Industry Source Dishes on Why E3 Had to Die

Calling E3's sudden demise, "sad, really," a knowledgeable game industry source has spoken to GamePolitics about the cancellation of the show.

"The problem was systemic," said the source. "E3 grew from a retail buyer's show to an industry expo pretty rapidly... The situation started collapsing quickly. The third parties (publishers) started questioning the ever-expanding (cost)... I think EA has questioned the value proposition. They felt... with E3 it increasingly became about P.R."

So, how will the death of E3 affect the ESA? Doesn't the industry trade group derive significant operating revenue from E3?

"Huge. The most worrying aspect is legislative. (The legal) budget is already meager, compared with what they want and need."

With court battles over video game legislation showing no sign of going away, how will the ESA afford to fight?

"The alternative funding source will be drastically increased membership dues for publishers. Hence all of the conversations..."

So, given this clash of wills with the major publishers, is the ESA in any jeopardy as an entity?

"That's a really good question. I'm sure that the publishers see the value in ESA, but what the new economics are..."

Could ESA President Doug Lowenstein be falling out of favor with the publishers?

"I have heard those rumblings actually. He's been at the helm for 12 years now..."

That's a long run. GP heard after E3 2005 that there was some frustration among industry types over his keynote because he criticized some of the content that was causing the P.R. and legislative problems.

"Yea, I know more than a few feathers were ruffled, but I don't think it was major. Trade associations know that their execs have opinions and will occasionally do what's right for the organization as a whole at the expense of the few, and I think that's what happened there."