But who is going to cheer in the proverbial "press box"?

http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/216112/-no-cheering-in-the-press-box-and-other-rules-games-journalism-needs/

Great article and link in your comment, Dennis. While gaming journalism will always have people who are fans of games, it's important that their qualifications extend beyond this. I've been to two E3s and seen far too many people there who really had no business being there. 

Well I guess I'm going to be the first to object here, but I couldn't disagree more. As someone who has attended E3 representing a small site, I'm feeling some outrage.

I worked my ass off, attending meetings and interviews, stopping only to sit down and write between appointments, going almost all three days living off of Clif Bars, staying up all night to finish my stories of the day from a shitty motel on the bad side of the street. . . .

I'm not denying that a lot of people treat it as a party, cheering their favorite games and collecting free shit, but that's hardly exclusive to the small timers. Nor is it reasonable to assume that anyone working for a larger site earned some mythical "right" to be there--surely you're not blind to the amount of shitty writing and lack of professionalism that exists in some areas of the mainstream press.

But putting those personal issues aside, the fact remains that, no, E3 is not just for big publishers to hook big press. Respresenting a small site, almost all of my appointments were with small publishers who knew that they weren't going to hook the big press.

The relationship between small press and small publishers matters, and from my experience, E3 is the perfect place to foster that mutually-beneficial relationship. As a writer for a small site, E3 is about the only thing big enough that we can justify sending people to. We can't send our writers to cover small events unless one of us is lucky enough to have one happening within driving distance.

Tthe quality of your content does not solely determine success. If that were true, all of us here on Bitmob would have "made it" by now. E3 isn't a "carrot," a reward to be chased; it's an opportunity -- a proving ground, even.

Your hypothetical theory sounds well and good, but if it actually worked then the behemoth party E3 would never have been resurrected in the first place.

EDIT: I agree that its perception is a bad thing, but I don't agree that limiting small outlets is any kind of solution. Most of the bad apples I saw at E3 didn't even have media badges. There are lots of loopholes, and they're narrowing the wrong one. How about random GameStop employees or any contract QA tester with a boss who likes them and can get them in?

EDIT2: All points argued with utmost respect, Dennis. Please don't mistake my offense toward the situation as offense toward your finely-written article. :)

Killer comment, Christian. I see now the benefits of letting smaller sites in to cover games that larger sites wouldn't bother with. I'd rather see coverage of more games at the show, even if it's from smaller websites, than only a handful of big sites giving near-identical coverage to the AAA titles.

The kind of press also matters. I met my share of aspiring journalists working for ultimate fighting, motocross, skating, whatever blogs, sent to cover one game but free to enjoy the whole "party."

Granted, limiting the event soley to games press raises a whole other mess of concerns and isn't any kind of solution, either. But what I'm getting that is that this is a much more complex issue. The way they're handling it, they're just legislating to the lowest common denominator; treating a complex malfunction with blunt anisthetic, when what's really needed is a complicated surgery. The little guys -- press, publishers and creators alike -- all suffer because of a few misfits.

Hi Christian,

Let's say it wasn't video games, but politics that held your attention. You're otherwise still the same person, and you enjoy writing, and you decide that you want to be a journalist who covers politics. Maybe you start a blog. Maybe you then apply for a writing position at a small community news site.

Are you going to feel outrage if you apply for a media pass to cover a White House press briefing, get turned down, and then someone suggests to you that only the people who generate news stories about those press briefings which get a lot of readers are the people who deserve to cover that press briefing?

Are you going to make comments about the "mythical right" of the professional journalists, with years' worth of experience behind them, getting to cover the Whtie House press briefing while you don't?

Think about that carefully. And be honest with yourself.

So why does everyone assume that video game journalism is any different? We understand that mainstream journalists are professionals who pay their dues, hone their craft, and if they're good at what they do, earn professional credibility and await patiently for the right opportunity to come along.

That's how it works with video game journalism, too. And when they earn their postions, either as respected freelancers or staff writers (or both) they get to cover all the major events as a matter of course. For everyone else who hasn't paid those dues, it's not as assured.

"...surely you're not blind to the amount of shitty writing and lack of professionalism that exists in some areas of the mainstream press."

