June 9, 2011
For those of you who are out of the loop on this tradition, after the conferences of the "Big Three" (Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo), every gaming new sources discusses and asks the public who "won" the conference. Who is the company who is better than the other two?
I say this whole premise is bull.
Now, I say that possibly deciding on my podcast later this week that someone has "won" the conference, but note that with all sincerity I know there is never an actual winner at E3. It's like Charlie Sheen winning--it means absolutely nothing. It's merely immediate impressions.
Why can't someone win? Because in reality there no actual competition of sales between the Big Three at the conference. Sure, they're competing to have some of the best advertising, but at the conference that's it. Who's got the better booths, presentations and business plans for investors? That's what's being decided. After the conference or outside the conference, where sales drive the growth of a company, that when a winner is decided. And nine times out of ten, that's determined months or even years down the line, when you see sales and how the electronic entertainment industry has changed. We can't figure out if there is going to be substantial success for Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo just yet.
That's not to discredit E3 entirely. It still is vital to the industry. It is a great way to excite the fan bases these heavyweights already have, and it's also an essential tool to keep investors interested in the products. Technology has to continuously evolve, and tech for entertainment has to show how these progressions are going to be fun. You can't just put a console on a toy shelf and put out some commercials to get sales. Especially with the new innovations like touch screens and new controller interfaces.
But no one wins E3. Yes, you can do better than your competition, but E3 will not decide whether your not you're the company to beat.