game development; the money and work-hours wasted on getting something presentation-ready (only for none of that work to ever wind up in the real game since it was meant to shore up an incomplete scene rather than be fully functional), or working around the exact wording of milestones rather than focusing on long-term efficiency and functionality has to be seen to be believed. The amount of a game's budget that doesn't actually wind up in the product because of media stunts like E3 is absolutely staggering and disgusting.
E3 for me is just a list of bullet points when it's all done of relevant information. It's convenient getting it all in one place regardless.
Great to see Jim cameo!
Great to see Jim cameo!
I like all of the big game reveals that typically happen during e3, but I know that I really shouldn?t get excited for unreleased games, so I guess my feelings regarding e3 are very neutral.
While I don't regularly watch this show, I had a feeling that Jim would make it a good episode and I was not disappointed. Well argued from both sides. I think Jim is right in the sense that E3 doesn't serve either the gaming public or the video game producing industry especially well. Still, I could definitely see a case for there being some industry-focused gaming convention where the big players go to trot out their cool stuff, so long as it was a bit more open and give-and-take than the one-way PR fest that is E3.
Could have done without the 'food' and 'sexual deviant' comments though. I'm sure they came from a place of genial teasing, but they came off as a bit mean, especially compared to Jim's very polite demeanor.
Could have done without the 'food' and 'sexual deviant' comments though. I'm sure they came from a place of genial teasing, but they came off as a bit mean, especially compared to Jim's very polite demeanor.
Some interesting points, and although Jim's presence made me watch the episode, the format still sucks.
The whole drinking/spit-take part at the end is especially annoying.
The whole drinking/spit-take part at the end is especially annoying.
I can't but agree. E3 is just a marketing splurge for the big publishers and the time when a bunch of trailers that, for the most part, doesn't represent the final product and is just there to build up speed for the hype train.Vivi22 said:
Also, Jim's first appearance was clearly just some early access/preview or beta, and not representative of the final product.
Therefor it was clearly beyond critique and that he didn't win doesn't count. Because now, after several patches, bugfixes and more time in development, he's the finished product of win... that we just saw win. Even if he suffered from a breaking bug that limits the time he can run before crashing on the nearest desktop or bed. But that might get patched out soon too, so we can't complain.
I need to stop now.
Edit: I'm pretty sure Jim can be unlocked run at 60 fps now too, even if that makes physics around him act strange, the world run at double speed and Jim load before his textures. But it's cool, because we still get Jim - at the full 60$ price - and a chance to buy the season pass for just 35$; featuring 4 new ties, That 1 hour adventure, and the Willem Dafoe Voice Pack.
Ok, now I'm really stopping before it sounds like I'm complaining about Jim, and not the state of too many games nowadays.
The drinking round was implemented to allow someone who was behind in points a "Hail Mary" option for pulling out a win at the end. I'm curious, because we're always open to improvement: What would you suggest to retain that option yet eliminate the drinking round?Alfador_VII said: