#1 Posted by MrSlapHappy (187 posts) -

Perhaps this is a well worn topic that has been posted and combined a bunch, so my apologies, I only did a quick look to see if anything was recent.

Why does it even matter who won or lost, its a trade show? I thought it was suppose to be a time for companies to pimp their wares and to sell to retailers not a competition for who can buy the most graphics.

As a bottom line single word comparison device I suppose I understand it, but the more coverage I listen and read about, the more it feels like that is the important take away from the show: Who won? I ask who cares? I watched the coverage and the trailers to find out what the next big thing is, not to tally scores and pick a winner.

Am I alone or just a sandy vagina that needs to just let things go?

#2 Posted by Bocam (3819 posts) -

Winning E3 = Who had the best Press Conference

#3 Posted by JasonR86 (9723 posts) -

Because the internet.

#4 Posted by PeasantAbuse (5138 posts) -

@MrSlapHappy said:

sandy vagina

how dare u

#5 Posted by TheHumanDove (2523 posts) -

Because everything has a win/lose scenario, especially when money/competition is involved. Even this very thread has either won or lost. Which is it? Only TIME WILL TELL!

#6 Posted by ThePickle (4165 posts) -

It could dictate how they do in until, well, next E3. It is pretty silly but I understand why it's a thing.

#7 Posted by BionicRadd (616 posts) -

because, you know, fanboy idiots

#8 Edited by Draxyle (1894 posts) -

It is very dumb, but at the same time it's kinda "important". These are all companies that are direct competitors of each other, and all are given press conference time within days or hours of each other. Of course it will turn into a competition of sorts for who had the "best showing". The one who did the best is the one people are more inclined to invest or throw money at in the following year.

Of course there's the journalistic part of this all that encourages the fervor for hits, but these companies should be fighting to be the best, and E3 is their stage to give it their all.

#9 Posted by MrSlapHappy (187 posts) -

@PeasantAbuse said:

@MrSlapHappy said:

sandy vagina

how dare u

Oh, I dared, but what of it?

#10 Edited by sissylion (675 posts) -

@MrSlapHappy said:

Oh, I dared, but what of it?

You're now banned from the Michigan legislature. HAHAHAH TOPICAL LOL

#11 Posted by Seedofpower (3949 posts) -

@MrSlapHappy said:

@PeasantAbuse said:

@MrSlapHappy said:

sandy vagina

how dare u

Oh, I dared, but what of it?

Nothing a good douche couldn't fix.

#12 Posted by spankingaddict (2734 posts) -

Who won "Best Coverage of E3 " should be a thing , lol ! IGN or Gamespot ?

#13 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

Mostly because fanboys latch on to their chosen console brand as a matter of internet pride and become angry at the drop of a hat if their exacting desires aren't met by companies that don't personally owe them anything.

#14 Posted by Jimbo (9978 posts) -

Because the companies involved are in direct competition with each other and the audience only has so many dollars to go around.

#15 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

Why is people insisting on speaking like staff members of this site a thing? 
 
Damn.

#16 Posted by C2C (859 posts) -

Thinking about this, I think the whole winning thing stems from people making comparisons between the press conferences. As long as those comparisons are being made, there will be publishers that exceeded expectations far better than others. "Winning E3" is basically the audience (game enthusiasts in this case) treating these comparisons like a game.

IMO there is nothing wrong with saying "X publisher won E3." The thing that does get rather annoying is fanboys that speak in nothing but in hyperbole.

#17 Posted by Fattony12000 (7558 posts) -
#18 Posted by KaneRobot (1823 posts) -

When/if we have a year that is actually full of exciting announcments and great looking games, you won't feel the need to ask this question so much.

This year...yeah, who cares.

#19 Edited by ShaggE (6690 posts) -

@Sooty said:

Why is people insisting on speaking like staff members of this site a thing? Damn.

"That's a thing" predates Alex. I've been saying it for years, myself. Not trying to hipster, it's just really common around where I live.

#20 Posted by Sooty (8082 posts) -
@ShaggE said:

@Sooty said:

Why is people insisting on speaking like staff members of this site a thing? Damn.

"That's a thing" predates Alex. I've been saying it for years, myself. Not trying to hipster, it's just really common around where I live.

Well I invented the piano key necktie. 
#21 Posted by ShaggE (6690 posts) -

@Sooty said:

@ShaggE said:

@Sooty said:

Why is people insisting on speaking like staff members of this site a thing? Damn.

"That's a thing" predates Alex. I've been saying it for years, myself. Not trying to hipster, it's just really common around where I live.

Well I invented the piano key necktie.

Then you are my hero, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

#22 Posted by YukoAsho (2122 posts) -

@MrSlapHappy said:

Perhaps this is a well worn topic that has been posted and combined a bunch, so my apologies, I only did a quick look to see if anything was recent.

Why does it even matter who won or lost, its a trade show? I thought it was suppose to be a time for companies to pimp their wares and to sell to retailers not a competition for who can buy the most graphics.

As a bottom line single word comparison device I suppose I understand it, but the more coverage I listen and read about, the more it feels like that is the important take away from the show: Who won? I ask who cares? I watched the coverage and the trailers to find out what the next big thing is, not to tally scores and pick a winner.

Am I alone or just a sandy vagina that needs to just let things go?

You're not alone.

I find the concept of "winning" a goddamned press event to be hilarious. They're showing off what they have on offer, not trying to slit each-other's throats.

Part of it is certainly fanboy idiocy, and that's something that will never, ever go away, but a large part of it also stems from the idea that the gaming population is some sort of monolithic hive mind that will only give money to one company or another.

