DailyTech - E3 Resurrected as GamePro Expo

Submit News

IT E3 Resurrected as GamePro Expo
Marcus Yam (Blog) - November 3, 2006 8:41 AM

E-mail

del.icio.us

30 comment(s) - last by Trisped.. on Nov 6 at 2:36 PM

But will there be booth babes?

With the Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) gone as the world knew it, left in its place was an enormous vacuum at the LA Convention Center just begging to be filled.

According to a memo sent out to LA Convention and Visitors Bureau members, magazine publisher and show organizer International Data Group (IDG) will be creating a new games show that should be similar to E3, except it will run in mid-October instead of mid-May.

"IDG has been secured to run the new GamePro Expo show, what we knew as E3," read the memo. Also written was that IDG will "use E3 as a guide" in designing and organizing the new trade show. GamePro magazine is an IDG property, which would explain the name tie-in.

GameSpot spoke with Michael Krouse, vice president of convention sales for the LA Convention and Visitors Bureau, to confirm the news.

"I am absolutely convinced this show will be as big as [the old] E3," Krouse said.

Much of staff who were responsible for E3 are now a part of IDG, which could make replicating the format of the past trade show a natural task.

The inaugural GamePro Expo is tentatively scheduled for October 18-20, 2007, at LA Convention Center.

The new E³ Media and Business Summit will be held July 11-13, 2007, in Santa Monica, California.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

interesting

By NotAok on 11/3/2006 10:10:50 AM , Rating: 3

So E3 was reduced in size because it was getting out of hand... Developers liked this idea because E3 was a very expensive event and would much rather have a small, focused group where they can just show off there game without blowing money on fancy setups and such. And now we have some other organization trying to re-create e3?

I wonder what the reactions to this will be. E3 isn't dead, it'll still happen and be just as important as ever. And then later in the year we always have Tokyo Game Show, microsoft conference, nintendo's, etc... We have enough really. I can't see developers jumping at the idea of yet another event.

RE: interesting

By KaiserCSS on 11/3/2006 10:15:30 AM , Rating: 2

That's exactly what I was just considering. Weren't the actual developers the ones concerned that E3 was becoming to glitzy and expensive, and that not enough actual business was getting done? I can't see why they'd change their minds and decide to support an E3 clone.

Parent

RE: interesting

By MrCoyote on 11/3/2006 10:19:14 AM , Rating: 1

This name change is really absurd! They think a name change will change everything? They could've kept the name and did a reorg. The new name, btw, is not professional at all. It sounds childish.

If the developers want to be taken seriously, get rid of the babes showing off the product. They are not needed and I find it distastful.

Parent

RE: interesting

By Spivonious on 11/3/2006 10:29:37 AM , Rating: 2

It's not a name change. It's a new event.

Parent

RE: interesting

By KaiserCSS on 11/3/2006 10:35:30 AM , Rating: 1

quote:
It's not a name change. It's a new event.

Hardly. They're trying to make it as close to the original E3 as possible. Even though it technically is a different event altogether, expect just about everything you saw in E3.

Minus the business end of the spectrum. They'll be busy in some fancy hotel snacking on caviar. Bleh.

Parent

RE: interesting

By dwalton on 11/3/2006 4:19:33 PM , Rating: 2

I guess trademarks don't exist in the US anymore.

Parent

RE: interesting

By Dactyl on 11/3/2006 7:27:02 PM , Rating: 3

If your only source of information about American law was DT forums, you'd think there was no such thing as Intellectual Property at all.

Parent

RE: interesting

By IceTron on 11/3/06, Rating: -1

RE: interesting

By boardstrapd on 11/3/06, Rating: 0

RE: interesting

By Dfere on 11/3/2006 3:18:49 PM , Rating: 1

And you, sir, are an ingorant right winger. I have a booth babe as a client and several gay AND lesbian friends (though admittedly, most lesbian friends I have are more bi-sexual and fairer, not butch.) They have varied opinions on this topic (and car babes), most leaning towards it being cool, though.

Why don't you stop representing your opinion as general knowledge? At least the prior idiot didn't push his opinion as fact.

Parent

RE: interesting

By boardstrapd on 11/3/2006 3:51:20 PM , Rating: 1

and you, madam, misunderstood me because i'm a leftie from california and have gay friends as well. you backed up my point exactly, that most gay people are more liberal leaning when it comes to sex... ok, maybe the less-fairer, butch (as you describe), might find booth babes distasteful... but seriouslly, chill out, dude!

