August 1, 2006 4:00 AM PDT

Why E3's shifting to a smaller playing field

Related Stories

E3 2006: Where games mean business

May 15, 2006

CES 2006: Gadget glitz in Vegas

January 9, 2006

Xbox 360 makes desert debut

November 20, 2005

Comdex skips another year

March 29, 2005

(continued from previous page)

And he added that trade show costs have been going up across the board even as the technology industry is still recovering from the dot-com bust. Still, he stressed that any downturn in the technology industry's trade show business is "modest."

"It's not doom and gloom," Schuldenfrei said.

"Expo" magazine editor Danica Tormohlen said that she's seen the beginnings of a trend toward smaller meetings, where movers and shakers are able to meet in more personalized settings.

"There has definitely been, in the last couple of years, more targeted personalized meetings," Tormohlen said, "either separate from the trade show or in conjunction with the trade show."

But she also said she doubts the era of the giant technology trade show is over, even for E3.

"There's still plenty of big shows," Tormohlen said, "and I don't think we're going to move away from that completely. And I wouldn't be surprised if E3 had some kind of trade show component that still had hype surrounding it."

Some major E3 exhibitors are already responding to the news.

"For the past 12 years, (SCEA) has participated in (E3) and has used it as an opportunity to communicate to the industry and consumers our vision for gaming and entertainment," said Sony Computer Entertainment of America spokesman Ryan Bowling. "As an ESA member, we support the board's decision to pursue other types of events that can better address the needs of our industry and further its growth."

Unfortunately, SCEA's Bowling said the company no longer has plans for its famous, annual E3 party, perhaps the biggest and glitziest of all E3-related events.

Industry experts agree that for the most part, it's a changing market, not red ink, behind much of the downsizing. Steve Hacker, president of the International Association for Exhibition Management, said the technology industry's trade shows, as a whole, have done "exceedingly" well for at least the last two years.

"Technology industry events are not going away, they are evolving," said Hacker. "Exhibitors may say, 'Costs are going up, but it's still a good return on our investment.' When they stop saying that, we've got a problem."

Previous page
Page 1 | 2

See more CNET content tagged:
trade show, computer networking, attendee, conference, game company


Join the conversation!
Add your comment
I guess its for the best
I always loved seeing all the video and photo of the craziness on the showroom floor. I guess if this is better for the smaller publishers to show off their wares than it is for the best.
Posted by chuchucuhi (233 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Like COMDEX before . . .
E3's owners can spin it anyway they want, but it's dead. I agree
with the points made over at about what's
gone on. It shows what's gone on in the industry, with game
sales down (how can their be an increase of 25% in game sales
with negative percentages in overall sales based on actual SKU/
UPC scans?) and people tired of either the "gaming is art" crowd
going nuts over Castlevania, anything by Capcom and SNK, and
Square Enix, and the collectors, and they who just want to kick
back and play a few rounds of something, but can't with every
game being a Second Life (pun intended). With the Big Dogs
leaving E3, I think the niche convention would suit just fine, or
perhaps all should return to CES, as in the old days.

Programmer #A-5 of
Posted by fakespam (239 comments )
Reply Link Flag
As Activation, DRM and WGA rise, Tech falls
It is not a coincidence that mass enthusiasm for "tech" has waned in recent years. It is clear that the underlying steam engine of COMDEX et al was the PC--the OS-copiable/sofware piratable Windows PC.

Why did the unlocked PC play such a role in creating an artificially big tech market in the first place? Because, it may reasonably be suggested, the unlocked PC essentially subsidized the whole tech market, given that the tech market that mattered was the tech market predicated on the PC as the center of most such products.

With the PC's easily piratable software and copiable OS operating as a subsidy to users, an otherwise incidental "tech" market became a major market--because PC owners often skipped paying for software and the OS, and could spend their money on gadgets instead--and again not coincidentally often gadgets tied to the their software/OS subsidized PCs.

And then came first MS OS Product Activation and MS software Product Activation, and then came Activation for many other PC apps from other firms, and now comes Windows Genuine Advantage [really for Microsoft's sole Advantage]. And as these developments have come forward, tech has been ratcheted down a notch with each new DRM innovation.

MS meanwhile earns more bucks, as the profits of tech are shifted back to Microsoft by DRM. And MS suffers no ratchet-back in income as Windows is force-sold with each new PC anyway. It is no surprise contextually that MS is planning a big bundling effort re the next version of Office, since this is how MS will avoid the DRM-induced tech sales hit on Office as well. But other software makers will be left out in the new tech DRM deep-freeze caused by computer users now forced to pay for their OS copies, and having less to spend on other "tech".

It used to be that tech stories on the tech news sites on the web had huge number of people participating in discussions. That mass discussions are now more rare also indicates that consumers, now that they must pay the real cost of tech, are choosing to spend money elsewhere, and the market will soon shrink way down to where it would have been were it not for the unlocked PC.
Posted by PolarUpgrade (103 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Are you saying that stealing Windows was ok? I dont mind MS wanting the activation - they just want to make sure I paid for it. Nothing wrong with a company doing that.

And, there are other choices out there. You can always get a Mac, get Linspire, installed Ubuntu, etc.
Posted by dewalt25 (57 comments )
Link Flag
CNET Sucks
E3 was a waste of time. You can't hear what the
<a class="jive-link-external" href="" target="_newWindow"></a>
marketing reps are trying to tell you, it's too crowded and nothing gets accomplished. I covered the E3 show 3 years ago and it's the worst trade show.
Posted by (156 comments )
Reply Link Flag brought me here ...
Found this article through the tech section of - has proved a good read.
Posted by JoeCrow (83 comments )
Reply Link Flag
There was no "dot com" bust
There was simply a culling of crap startups with no tangible product behind their fake business plans.

Apparently the technology world collapsed because a bunch of kids who'd managed to swindle millions out of idiots on Wall Street finally got made.

The reason the stock market collapsed was because of idiots in the financial world ignored sound financial planning, and decided the rules of the stock market magically didn't apply any more.

Product? Who needs that, this kid has a hum-dinger of a website, complete with flashy doohickies and sparkly twirly things. Quick, buy him out for 10 million before his "company" replaces Microsoft or IBM.

The only thing that went wrong was that idiots on the TV told their sheep-like viewers to dump all their money into technology stocks - but not with established leaders such as Cisco, Sun, Oracle, Microsoft, Apple or IBM, oh no, it's far better to put all your retirement eggs into that flashy website business that doesn't appear to do much except count the number of visitors and tell everyone how great it will be when they've produced water that cures cancer and boots that'll fly people to the moon.

Did they manage to take down legitimate businesses with them - sure they did, because naturally once the cancer curing water and the fly-me-to-the-moon boots failed to materialise, naturally that meant all technology was bad, and even real businesses lost their investors who failed to understand that you actually require a product, preferably an operating system, that people will actually buy, if you want to surplant Microsoft.
Posted by ajbright (447 comments )
Reply Link Flag

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot



RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.