First, this has nothing to do with your larger point. Second, I don't really pay attention to this sort of thing anymore. I know who I think writes quality work, and that's who I read, and I don't bother with the rest. So I don't see this shitty writing and lack of professionalism you speak of because I choose to spend my finite time reading quality writers and outlets. For everything else, I have RSS feeds and the ability to skim headlines.

I've discussed this before here on Bitmob - many of the complaints about the supposed lack of quality in video game journalism stem from ignorance as to where the good content lies. I'm not saying that describes you necessarily Christian, but do you read Kill Screen? The Escapist? Edge? Develop? Joystiq? Is anyone who doesn't in any position to be making assessments about the "quality" of video game journalism?

I find that many critics expressing broad, unspecific statements about "the quality of video game journalism" very often don't read these really good outlets, and so their criticism is suspect.

Would we make similar, broad statements about the quality of mainstream journalism if all we read were tabloids and small town papers and didn't read The New Yorker, or The Economist, or The New York Times?

E3 is primarily for big publishers to get big coverage from big media. That's just how it is, Christian. If all the small developers and companies don't show up to E3, it really doesn't change anything. If all the small gaming websites were to be locked out of the event entirely, it really wouldn't change anything, either. That's what tells you what the event is actually about.

If small gaming websites come to E3 to cover small game developers, and an audience exists for that kind of news coverage such that those small gaming websites earn enough unique users on an annual basis to warrant E3 media badges, where does the complaint lie? What do you have to be outraged about?

And if covering small game developers doesn't garner an appreciable audience, are we really going to argue that the small gaming website who covered those small developers but who doesn't really have an appreciable number of readers "deserves" to attend E3 anyway? To paraphrase a professional video game journo, "E3 is not a birthright for anyone who wants to write about video games."

You may not like this, you may not think it's fair, you may feel outraged about it, but that doesn't change the fact that it's true. I don't see what's so outrageous about suggesting that the people who cover E3 should earn the right to do so; and the metric for earning that right is readership.

Honestly, anyone who wants to be a professional journalist of any stripe and who can't accept that reality of the industry probably isn't cut out for it.

You're making a lot of broad, speculative statements and claiming them as fact. If that's what E3 absolutely is -- this *one* thing -- then there wouldn't be any issue with this in the first place. To use your example, the press covering the White House press room don't have this problem, because that *is* one thing--reporting on what's said, asked and answered by the speakers and your fellow reporters. That's not E3. If you're trying to argue that E3 *should* be this one thing, then I'm not one to stand in the way of your opinion.

The fact remains, however, that E3 once restructured itself to be a toned-down, hyper-exclusive event solely for the major publishers, and it failed miserably. E3 is as much for small publishers as it is for the big ones. Who are you to say it isn't? Point me towards the objective, governing body that's backing up all these "facts" that you're stating.

And I am being honest with myself -- covering E3 and covering the White House press room are not in the least bit comparable. The reporters covering the White House have earned a very real right to do so, like you said, from years of experience and paying their dues. Just because someone works for IGN ... that doesn't carry the same weight.

That's to say nothing of the physical realities of each -- the White House press room is a single event, happening in a single room. One reporter from any outlet can cover what's happening there and there's only one subject (at a given moment). E3 is a massive convention where dozens of publishers are competing for the time of hundreds of reporters. Again, if you're arguing that it *should* be something different, then by all means continue. But that's not the reality of it.

We assume that someone who covers the White House has spent years honing their craft, true. But games journalism *is* different; our standards for journalistic integrity and quality writing are far lower. If you honestly don't think games journalism is any different than more established forms of mainstream and, honestly, much more socially important, forms of journalism, then you're just downright delusional.

Or maybe not delusional, but rather ignroant, by your own admission. Yes, games journalism looks quite fine if all you read is the high-crust niche of insightful journalists and academics. I'd hardly cite Kill Screen as an example of the "big press" that pulls in the highest readership. It would be nice, but that's not how it is. Outside of that niche, there is a lot of bad writing by bad writers in the mainstream press. For crying out loud, look at what John Davison and co. had to do with GamePro just to get it up to code.

