This week, Sony made a startling announcement: in addition to not having its’ usual “PlayStation” event at the end of 2018, it would not be attending the Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) in 2019. This would be the first time in the event’s 24-year history that Sony wouldn’t be present.
There are some reasons why this could be a good move, or at least, a necessary one. But as a developer, it makes me question how games are revealed to the mass public in the first place.
Let’s look at Sony’s individual case: The PlayStation 4 dominated the current generation of consoles when it launched in 2013, in part due to a compelling price point and a slew of promised games, some of which were announced nearly a decade prior. And its maintained that up to now: there are still fantastic AAA games coming out, with a strong 2018 and with early 2019 looking even stronger. Microsoft’s Xbox One suffered from initial confusion to its product, and even with its now highly competitive price and functions, lags behind the PS4 in popularity. The Nintendo Switch was a massive success for Nintendo, but debuted in 2017, so it’s still playing catch-up with the PS4, at 20 million units sold vs 80 million units as of 2018.
At E3, Sony consistently had great press conferences for the PS4… with maybe an exception in mid-2018. They tried something a little different, with a live show set between different venues, and live music performances quietly ushering in each new game reveal. It felt more like a piano recital by a firefly pond rather than a bombastic series of debuts. And while the games, both known and unknown, looked great, there was a greater focus on quality over quantity: only 4 games got major press time, and to this day, “The Last of Us 2” and “Death Stranding,” arguably the biggest exclusives they still have, STILL have no release window, even years after their first reveal.
Sony admitted its end-of-year “PlayStation Experience” event was canceled due to not much content being ready to show. I suspect this will be true even by June 2019. They might have some more gameplay clips of these same games, but still might not have a release window, and at this point gamers might already be frustrated. It’s likely there aren’t many new games that will be ready to reveal by 2019. And after Microsoft casually mentioned they are working on “future devices” at E3 2018, rumors are spreading that both companies are racing to put out a new console as early as 2020.
2020… I always thought this would be far too soon. The PlayStation released in 1994, the PlayStation 2 in 2000, the PlayStation 3 in 2006, and the PlayStation 4 in 2013… that’s a range of about 6-7 years, so I guess 2020 would fit the cycle. But there were major increases in processing, graphics cards and RAM with each generation. A 2020 console from either company might rely on hardware comparable to what exists today. Can you make a computer more powerful than a PS4? Sure, but at a larger expense, even years later. And the most powerful computers today might be able to run the same games with the same effects at 4K instead of 1080p… is that going to be the only benefit we see in a theoretical PS5 at this point?
Frankly, I would rather wait an extra 2-3 years beyond 2020 to see if a worthy console could be prepared. Most agree that whatever the next generation of consoles is, it will likely be the last. Even in the next generation (or if not, certainly in the one to follow), games will likely rely on streaming from a powerful server outside the house, making upgrades easy, maybe offering the full catalogue of games for a monthly subscription. I’ll miss physical media when it finally disappears, and the ability to promise myself to be able to play something decades into the future without fear of it being taken off a digital library store, but we all knew this was coming a long time ago.
But back to E3… even with nothing to show, is it wise to skip it altogether? Some rumors say E3 prices have simply gotten too expensive, and with Sony’s power, they could easily get the same amount of attention and live stream viewers without E3’s name or physical space. The biggest game conventions will charge a few thousand dollars for even the smallest booth (a possibly a lot more now, I haven’t tried to book one in almost 5 years). The cost might not seem like much for a medium-to-big developer, but it isn’t insignificant, and really, no indie developer should even attempt an event this size. And to book a full auditorium with reliable Internet streaming for an hour… I have no idea what Sony was paying.
But there is a benefit to E3. It’s become a tradition, like an unofficial holiday. I looked forward to skipping class or taking a day off from work to see the announcements, alongside millions of other dedicated fans. The pomp and circumstance genuinely makes it feel important when a new game or trailer is shown. It’s like watching the latest movie trailer for the next “Star Wars” or “Avengers” movie, except we know EXACTLY what hour it will appear publicly, allowing millions of fans to watch it at the same time in amazement. Even if the reveal is disappointing, the act itself is meaningful, like the joy of waking up on Christmas morning, regardless of what presents you actually received.
… and like most holidays, the excitement seems to have waned over generations. It’s the same as how Christmas is a fun but commercial time of year that no one takes seriously anymore, and even avoid mentioning by name due to political correctness. Every year, I hear fans complain about how the cinematic trailers show nothing about what the game is like, and how games revealed years ago get indefinitely delayed, or how reveals seem to lie about the quality of the final product. Exactly WHAT excites the average gamer has changed. I’ll always remember a recent E3 I watched with friends at a pizza-part:, I immediately wanted to talk about the cool gameplay trailer in the middle of a press conference for a story-driven adventure game, the kind that would excite most movie-goers. The others in the room? Less than an hour after seeing it, they couldn’t recall the trailer… all they thought was “that 20-minute multiplayer Call of Duty footage at the end looked kinda cool.”
That’s what gamers are now. “Multiplayer?” You only remember what was “at the end?” “Kinda cool?” Even most hardcore gamers have become casual and passive in their passion of the medium. Or perhaps, the “hardcore” audience never grew, with the only market growth coming from casual competitive players. This trend can be seen in Twitch, e-sports and watching live game sessions, as if we have become too lazy to pick up a controller ourselves. And when we do, we do so more as a way to pass the time and talk with online friends for a few hours, rather than actually appreciating what the game is providing. I never understood these trends, and I probably never will. I will always prefer to play a game that was crafted with purpose, rather than play a cheap mobile dungeon-crawler-template just because my friends are online.
Gaming has become less about entertainment, and more about just killing time until something important in our lives actually happens. This, and the fact that we now have tens of thousands of digital games each year at our fingertips, makes it medium seem like a meaningless pursuit. Like broadcast television used to be: sure, there might be a show or two you look forward to each week, but more often, you just watch whatever happens to be on that day, looking at the weekly “TV Guide” to list out what is on today at 8pm.
If E3 were to disappear entirely, most gamers would probably say “good riddance.” In its place, each major company might have completely separate and random online shows each year, scheduled a few weeks in advance when they think they have something cool to talk about. I think in this scenario, most gamers would pay no attention, not bothering to get updates on new press conference dates, and instead would get stuck in a rut playing the same multiplayer game until their computer crashes. In a market where hype is the only reason why consoles succeed when computers can work just as well, it could slowly spell the doom of the next generation, if it is like anything we’re familiar with.
And people like me, who look forward to E3 several months in advance… I would have one less thing to look forward to next year. The same new games would still be released as always, but I would quickly loose track, or loose interest.
There is importance in having a single, major event with a fixed, known time each year to bring all of these games together. If we can’t be excited about the event, then we can’t be excited about games. The same goes for the Academy Awards for films, or the Grammys for music, or Comic Con for the latest in pop culture reveals, or like Chess competitions to showcase the best of the best. We would merely be passive in our hobbies, like empty shells with no remaining passions to drive us. So the mass public doesn’t like these events? F*** them, they were never passionate to begin with, but it shouldn’t reduce the medium for the rest of us. And developers would have less reason to properly excite people about their games: without the drive to create well-edited trailers and feature reveals, even the biggest AAA games would seem no better than slightly-nicer-looking indie games. Is that really what we want?
Beyond just video games, I think we’ve been predicting exactly this change in humans even a decade ago. But to see it occur live in front of my eyes… it scares me.
