I can do without the concept of winning E3 and the fans and press members that push it. I understand the purpose in terms of driving  clicks and such but I've always wondered why if E3 was supposed such a great event that stood on it's own, why do we need to generate fake hype instead of focusing on the games. Especially considering the standards by which a company "wins" is usually self-serving, which is part of the reason many of the "hardcore" whine about stuff aimed at the mainstream as if somehow the press conferences all about them anymore. Which would lead to a load of the self-concerned whining that constitutes part of what Daniel's citing as where we're all "losing" in the last paragraph. But that's a "get your ---- together" powwow I'll have with the gaming community another day.

Good post. I don't agree with you on every point, though.

E3 exists to get the eyes of the mass media, but it also exists to get the eyes of the gaming media and gamers in general. While I agree that people put too much emphesis on winners and losers, I have to admit that is something important to me at E3. Not because I care so much about one particular console holder winning or losing (which is where I think the most annoying vociferous people are coming from) but because the announcements at E3 force me to change my worldview.

Before the event I was very hopeful about Natal and was excited to see the big surprise games Microsoft had built up. After the event I'm less enthusiastic about Kinect, but am even more disappointed in how MS seemed so out of touch, unoriginal, and was overall pretty let down by their lack of new game announcements outside of the Kinect games. All of which were all pretty much rip offs of Wii games.

I had a bit of the same feeling from Sony, who did have a big game to announce in Twisted Metal, but who in my opinion are underdelivering on Move.

Nintendo hit my sweet spot of games for the masses (Mario Sports Mix and Wii Party) which I probably won't play, and good ol' Nintendo games which I will play. They also managed to bring out the 3DS in a brilliant fashion.

Do I care so much who won or lost? No. What I care about is who pleases me the most this year. I know it is selfish, but E3 is all about the unknown.

Sometimes when you find out a secret it is thrilling. Sometimes it leaves you feeling a bit hollow. Everytime I get left feeling hollow by unfulfilled promises I can't help but express myself at least a bit.

Anyone who gets driven a bit nuts by all this talk would probably be best taking a break from sites like Twitter, forums and game sites in general.   <--- I really don't mean that in a snarky way, but am pressed for time and have to end this overlong post there.

Frank, you're not being snarky and you're not wrong for having an interest in the show. I have an interest in the show to - I've got all these video game machines lying around and I want to know what software is coming out this year.

What's important to remember is to temper that enthusiasm with the knowledge of who E3 is targeted at. I'm disappointed by the initial Kinect offerings as well, but the product is months away from release. It's also worth pointing out that I didn't buy any of the "current" consoles at launch, so I'm fine with waiting to see what Kinect looks like a year from now, perhaps even two years from now.

All of that directly feeds into why it's so silly to argue about who "won" this week. E3 is all about long-term, broad-market appeal, not fanboy posturing. By all means, it's worth discussing. Just leave the grading out of it.

@Daniel & Frank: very well said, both of you.  I think you both hit on key issues that I, as Average Joe Consumer, have been thinking about surrounding this E3 circus specifically and gaming in general.

Personally, I would like less promotion of both Move and Kinect.  Still, I expect I will get Kinect because it is going to make my living room very Star Trek-ian (Picard saying "COMPUTER!" followed by ANY demand comes to mind).  Oh, and soon, using a D pad instead of vague hand-waving-movements to move through menus will be SO 2009.

I would have LOVED to have heard announcements or updates on games I actually WANT to hear about... Last Guardian, Sly 4, Alan Wake new episodes, Diablo III, Zelda in 2010.

So instead, you're right, we got a detailed plan on how each company will pry more money from our ever-tighter wallets: a PSN Plus announcement (more money), Move/Kinect announcements (more money), platform exclusivity (hate Microsoft AND Sony for continuing this practice), 3DTV (absolutely ZERO plans to replace my shiny LCD's)...

...and Nintendo by way of their Syrupy Cuteness tax.