I do read (most) of the outlets you mentioned. By your own admission, you don't read anything else. So really, who's in the dark here? If all you consume is the creme, then I'd turn the question on you: what qualifies *you* to speak on the quality of games journalism?

Any writer worth his/her salt will tell you that you can't limit yourself to just reading the good stuff. Has Chris Dahlen "earned" the right to cover an extremely exlusive event? Absolutely. But his calibur is hardly the norm in this industry, even at its top (as far as readership is concerned).

Hell, the writers from the outelts you mentioned are better off not bothering with E3; it's a circus where their talents can't even be utilized to their full effectiveness.

Have you ever even been? You don't exactly get the kind of time required for weighty insight. It's a rapid-fire pace of 20 to 30-minute demos, a brief Q&A, and then you're shuffled out so the demonstrators can go through an identical process with the next group. The seasoned journalists and academics of the industry are better off with what they currently have: GDC and DICE, both of which are more exclusive, thoughtful and focused than E3. E3 is hardly the "most exclusive" event in gaming. Maybe that's what you want it to be, but that's not what it is. E3, for publishers, is a marketing machine, pure and simple.

I have an idea: I'll go to my former campus of UC, Irvine, find someone who plays Call of Duty, and ask them what they read more, Edge or IGN. I'll put money down that it won't be the former. And, like it or not, random CoD frat guy is a substantial percentage of who E3 is targeting.

And, to reiterate, there are a lot of loopholes for anyone to get into E3 besides the media badge. I'll also reiterate that being a good writer doesn't translate directly to success, least of all in this economy. That's why, no, E3 is not a "birthright for anyone who *wants* to write about games," but is, rather, a proving ground for those who *do* write about games. Covering E3 *is* a form of paying your dues and honing your craft; it sucks. It's awesome, but if fucking sucks. It's brutal, exhausting, hectic, loud, intimidating, occasionally alienating, and, sometimes, grotesquely incestuous. Working through that should mean something, I agree, but it should hardly be the peak of what we aspire to. If it were, we wouldn't have the likes of Edge or Kill Screen, because that's hardly the kind of writing the covering an event like E3 produces. It's not the White House; it's the news room on the other end. Messy, chaotic, sometimes beautiful, but hardly artful. It's keeping up. It's labor. And, yes, it's rewarding.

This is also a business, not only a showcase for our prescious words. Anyone who wants to be a professional journalist of *this* stripe who can't accept that is better suited to be a college professor.

You've completely misunderstood the analogy, Christian. The point was that if this were any other type of journalism, amateurs would not be so up in arms over being denied admission to cover an extremely high-profile event on the basis of their not having enough readers.

My supposition is that the reason many amateurs feel the sense of entitlement they feel towards E3 is precisely due to their low opinion of video game journalism and the attitude that "anyone can do it."

The journalists from IGN who get to attend Judge's Week might disagree with you that their positions carry no weight. So might the publishers who invite those journalists.

I would argue that the standards of the video game media's audience for "journalistic integrity and quality writing" in the media they consume are no different than the standards of the mainstream media's audience for the mainstream media.

Yes, I have attended E3. I have seen the small, grey cubicles that the small developers occupy in the back of one of the exhibition halls. I've also had private demos of upcoming AAA games that lasted over an hour, speaking one-on-one with the developers, in limited doses of "the other E3" that only the professionals get access to. The show floor is not where the real work gets done.

I wish you luck in procuring an E3 media badge should that be your desire. If so, perhaps I will run into you at the show. :)

I'm not suggesting that anyone/everyone working for IGN hasn't paid their dues; I'm saying the fact that someone works for IGN in itself isn't evidence of a writer's quality. Readership alone is not an accurate scale.

And I'm not missing the point of the analogy; I was pointing out that the analogy between what we do and what a White House reporter does doesn't hold weight. No, an amateur wouldn't react this way in that scenario, but it's apples and oranges.

"Stripes" of "journalism" are not a level field. What we do and what they do is not comparable. I don't believe you'd be hard-pressed to find the same kind of reaction in any form of enthusiast press that covers consumerism and/or entertainment.

