yeah, but the live conference is everything

Booths are only important to the very few people who actually attend the conference in person and the game journalists who want to write Hands-on articles. But for most people, E3 is all about those 3 big live conferences

And Nintendo is doing themselves a huge disservice by doing a low-key video presentation instead

I agree with Timesplitter14. I can see what Nintendo is going for with the Direct/Treehouse streams, but they're essentially preaching to the choir with that kind of PR since only their hardcore and dedicated fanbase will care to watch, which does little for broadening their audience and actually improving hardware sales. I think it's a fair assessment that shying away from the spotlight has only hurt WiiU sales.

I'd be overjoyed if EA announced new Burnout & SSX games, but it looks like the days of fun arcadey games are long behind them. It's a shame too, since a game like Burnout could really rejuvenate the ailing racing genre.

A good point. It's the games that make the show.

"need" is a strong word for it, imo.

"good to have it" would be a better way to describe it.

and sure, gamescom is in se germanland, paris week in .. paris.

most people dont rly care for it anymore. they either tune in to a livestream or vod or read about it online.

but opinions are opinions. if u think we Need them, then there ya go.

I think the industry needs them. The rank and file public not as much but our coverage is greatly limited via livestreams compared to what it was to say nothing of streams. Hands on previews Re very limited as well as we used to play big games months before release.

I get what you're saying. In person is always preferable with a hands on. Because there are those like myself that like to try before buying. That likes physical mostly over digital.

But having said that, I think it's more *your personal need* than a need for the industry itself. You need to be the middleman giving your point of view, possibly your own personal bias or subjectivity or objectivity to the equation. *We* as gamers don't actually NEED it. We can come to the same conclusions, positive or negative about a game as you can.

Companies like Sony or Nintendo used to sit back and watch others give their take on things that were negative to the message or had an agenda. Especially during the PS3 era of website bias, swag bags, advertising hand shakes, biased video, free laptops, etc.

Companies like Sony took the reigns and decided to let their base see for themselves what the games look like, than through the eyes of some journalists, bloggers and vloggers looking to cash in on click bait and advertising.

Delivering their message directly to the consumer killed a lot of that nonsense. You see the developers, you see the game, and in many cases, you can speak to these developers on discord than worrying about some article's take on something.

It's not that I want you to become obsolete. But for some, I'm glad it killed their business practices. Also, we live in an era where these games could be streamed directly to the consumers after the presentation from Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft that gives that hands on of a game. They just have to implement that technology and make it high quality without latency. And *WE* as gamers can speak to each other on a preferred media platform and give our opinions on the gameplay we just experienced. Many journalists have not been fully honest on games before release because they fear losing their backstage pass and free gifts. We would know just by playing if a game is something we want. Remote play is possible now without lines, without expensive trips, etc.

To close, Sony has sold mostly 50 million PS5 consoles, over 110 million PS4 consoles and Nintendo has sold over 120 million consoles without a journalist take. They delivered their message and it's still reaching the consumers they are targeting without spending the millions of dollars on in person setup at a venue

I get what you're saying. I lived through the whole era when E3 was created and watched. But I don't need it and never been to one. And really don't need a journalist to tell me what to like or dislike.

booking a flight and a hotel aint the same as going to the movies, but pop off i guess ha.

Streaming cannot replace the communal experience of event films.

Actually it does, for one it's cheaper eating my own snacks at home than over priced pi** take cinema prices. 2 it's About £150 to take the family to the cinema or £15 for a new cinema release and watch at home on my awesome 4k TV.
3 We can pause the film when needed, sit in the warmth of our home and have no di*kheads talking through the movie.
That's called using your brain, not being lazy or spoiled dude.