New E3 limits based on audience?

[MadScientist18]

Maybe this will just inspire small sites to go bigger and hustle more, IDK.

Kind of difficult if you're a small legit gaming site and can't get more than one pass the main trade show your site is based on.

[BurningStickMan]

Maybe this will just inspire small sites to go bigger and hustle more, IDK.

Which is another side of this. Is that even possible? Can smaller sites really "go big" these days if they just put more work and heart into it?

One the one hand, you have more opportunity now than ever before. Plenty of areas for exposure, like N4G. Direct lines to developers and publishers through Twitter. Direct interaction and access to fans through Facebook or forums. The cost of entry has never been cheaper, and the ability to share your articles and get them read has never been easier.

On the other hand, EVERYONE has the same opportunities you do now. There has never been so much noise in the games space. There has never been so much... maybe not "disrespect" for games journalism, but certainly a strong belief by many that "I can do just as good a job as them, if not better. What makes them so special?" And so many, many people throw their hat into the ring.

So, have the most popular games sites actually risen to the top based on their quality? Or is it more because people don't want to check out yet another Indie Game Site Y, so they go with one of the top 10 or 20 sites that have already been well-established in the field?

[mikeohara]

I think this only serves the big companies like IGN and Gamespot and crushes littler online publications such as the ones on the VGEVO network. I do not like this and quite frankly, I view it as a dick move.

[The1stMJC]

So many of these small sites just report the same old news you can get anywhere else. I feel if they provide original quality material they will get where they want eventually. So many people expect instant success and guess what all these major game sites started small and over time gained respect. Small sites just have to keep working and build over time and with the amount of exposure you can get now a days opportunities are there.

The standards E3 have set for their show seem fair to me, but than again I am not trying to go to E3 so it doesn't bother me as much as you guys.

[mikeohara]

The standards E3 have set for their show seem fair to me, but than again I am not trying to go to E3 so it doesn't bother me as much as you guys.

I agree with parts of the rule (six months online part primarily), but it still hurts smaller sites. Last year, I watched most of the pressers online and outside of a couple of games, I couldn't give two s**ts about anything. If anything, I relied on the PSNation daily recordings from E3 for the gist of my other information.

[MadScientist18]

So many of these small sites just report the same old news you can get anywhere else. I feel if they provide original quality material they will get where they want eventually. So many people expect instant success and guess what all these major game sites started small and over time gained respect. Small sites just have to keep working and build over time and with the amount of exposure you can get now a days opportunities are there.

The standards E3 have set for their show seem fair to me, but than again I am not trying to go to E3 so it doesn't bother me as much as you guys.

I'm not going to E3...but I know if our show wanted to it would suck that we all couldn't go. I'm sure our listeners would enjoy the E3 content, but because of these new standards they wouldn't get that content from us.

[DarkSideRob]

With so many s**tty big sites out there, I don't see why this really matters.

I get that Gamespot needs a 30 person team to get their job done. But is the convention center really so crowded that GameCrashers can't get three? I have to call bulls**t on that. I also don't give a beaver's teet how many sites are covering what. The whole thing that makes E3 worth it is that we or Indis, or Amped, or Expdel, or PSNATION get to talk about what we think about what's going on at E3 since we have a way of getting in. I consider going there a privilege and serious business. It's fun, but it's also work. Since we're there on the floor, people are looking to us to answer their questions. If they wanted that from Gamespot, then sure...go do that. But if I'm going to go to E3 and people want me to get info on this or that and I have to say, I can't because we don't have enough people to cover everything, even when I have people who want to go...does that make any f**king sense?

[BorisTI]

The smaller sites are typically closer to the voice of the people whereas the larger sites have greater commitment to the companies themselves (see Jeff Gerstmann's review of Kane and Lynch). By limiting the number of media from these smaller sites, E3 is basically saying that they're less interested in the perception of the games at the conference getting out as told by gamers as they are interested in the approved press release statements making the rounds.

[P*********1]

It's really sad to hear. I'm still amazed I was fortunate to go to E3 with the guys last year. It was a fantastic experience. Yeah, it got crowded at times, but that's to be expected. I don't get how all the credentials only snags 1 badge. Most well-run sites are a multi-manned team. To think only 1 person could cover all of E3 solo is downright stupid.

I'm glad at least that I was able to go and help out with the InDis video work before they started pandering to the big wigs (as usual). -_-

[Phillip_J_Fry]

There has to be a better way to do this. In our case, the podcast gets many times more downloads than the website gets hits - duh - we're a podcast. Groups like us are being judged by only a small fraction of our audience and that's where the real problem lies.

We had planned on taking the writers on our site this year in an effort to beef up coverage and break up the responsibilities allowing us to cover more overall. As it stands we're now scrambling just to get the 3 hosts there.