If we had an equivalent for the likes of exclusively the Chris Dahlens, Leigh Alexanders, Kieron Gillens, and Mitch Krpataseses ... es ... of the world, then I'd be on board. But we don't and that's not what E3 is nor what it's intended to be. The fact that we're having this argument, the fact that it was the publishers and organizers who turned E3 into the party that is, and then resurrected it as such, is all evidence of that.

I'd also like to point out that as more and more studios fracture and branch out, those grey cubicles at the back of the show are increasingly occupied by veteran creators who've earned their right to be as much as EA or Activision. They shouldn't be shut out because they've chosen independence or nich audiences. I've also had the one-on-one, hour plus-long demos with developers; the small ones, who have as every a right to be there as the small publications giving me the opporunity to cover those demos and conduct those interviews.

Websites with low readership are not the problem. To shut us out and hope that E3 will be "fixed" is reductive, lazy and malicious.

EDIT: I'll also contest that, in fact, anyone *can* do it. E3 is a sink or swim opporunity, but we aren't surgeons. Gamers in general have an overblown sense of entitlement, but the small press is hardly the problem. Explain to me why honest, hard-working writers who've worked the show before, taken it seriously and proven they can handle it may not be able to go, but retail employees and part-time industry amateurs (whom I know personally) have no problems? If they want to make E3 exclusive, start there and sort through the much more complex issue of the small press later, whenever they feel it warrants their valuable time. With a smaller amount of press, E3 will be no less of a mess this year. Wait and see.

EDIT2: Wow, that was way too much rhyming at the end, there. . . . :P

I'm sorry if you've been shut out of E3 as press this year, Christian, but if you have the intimate knowledge of the Expo and the realities of professional video game journalism implied by your comments, then you know how to circumvent the problem in the future.

Quality only enters into this conversation when it comes to the smaller sites who don't want to get locked out of the event. You're correct in that readership numbers do not necessarily reflect quality...but outlets with massive readership are obviously doing something right by their audiences, even if you might not like what that is.

The point, which you haven't really addressed yet, is that quality work combined with a professional demeanor will gain a small site reliable access to E3 such that they don't need to worry about this problem. I know several small sites who don't make any money off their work, but who keep their sites clean and functional, who edit all the work that goes on the site, who maintain relationships with PR, and who accordingly are still sending people to E3 even with these caps in place.

I therefore fail to see the problem here.

To be honest, I'm not sure if I have yet. Nor am I even sure that I can attend if I'm haven't been, so this isn't even a reaction to my being shut out, personally. I won't deny that I'm taking this personally on a certain level, as a member of the small press -- I think I've made that clear -- but I also think this "solution" is patently absurd, and I sincerely disagree that attending E3 is the lofty peak of games writing aspirations; other venues are much better suited to that label.

EDIT: Let me put it this way, I still have a better chance of getting into E3 than GDC. And what comes out of GDC (in terms of writing and coverage) is consistently much more valuable than anything that's ever come out of E3. I just respectfully disagree that E3 is what you're claiming it to be.

For the record, Christian, nothing in my column suggests that E3 is any kind of lofty peak. I did state that many small sites treat the event that way. I don't think that's fairly up for debate. :)

Reliable access, yes; reliable coverage, no. The fact is, smaller outlets will not have equal access; we'll be forced, in spite of our actual resources, to cast a line instead of a net.

Your comments certainly do, or at least lead me to believe so, when you cite only our industry's best and brightest as those who've earned a right to attend.

But, in the interests of diplomacy and full-disclosure, I read this line incorrectly on my first reading, "E3 is often used as a carrot for smaller sites to get people to write for them for free all year."

So, fair enough. :)

EDIT: And, just to put it plainly, unencumbered by my offense with the E3 organizers, I don't disagree that *something* needs to happen to fix these issues with E3 and its representation. In fact, I'll do one better than "don't disagree" and just say, "I agree." I just disagree that this is the solution, or that this "solution" will lead to quality games writing, on the grounds that the odds are being arbitrarily stacked against the little guys, the repurcussions of which affect developers and publishers, as well as press.

Christian, you're reading things into the column which simply are not there. Did I say anything about "best and brightest?" Or did I suggest that anyone who produces quality work will certainly find a way to get in to the event, and that anyone who does not produce quality work probably shouldn't? Does one have to be an industry luminary to produce quality work?

