PAX is Packed. Results of E3’s Dying?

Some folks over at Kotaku ran into problems at the Penny Arcade Expo, it was packed with people and complications. Apparently the rooms are cramped with humans and bad acoustics, leaving some wondering what was going on at the Harmonix demonstration. Others sat in long lines, way ahead of time, to see games like Fallout but were turned away after a long wait.

It seems the lack of fans at E3 has caused people to go elsewhere, PAX for instance, to get their demo gaming fix. There is obviously a demand for this type of expo, if people could figure out how to balance the costs associated with holding such an event. Despite cramped space, long lands and epic disappointments being turned away, will people refuse to go next year?

Probably not. Perhaps they’ll expand to a bigger venue, eventually to be the new “E3” expo?

0 thoughts on “PAX is Packed. Results of E3’s Dying?”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Post

Episode 306: Batman ReturnsEpisode 306: Batman Returns

The crew bemoans the decline of handheld gaming as it gets dominated by mobile platforms like Apple iOS, while they rejoice at Justice League being available on Netflix Streaming. There’s no Gaming Flashback or Gaming History, but there is some Reader Feedback.

This week’s news items include:

  • Batman: Arkham Origins confirmed for PC, consoles
  • Domains for Mad Max videogames registered by Warner Bros.
  • Report: Xbox 720 not always online, doesn’t block used games, supports backwards compat
  • Jade Empire as an Xbox 360 launch title “would have been massive
  • Zeschuk: Old-school gaming in “sick market” right now, digital ‘not filling gaps’

Gamers can read Jordan’s “Death of Handheld Gaming” article here.

Developer Wants License Keys For Console GamesDeveloper Wants License Keys For Console Games

UK developer David Braben from Frontier Developments believes smaller development studios are in the worse position when it comes to re-sale of “pre-owned” video games. Since a developer only gets their cut of the profits when a game is sold new, pre-owned titles allow gamers to play games without paying the developer for the effort.

This also hurts larger publishers, but they’re able to recover because of the sheer volume of games and game titles. One idea David had, was to code each game with a unique license key like a PC game that gamers must enter before playing. This would kill the ability to re-sell video games back to the market for others to buy at a cheaper price (translation: better value).

The future shows a higher degree of downloadable games, which cannot be re-used or sold back to the market, but for now, developers have to deal with pre-owned video games cutting into their profit. Presumably you could have a great game with smaller sales and a high degree of resale in the pre-owned market.

Problem with this take on development? Besides large scale video game sellers like GameStop making 80% profit margins on resold games (rather than a 10-15% on new), gamers want a way to make back some of their money on expensive titles. When you’re paying $60 for a game and you beat it in a week or two, you want to resell it so you can invest in a future title.

My theory… make games more affordable so we don’t feel gouged on the price. We may decide to hold on to it longer and tell our friends about it. A good game reference and a reasonable price will increase sales every time. Don’t try to solve pre-owned problems when the problem is the publisher and the industry making huge game prices.

(Thanks, Kotaku)

Imagine a Free World of WarcraftImagine a Free World of Warcraft

Once upon a time the folks at Blizzard Entertainment thought they could support the entire world of World of Wacraft by ad revenue. This would have created an MMO experience which would cost you nothing but a bit of annoyance by ad providers; what would the total audience be if the game was free?

Had WoW launched free of charge they would probably have significantly more users playing the game, but the ad revenue from the sheer amount of people would be nothing compared to a monthly charge for eight million subscribers.

Although only a small number of those subscribers are US based, they’re still raking in the cash compared to an ad-based model, even if they were to have triple the subscribers.

However, the Blizzard exec noted: “We didn’t want to charge a subscription, but as we researched market conditions, we realized that wouldn’t support us.”

It’s possible, perhaps, that Blizzard would have fallen under its own weight had they created a world where anyone could play for no charge. Imagine the server utilization, the volume of traffic and the support calls they would get for triple or quadrupal the player base with only ads paying the checks.

Granted, a free system would be excellent in theory, but in practice, making us pay is the only way to throttle our addictions. Sad, but true.

(Thanks, gamasutra)