Parent

RE: interesting

By ET on 11/3/2006 10:46:56 AM , Rating: 2

There were two parts for E3, two different relationships. One was between developers and publishers. The other between the publishers (and to an extent developers) and the media (and through it to gamers). A smaller E3 will allow the former to work out better, letting people get down to business without a lot of expense. The new show will cater to the latter. As I understand it from the limited info, it will allow not only the media in, but consumers, too.

So to me this division makes sense, though it'd still be interesting to see how it really pans out.

Parent

RE: interesting

By rushfan2006 on 11/3/2006 11:36:09 AM , Rating: 2

Thank you for your post ET...I was hoping someone was going to catch on because for a while there I was rolling my eyes at everyone's post, as they just weren't getting it.

The whole POINT of recreating the "new" E3-esque show IS NOT for the "serious business end summit" (what does everyone think the other show is for? LOL)...it is for the enthusiasts (consumers)...it is about having the glitz to drive excitement. Common logic here..you have a show that is a "fun" atmosphere drive consumer interest for your new products/games and the theory is more folks will buy your products/games.

I just can't help but to be stunned at how many people can't figure this out...its as obvious as daylight.

Parent

RE: interesting

By aGreenAgent on 11/3/2006 12:20:42 PM , Rating: 3

Not all people are familiar with the purposes of trade shows. At least I can finally get some business done at E3 now.

Parent

RE: interesting

By NotAok on 11/3/2006 2:16:45 PM , Rating: 2

uhhhh, i think most people got it just fine, no idea what you're talking about. What my point is (along with others) is that developers/publishers were happy with the reduction because it'll save them money. In reality now this new plan will end up costing them even more. Where before they could pay for travelling fees and such and accomplish everything at one event they'll now need to do it in two events.

Parent

RE: interesting

By ET on 11/3/2006 4:40:52 PM , Rating: 2

That's what I meant about seeing how this pans out. It things go well, then developers will be able to stick to E3. Publishers will need to attend both shows, but that's kind of the point of it, since publishers have to deal both with developers and consumers.

If it doesn't pan out right, then yes, there's a chance that GamePro will grow to become exactly what E3 was, which would indeed mean that developers will likely go to both. But even in this case, developers will not have to attend both shows to accomplish everything. It'd give them more opportunity at the expense of paying more. Unless of course E3 dies completely and is replaced by GamePro, in which case we're back to where we were.

Parent

RE: interesting

By rushfan2006 on 11/3/2006 4:41:53 PM , Rating: 2

Well honestly it doesn't seem like YOU understand just fine. If this (DT) is your only source to base your understanding though, I can't much blame you.

The whole story as I read in a gaming magazine when E3 was first announced as done with, reported the MAIN complaint the developers had was that the circus-like atmosphere that the E3 grew into. Also, they disdained that the reqs for getting it was very light (basically all you had to do was come up with a BS line about having your own gaming website and you could get tickets). They wanted a serious business only summit, where access was strictly for those who strictly there for the business at hand...even tighter restrictions on media was being applied...no more "Oh I run a gaming website, now give me tickets" stuff. And that is what the new Summit provides.

As far as this new event, from my understanding its being "sold" AS "glitz" and for the consumers like a regular trade expo generally is. That all said, developers/publishers KNOW (and this part is key to the whole point) that there are now two shows --- the business one and the "glitz" one...they therefore can budget for the show they want way in advance. As the article I read on the whole E3 thing was that they get the business done for the money they put out, but some publishers even said -- if there were another show specifically for the glitz that the first e3 was they might be interested.

So in summation, YES there is value in two shows. The companies mainly just wanted at least one show that was BUSINESS only so they could get stuff done..but many companies aren't adverse to the additional advertising and glitz a second show would bring.

Granted the article (in the magazine) did state that SOME publishers wouldn't pay for two shows...but it didn't say ALL.

Parent

RE: interesting

By rushfan2006 on 11/3/2006 4:45:27 PM , Rating: 2

EDIT:

"As the article I read on the whole E3 thing was that they get the business done for the money they put out,"

Should have read:

"As the article I read on the whole E3 thing was that they DID NOT get the business done for the money they put out,"

Parent

Gamepro magazine?

By Lazarus Dark on 11/3/2006 12:54:03 PM , Rating: 2

Ive been a Gamepro subscriber for like ten years or more. Are they involved? If not, surely they'll be suing these people for copyright infringement.

RE: Gamepro magazine?