"The fact is, smaller outlets will not have equal access..."

That's precisely my point, Christian. In NO form of media do smaller outlets with little comparative readership get equal access to what the huge outlets receive! So why should video game journalism be any different?

In the minds of many video gamers clutching dreams of writing about video games, I suspect that the answer is: "Because we want to go!" I can empathize with that because I felt very similarly last year when I was first starting out in the industry, but that's not a reasonable answer.

I suspect that another answer might be: "Because video game journalists suck, and we can cover the event as good or better than they can!" To which I say: being a video game journalist is not only about knowing how to write, but also how to maintain relationships with editors, to write to editorial demand, to meet exacting deadlines, to be given assignments that one may have no personal interest in but still turn them around into quality work, to network with PR, to find unique angles on stories, to know how to conduct a good interview, and all while knowing that your professional credibility is on the line.

Now, if someone can do all of that better than the professionals, then by all means I hope they can get into E3 to cover the event, because it sure sounds like they deserve it! Otherwise, I think that person needs to approach the topic with some humillity and the admission that perhaps they haven't actually earned their way into the event yet.

I'd rather work harder at my craft to earn my way into E3 than complain about the unfairness of not getting in.

EDIT: "Christian, you're reading things into the column which simply are not there. Did I say anything about 'best and brightest?'"

Yes! Not in the column, but in your comments when you referenced the kinds of reporters that have exclusive access to the White House and cited the outlets largely considered the cream of the crop of our field as those having earned a right to attend. I stopped reading into your column with my first comment; in case you haven't noticed, I've been responding to your comments since then.

"Or did I suggest that anyone who produces quality work will certainly find a way to get in to the event, and that anyone who does not produce quality work probably shouldn't?"

That's absolutely what you suggested. I doubt your assessment that it'll work out this way. I think I've addressed that plainly several times.

And, again, I have to argue E3 access as a "perk." E3 is, for many smaller sites moreso than larger ones, precisely the place where their writers hone those skills in the first place.

Also, again, it's simply not true that access for smaller outlets is exclusive to games journalism. I can't agree with this argument that all journalism is created equal. Of course, in the case of something like the White House, you're absolutely right. But for enthusiast writers covering entertainment, arts and consumer products, it's very much the norm. I know bloggers and homebrew podcasters who talk with major representatives from the film and music industries, and they aren't looked upon with derision. No, they're not talking to Steven Spielberg or interviewing Jack White backstage; but they're given access to the same events, to cover the smaller fish, just like we are (or were) at E3.

I also agree that being a good journalist in any sense is complicated and requires someone to cover a lot of bases; but levels of readership is not evidence of these attributes. How many of the major outelts take the exact same angles on every event, interview, announcement, etc.? And, of course, most of the smaller ones do, as well. Not mention, E3 is the place-of-places to hone all those skills to begin with.

This is why I'm simly saying, the way the E3 people are handling this is not a remedy to any of the problems that we've talked about. I like your idea of what you want this move to mean; my argument is that it won't work out the way you want it to ... that, if anything, this exclusionary tactic only reinforces the current status-quo, precisely for all of the reasons stated in the joystiq article you linked to in your column.

I also need to get some sleep. I know I'm repeating myself now, so I've said all I can say, but I hope I've made my point.

I've enjoyed our discussion, Dennis. :)

I have to disagree with this article. I understand the sentiment, but it's an idealized buy in into what the ESA is selling when they announced these restrictions. I have been to E3 for the last 8 years with a media badge, and I'll be going again this year. However, I know many GREAT websites that are being locked out by the ESA this year, and it's silly to think that they shouldn't have their place at the show.

What is really happening is that the ESA is creating a closed loop. E3 is the biggest event of the year for games journalists and often times it's the money week for traffic, ad revenue, and for growing your reader base. When the ESA locks out the little guys, it really hinders their chance to grow. And believe me, it really does matter for the middling fan site whether or not they're going to be able to get hands on time with demos and write or podcast about the upcoming games for the rest of the year. If you play a demo at E3 in June, you're still able to talk about it in October when it's nearly out, and you can speak about it from firsthand experience.