Ooh, but Syrupy Cuteness tastes so sweet....

Isn't E3 ultimately aimed at each company's investors and shareholders?  It's a trade show, after all, it's not for the public.  The big 3 don't give a shit about you.

That is way too reductionist. Nintendo's success this E3 is a perfect example of a reaction to what the fans and game media demand, while still featuring the "casual" titles like Wii Party and Mario Sports Mix.

These companies do report to their investors in the end, but you can't ignore all the differing aspects of who the show is aimed at, which is a mix of: The mass media, the game media, gamers, non-gamers, investors, developers-- there are probably even more that I am not naming, but E3 is designed to catch the eyes of all of these groups.

Hear, hear. Great article followed by some great comments. I'm off the indulge in some Syrupy Cuteness on my DS before bed now.

I agreed with sentiment in my contribution an article we wrote over at No Added Sugar: http://noaddedsugar.ie/opinion/multicritic-time-to-ditch-e3/

The last four E3s have been met with so much ridiculous discussion, the worst of which is the constant complaining that companies aren't catering to those of us who spend our time discussing video games on the internet. E3 isn't for us, so why do we get so bent out of shape over it?

This whole concept of winning and losing, and which console is the best is largely an american one I think.  Everybody wants to be perceived as making the best console decision and the "my console is better than yours" bashing, flaming and trolling that goes on everywhere on the internet is out of control. Naturally, it bleeds over into the E3 press conferences. I've seen countless bloggers write about how "nintendo won" (from a Wii blogger), and the same goes for 360 and PS3 bloggers. It's ridiculous. I've been to british and even australian gaming forums (I have friends in both countries) and the cross console talk there is much more civil, mature and with less dick swinging.

All three press conferences had ups and downs, moments of awkwardness, etc. I think we all win, no matter which console you own. If you own all three, kudos. 

Perhaps phrasing it in the sense of "winning" is wrong but I think it's disingenuous to dismiss the opinons on whether people were unhappy or happy with each press conference.  Sure, Microsoft doesn't care about a Neogaf thread and certainly won't change their business tactics, but that's not the point.  The point is expressing our opinions.

"Winning" or "losing" in the way E3 is discussed is simply the application of a generic media angle. It's the same thing as when a stations airs a soundbite of two arguing politicians then a host turns to a team of pundits and asks "Who won?" Nevermind that votes are the deciding factor in those debates just as consumer dollars are the deciding factor in the video game market. It's just an easy way to sell a story.

Funny you should put it that way, Michael. I've got all the consoles in my home but I feel frustrated by the three companies continuing efforts to box each other out. In the past, choosing between different versions of multiplatform games was easy: look at a few screenshots, read the reviews to hear if one version has any slowdown/control issues.

But now? Not only do I have to consider online multiplayer options (who might I play this game with online?) I have to look up to see which version has the most "content" which often proves to be a zero-sum game. We're heading for a situation where every multiplatform game is going to have "exclusive" material that other versions do not. Not only will I have to decide what games to buy but which slightly-different incarnation of that game to buy. It's absurd.

And James, opine away! Just keep things chill.

How is PSN Plus an issue that we need to discuss?? Sony is letting everyone keep the PSN you currently have at no cost. You still get to download games, demos, movies, music, wallpapers, themes, etc. You still get to play multiplayer and online coop. You are not loosing anything at all.

The paid PSN is going to add things like early access, free games, Quore, etc. How is that a problem???? You can't do any of those things with Microsoft's "Free" xbox live account, so shouldn't that be a problem worth discussin instead of a Paid PSN which will not affect anyone at all if they don't want to use it?

Ed, do you honestly believe the addition of a premium service on PSN will not, in the long term, reduce/delay the content available for free? It might prove to be a deal worth taking but as of right now Sony hasn't made much of a case for it. Either way, THAT'S a topic worthy of discussion more than any "who won" nonsense.