Mr Khan said:
Not really. It's generally based on a consensus of hype, which of course is based on the nebulous and quite clearly biased media, but it ends up being like politics, sometimes your favored candidate puts forward good, solid ideas, but the winds of public opinion shift the other way (like when Walter Mondale had actual statistical plans for dealing with the budget deficit, but Reagan just brushed them aside, and the way public opinion worked was such that it reflected well on Reagan and poorly on Mondale)
The point being, there is usually a fairly clear winner, except in years when all three are relatively weak (2007 is the only one i can think of here). For the past decade, for instance, 2000 was really Sony's, 01 Nintendo's, 02 & 03 Sony's again, 04 Nintendo, 05 Microsoft, 06 Nintendo, 07 indeterminate, 08 Microsoft, 09 Microsoft.
This may not reflect who actually had the best lineup, but who came away with the hype. E3 can certainly be won, the question is whether that's a contest worth winning. I mean, Natal "won" E3 last year in terms of coming away with by far the most hype, but Natal's long-term success or failure is going to be determined by many different things, and certainly not the hype it had in June 2009 |
But it is subjective becuase you can not quantifiable measure "hype." So, you can't measure it to say who won.
I say who win, if we care about "winning," is the one that shows the software which will make the sales. If the company makes games that will get a lot of people, then they truely win.