Another thing to consider is that the bigger sites actually don't need to send ANYBODY to E3 to get their coverage done. The past few years publishers have been running pre-E3 events, some of which I have been to. You get to see the E3 demos a week ahead of time and by the time you actually get to the show, the majority of your articles and impressions are already written and waiting in the CMS for some intern to hit the publish button. I know many sites use the trip to E3 to just have a good time, but it's the smaller sites that are scrambling like mad and are up until 4:00am each night trying to pound out articles.

Really if the ESA is concerned about crowding, they'd put a cap on paid passes and they'd limit how many people the big sites can send. There's no reason why any company should be sending a parade of people to the show, especially if they've attended pre-E3 events.

And no, this won't foster better quality writing from the smaller sites, it'll encourage link-bait articles and arbitrary ways to increase clicks. Without access to the industry's biggest show, it'll be gimmicks that come in to save the day for the little guy.

I attended E3 2010 (my first one), and as a whole, the attendees seemed far less professional than those at CES or any mainstream consumer electronics show. Most acted like they'd never seen a woman before. It doesn't help gaming's reputation when its most celebrated tradeshow is considered (rightly or wrongly) a 24/7 party where fanboy journalists ogle scantily-clad booth babes. Don't get me wrong--there's plenty of reputable journalists doing great work at E3. But my overall impression of the E3 attendee was of a punk kid dressed in gamer attire (shorts, grungy t-shirt), running around grabbing all the swag they can and drooling over paid models. I say restrict E3 passes. When you relax the admission criteria, you open the floodgates to every Joe Gamer who creates his own blog for the sole purpose of attending E3 (I know first-hand how easy it is to gain admission).

Most of those people you saw acting like idiots were exhibits only passes. It's pretty rare to see someone witha  media badge holding up traffic to take shots of the Nyko girls. You can buy your way into E3 for $400 ($500 after early admission), and you really don't have to have any real credentials to do so. These are the people that make E3 silly, not the media that are generally trying to get stories published.

But yes, I will concede that it might have been too easy to get people to the show in previous years. They let too many in from just about any outlet. Kombo.com had like 30 people one year. It would have been better to limit those under their threshold cap to one, maybe two attendees rather than lock them out entirely. You'd still cut down numbers dramatically, but you wouldn't turn the show into a giant closed loop where the bigger sites get to maintain their grip on exclusive coverage.

It's bad for the industry to not foster growth in the enthusiast press.

@Jeff
You're correct. Much of the riffraff bought their way into the show. In one humorous case, a trio of Russians approached us outside the registration center and asked how to get in. They'd flown all the way from Russia to LA but hadn't thought to register. I assume they paid the entrance fee.
But I also encountered boorish individuals in the press room. I assume they carry their antics out to the show floor. I can't say for sure whether it was exhibits-only or press badges posing for pictures with booth babes. You may be right--it may be mostly paid entrants that give E3 its bad rep. For the most part, the "big" outlets I encountered were just trying to go about their business. Who has time for whacky antics and juvenile behavior when you have deadlines?
Also, not to get on a soapbox, but a trade show is absolutely *not* the place for collecting free shit. That bugged me more than anything else--several "Survival Guides" I read pre-show were encouraging attendees to grab as much swag as they could as quickly as they could. Besides the obvious conflict of interest (and this point dogs the mainstream press), it's extremely unprofessional. The key word is "respect": respect the industry, respect your fellow media, and respect the profession.  

Yeah, the swag hoarding is terrible. Honestly, if I had my way, they'd do away with the booth babes or at least force them to dress modestly, as they are in Nintendo's booth. For many years Nintendo's booth has always been the most crowded, but the easiest to walk through since you don't have guys hanging off of the girls to snap pics.

As for the swag, I get why it's handed out, but some people are shameless in what they'll collect. I get maybe you want some cool collectibles, but it is embarrassing when you see a guy hauling six bags full of stuff and he's jumping up and down to catch a shirt with Tylenol printed on it.

I generally give swag away to my readers, but I don't collect any until day 3 when I usually have my interviews wrapped up.

All conventions have their swag and their pretty girls, but we do go a little crazy at E3. I wish it could be scaled back just a bit. At least there's not a cosplay presence at the show...