By bmfw on 11/3/2006 1:01:54 PM , Rating: 2

"IDG has been secured to run the new GamePro Expo show, what we knew as E3," read the memo. Also written was that IDG will "use E3 as a guide" in designing and organizing the new trade show. GamePro magazine is an IDG property, which would explain the name tie-in.

there's your answer right there

Parent

RE: Gamepro magazine?

By Lazarus Dark on 11/4/2006 3:46:55 PM , Rating: 2

guess i should read the article better. I missed that line. thnx

Parent

-Way to generate "buzz" before the Holidays

By giantpandaman2 on 11/3/2006 12:22:12 PM , Rating: 2

Looks like the GamePro expo will be specifically for generating consumer buzz while the E3 Business Summit will be reserved for business deals. The way the dates are laid out the timing should be much better for the industry.

Honestly though, I'm not a big fan of the booth babes. It's cheesy and makes gamers look like a bunch of fools that have to go to a convention to get a glimpse of a woman. Meh, to each their own I guess.

RE: -Way to generate "buzz" before the Holidays

By vanka on 11/3/2006 8:12:56 PM , Rating: 2

For some this is the only way they can get within 10 feet of a girl that hot, so you can't really fault them.

Parent

On shows and events and such

By Targon on 11/3/2006 12:27:20 PM , Rating: 2

There are really two different sides to the old E3, and each one needs to be looked at.

One was the carnival atmosphere that made it FUN to go to the event. This same thing is what made Comdex so much fun to go to. People would go to these events to see the new titles and products, and in the process, the atmosphere itself made it enjoyable as well. The down side is that those running the shows kept increasing the costs to vendors, which made it harder and harder for vendors to justify the expense.

The other side was the private suites where companies would show their products behind closed doors with NDA agreements. These are the more serious business type meetings that were not open to the general public.

Now, more and more companies were getting their own private suites in the area of the show, so rather than paying the high prices demanded by those running the shows, they would just pay for a suite and save themselves some money. Note that AMD uses this to show products during IDF each year.

There is room for both types of shows in the market, but the problem is really that those running the shows charge too much money, and it is responsible for the death of Comdex.

Booth babes being a side issue really shouldn't be needed if a vendor has a product that by itself will draw the attention of those going to the show. It has always struck me as an odd thing where you can have some really amazing products out there, and people will come to see that product without needing anything beyond a large flat panel display to show off the product. Let's face it, if you put up a 52 inch panel and show the product on it, people WILL come.

So, don't be surprised that we see a "new event", because there really is a demand that those who "killed E3" have finally come to understand. Most companies out there that have a good game that is being worked on will generally invite members of the press to show off their product behind closed doors. There really isn't a need for an organized show if everything will be behind closed doors.

RE: On shows and events and such

By Trisped on 11/6/2006 2:36:11 PM , Rating: 2

In my own words:
E3 was suppose to be a industry show where people that work in computer gaming would get together and show off what they are doing to other people in the same industry.

What it turned into was a gamming carnival where people from all over the world would come to try out new games. As a result the show was turning into a crazy mess with every gamer trying to get in, and presenters spending thousands on their booth sound systems which annoyed other booth's (what company was that? Ubisoft or something?)

So now we have PAX which is really what gamers wanted, but needs a lot more space and more vendors with game demos and stuff. We have E3, which covers the business side of things, and we have IDG which is an attempt to remake E3. I don't have high hopes for IDG, as it sounds more like an expensive advertising campaign for game companies, just before Christmas. I think it should be in August or September, as we need time to decide we want the game, instead of seeing that it looks cool.

Parent

Great time to have it.

By dwalton on 11/3/2006 4:24:53 PM , Rating: 2

Never understood the need to promote games that still years out and during the slowest time of the year for the market.

Maybe, the OCT date will get more press tp games that will be release during the holiday season. It should be the easiest way to create hype right before the product drops.

RE: Great time to have it.

By bbomb on 11/3/2006 7:03:44 PM , Rating: 2

Thats what I was thinking. The new date is right before the holidays which to me would be the best time to hold such an event.

Parent

Can we get a bigger version of that picture?

By mikecel79 on 11/3/2006 10:33:19 AM , Rating: 2

Let's see the booth babes!

No no no

By PseudoKnight on 11/4/2006 4:24:45 AM , Rating: 2

This completely defeats the purpose of reducing E3, as others have mentioned. I hope this dies before long.

I missed E3 in its infancy

By Dfere on 11/3/06, Rating: 0

"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation