5 ms·

Is this part of a trend? Companies are realizing it's cheaper and more effective to just announce things online. WWDC 2023 is once again streaming only. I imagi

by allenu 4y ago

Is this part of a trend? Companies are realizing it's cheaper and more effective to just announce things online. WWDC 2023 is once again streaming only. I imagine that is much easier for them to put on as you can just record and edit the talks in advance. Still, it's a shame if we have fewer of these big events. For those who've attended anything like them, it's quite fun to see things in person and socialize.

segasaturn 4y ago
Something to take into consideration is "the cringe factor". E3 is infamous(?) for live presentations that go very poorly with the audience. Honestly for some people it was the show's main draw, to see moments like "giant enemy crab" or the Konami 2010 event. Companies like Nintendo realized that prerecorded videos are much, much safer.
javchz 4y ago
I think the E3 made a lot of sense in the time when most game news were trough magazines... but now, official channels from developers and console makers have an enormous reach so they don't have pressure to follow an external calendar. But yeah, I will miss the E3, was like Christmas eve to get hyped up about future releases. I hope hardware focused expos like CES or computex survive these trend shift
- MBCook 4y ago
  Agreed. It was dying before Covid. Why should a company choose to make their announcements have to fight against every other announcement in the entire industry. That’s a great way for your story to be buried. If you hold your own event, it’s YOUR show. You can show what you want, when you want, your way. You don’t have to compete. You don’t have to pay someone else for the privilege. Aren’t some companies dropping out (or at least holding many announcements back) from CES as well? You no longer have to convince the press to cover you, you can reach your audience directly. For video games a trade show doesn’t make much sense.
  - jimbob45 4y ago
    If you hold your own event, it’s YOUR show. You can show what you want, when you want, your way. You don’t have to compete. You don’t have to pay someone else for the privilege. You say that as if BlizzCon hasn’t gone from competing with E3 to dead in less than five years.
    - javchz 4y ago
      I think here a more direct competitor to the E3 role would be the "Nintendo Direct" streams or Sony's State of Play. BlizzCon it's own can of worms, after the Diablo Immortal meme, and all the scandals, organizing that event has to be challenging. I don't envy that job.
      - MBCook 4y ago
        You’re free to hold your own event. Doesn’t mean people will care. Especially if you disappoint/annoy them multiple times.
papichulo2023 4y ago
Didnt most people watch the event on streams/videos anyways? I dont they are interested in those couple of thousands that assisted in person
- OJFord 4y ago
  I assume they want(ed) the hype & reaction though - just like recording a sitcom or chat show in front of a live audience, most people watching aren't there!
isk517 4y ago
Also, your not competing against every other publisher/developer for space in the news because everything is getting announced over a 3-4 day period.
madeofpalk 4y ago
I think it's less about announcing yourself online, but announcing yourself when and where you wanted to. The writing was on the wall when Apple pulled out of Macworld for their annual keynote in 2008. Why do these companies need someone elses stage to announce their products?
georgeecollins 4y ago
The truth is the opposite. I went to the first E3 the day before I began my first day at Activision. In those days it was the only game show in North America. You could walk in and say hi to the CEO. There weren’t a lot of ways to communicate about your products and your company. Who you really wanted to reach in those days was buyers for stores. The press barely existed. Since then it has gone through so many permutations. You started to care more about the press then the public. Then you started to be able to really promote games online. So is E3 failing because its more effective to promote online then at live events? No. In fact if you have a good budget to promote a game you are going to spend more of it on live events then you did in the old days. The why is complicated, but I would say the main reason is its harder to advertise online then it used to be, press has less influence and you need to have organic interest. So every big publisher has their own live event. And people spend a fortune on PAX, various ComiCons, etc. All of this stuff went online because of COVID but it is coming back bigger. The problem for E3 was that when it started it was the only game in town. Now the business is exponentially bigger and there are many events to choose from. If you have deep pockets or a loyal fan base you can your own event.
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  There is also that local cons are more available now and you can upload the presentations at those to reach people not in your area. International developers have a harder time of it since they need to travel long hours and sort out visas. And a lot of game dev is outside US. In general COVID kind of spurred rethinking of how much business travel is truly needed or desired.
- phatfish 4y ago
  It feels like for the consumer side game announcments and marketing have moved to the platform holders events, which are online streams. Nintendo Direct, Playstation "State of Play", the Xbox thing. If it's not a console game there is the publishers/developers own marketing or something like PAX or the Game Awards. I'm gussing the industry side is now at GDC.
marcellus23 4y ago
It's worth noting that, for the past 15 years or so, only a small fraction of Apple's developer community has been able to attend WWDC in person. These fortunate individuals won the lottery and could afford the time and cost of attending. While it was great for them, it was not so great for everyone else who missed out on the opportunity to network with other developers and talk to Apple engineers. Moving the event online makes it much fairer for everyone. Also, WWDC 2023 still includes an in-person event. The difference now is that attendees will no longer have exclusive access to labs and technical support.

by allenu 4y ago

segasaturn 4y ago

Something to take into consideration is "the cringe factor". E3 is infamous(?) for live presentations that go very poorly with the audience. Honestly for some people it was the show's main draw, to see moments like "giant enemy crab" or the Konami 2010 event. Companies like Nintendo realized that prerecorded videos are much, much safer.

javchz 4y ago

I think the E3 made a lot of sense in the time when most game news were trough magazines... but now, official channels from developers and console makers have an enormous reach so they don't have pressure to follow an external calendar. But yeah, I will miss the E3, was like Christmas eve to get hyped up about future releases. I hope hardware focused expos like CES or computex survive these trend shift

MBCook 4y ago
Agreed. It was dying before Covid. Why should a company choose to make their announcements have to fight against every other announcement in the entire industry. That’s a great way for your story to be buried. If you hold your own event, it’s YOUR show. You can show what you want, when you want, your way. You don’t have to compete. You don’t have to pay someone else for the privilege. Aren’t some companies dropping out (or at least holding many announcements back) from CES as well? You no longer have to convince the press to cover you, you can reach your audience directly. For video games a trade show doesn’t make much sense.
- jimbob45 4y ago
  If you hold your own event, it’s YOUR show. You can show what you want, when you want, your way. You don’t have to compete. You don’t have to pay someone else for the privilege. You say that as if BlizzCon hasn’t gone from competing with E3 to dead in less than five years.
  - javchz 4y ago
    I think here a more direct competitor to the E3 role would be the "Nintendo Direct" streams or Sony's State of Play. BlizzCon it's own can of worms, after the Diablo Immortal meme, and all the scandals, organizing that event has to be challenging. I don't envy that job.
    - MBCook 4y ago
      You’re free to hold your own event. Doesn’t mean people will care. Especially if you disappoint/annoy them multiple times.

papichulo2023 4y ago

Didnt most people watch the event on streams/videos anyways? I dont they are interested in those couple of thousands that assisted in person

OJFord 4y ago
I assume they want(ed) the hype & reaction though - just like recording a sitcom or chat show in front of a live audience, most people watching aren't there!

isk517 4y ago

Also, your not competing against every other publisher/developer for space in the news because everything is getting announced over a 3-4 day period.

madeofpalk 4y ago

I think it's less about announcing yourself online, but announcing yourself when and where you wanted to. The writing was on the wall when Apple pulled out of Macworld for their annual keynote in 2008. Why do these companies need someone elses stage to announce their products?

georgeecollins 4y ago

The truth is the opposite. I went to the first E3 the day before I began my first day at Activision. In those days it was the only game show in North America. You could walk in and say hi to the CEO. There weren’t a lot of ways to communicate about your products and your company. Who you really wanted to reach in those days was buyers for stores. The press barely existed. Since then it has gone through so many permutations. You started to care more about the press then the public. Then you started to be able to really promote games online. So is E3 failing because its more effective to promote online then at live events? No. In fact if you have a good budget to promote a game you are going to spend more of it on live events then you did in the old days. The why is complicated, but I would say the main reason is its harder to advertise online then it used to be, press has less influence and you need to have organic interest. So every big publisher has their own live event. And people spend a fortune on PAX, various ComiCons, etc. All of this stuff went online because of COVID but it is coming back bigger. The problem for E3 was that when it started it was the only game in town. Now the business is exponentially bigger and there are many events to choose from. If you have deep pockets or a loyal fan base you can your own event.

bobthepanda 4y ago
There is also that local cons are more available now and you can upload the presentations at those to reach people not in your area. International developers have a harder time of it since they need to travel long hours and sort out visas. And a lot of game dev is outside US. In general COVID kind of spurred rethinking of how much business travel is truly needed or desired.
phatfish 4y ago
It feels like for the consumer side game announcments and marketing have moved to the platform holders events, which are online streams. Nintendo Direct, Playstation "State of Play", the Xbox thing. If it's not a console game there is the publishers/developers own marketing or something like PAX or the Game Awards. I'm gussing the industry side is now at GDC.

marcellus23 4y ago

It's worth noting that, for the past 15 years or so, only a small fraction of Apple's developer community has been able to attend WWDC in person. These fortunate individuals won the lottery and could afford the time and cost of attending. While it was great for them, it was not so great for everyone else who missed out on the opportunity to network with other developers and talk to Apple engineers. Moving the event online makes it much fairer for everyone. Also, WWDC 2023 still includes an in-person event. The difference now is that attendees will no longer have exclusive access to labs and technical support.