In reality, it's entirely possible to survive - even thrive - without being the absolute top dog. And that's where the "who won?" argument is lost on me. Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft aren't in some mythical sprint to a finish line - they're running businesses, and are more concerned with their bottom line than with some idiots on some website grading them like it's high school. It's entirely possible to have 63 million units sold instead of 67 and still make a shit-ton of money, and until people grow up and understand that, this "debate" isn't going away.

#23 Posted by TheHT (11765 posts) -

The spectacle is fun. Comparing the spectacles is also fun. The competition itself isn't very meaningful (unlike specific E3 accolades which are less spectacle and more serious, somewhat).

If you don't like it, that's fine. You don't have to play.

#24 Posted by Floppypants (798 posts) -

We're gamers. Making judgements along the lines of winners and losers is practically second nature.

#25 Posted by QuistisTrepe (628 posts) -

E3 is as overrated as the concept of "winning at E3." Hardly anyone will care about this stuff in six months. Remember when Nintendo supposedly owned E3 back in 2010 with the 3DS while Microsoft was mocked for its Kinect presentation? We all know how that turned out a year later.

#26 Posted by TooWalrus (13256 posts) -

@Bocam said:

Winning E3 = Who had the best Press Conference

Yep. That's all the phrase means. If, for whatever reason, I miss E3 next year, and I hear about how Nintendo 'won' E3, that's probably the press conference I'd be most excited to watch. It's really nothing worth getting worked up over.

Online
#27 Posted by BBAlpert (1579 posts) -

@ShaggE: Yeah, I've been hearing it more and more over the past 3-5 years.

#28 Posted by S0ndor (2716 posts) -

Companies are competitive by nature. Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, they are never not competing with eachother.

#29 Posted by iAmJohn (6134 posts) -

Because fanboys.

#30 Posted by s10129107 (1207 posts) -

Because the big 3 compete for market share. A bad E3 in a new technology year can mean the success of one company and the death of another.

#31 Posted by Ravenlight (8011 posts) -

@Anwar said:

The point was to find out how long it would take you to ask this question. Now there won't be an E3 ever again, thanks a lot MrSlapHappy.

Thank god. Now maybe publishers can get back to, y'know, publishing games instead of wasting millions renting out the Staples Center.

#32 Posted by ProfessorEss (7505 posts) -

I understand the concept of "winning" or "losing" E3. 
I just don't understand how most people base it purely on the company's main press conference. 

#33 Posted by jakob187 (21755 posts) -

*response based solely on title of thread*

Because America, goddammit.

#34 Posted by drag (1206 posts) -

a) no-one thinks it actually matters, b) when lots of people are doing the same kind of thing in the same place (i.e. a press conference) it's natural for others to consider who did it 'best'.

#35 Posted by fox01313 (5089 posts) -

Not sure if this even applies any more outside of the diehard fans.

#36 Posted by InfiniteGeass (2058 posts) -

Yo man I thin the real winners of E3 are the gamers! Am I right or am I right?

#37 Posted by RHYMESCHEME23 (64 posts) -

No matter where you go, everything will be a popularity contest. Best to deal with it or ignore it.

#38 Posted by MrSlapHappy (187 posts) -

@C2C:

Well said good sir!

#39 Posted by Mirked (8 posts) -

@Fattony12000: Are we really to the point where we will watch videos of chat rooms?

#40 Posted by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -

You know why! 

Idiots and them making up dumb phrases!  
Didn't even really know that "Winning E3" was a thing untill 2011 even when I've been following E3 for a very long time. 

#41 Posted by EXTomar (4940 posts) -

I have always viewed E3 as a reflection of the questionable things in video games so asking "Who did the best?" isn't praise but is a criticism.

#42 Edited by TheSlothKing (333 posts) -

Because the gaming press are a bunch of children and want page views on their website.

#43 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@ShaggE said:

@Sooty said:

Why is people insisting on speaking like staff members of this site a thing? Damn.

"That's a thing" predates Alex. I've been saying it for years, myself. Not trying to hipster, it's just really common around where I live.

To be fair, plenty of people say it because of Alex and for no reason beyond that. But yeah, generally speaking people don't have "original" things they say. It's actually fascinating to see how your language changes based on who you talk to. You pick up other people's ways pretty quickly especially at a young age, and often you rub off on others. Doesn't surprise me in the slightest that people think it's just an Alex thing, but a bit of thinking and you'll realize that there are bound to be people who say that a lot just like he does. Hell even Ryan says it a bit.

Also I think it's fair to say someone had a better showing than anyone else at E3. Maybe "win" and "lose" are the wrong words, but if you're going to apply those it's probably Ubisoft winning and Nintendo handily losing. And you thought Microsoft barely showed any games, and was boring as shit!

Like it or not, some folks showed better at E3, some worse. There's nothing wrong with considering them doing better as an indication of cool things coming from them in the next year or so, nor if they do poorly to be worried that they won't have much coming for them. Unsurprisingly the name of the game this year is going to be third party games. Microsoft in particular is waiting to launch new stuffs until the next generation, because they know that it's the easiest way to boost a franchise to hugeness. Just look at Oblivion. It never would have become as huge as it is, nor would Fallout have, had they not been in a fairly limited library early at launch, thus encouraging people who normally wouldn't buy it to jump on board.

It's a bit silly to say anyone "won" E3 because it is a predominately floor focused show, with things the average streamer doesn't get to touch or often even see except for in snippets. But "had the best press conference" is what people generally seem to mean, and that seems totally legitimate.

#44 Posted by JustPlainLucas (31 posts) -

The more interesting subject to me is who had the worst E3, and that was clearly MS. I swear, they're losing touch of gamers at a phenomenal rate. SmartGlass? Really?!