Misleading title.

What Nintendo is doing is more of a sign that they don't have enough stuff for a proper E3 conference, really. The format is derived of that.

For any bussiness, you have to step up live and show what you have. If you don't do that, it's because you believe you don't have nothing to show. That's why I disagree with Nintendo's decision. They have SSB and probably have something for Zelda or next Mario (at least a trailler). Not showing at E3 is a statemente that they don't believe anything they have isn up to what MS and Sony will show. If not even them believe on what they are doing, why the public should care? They have good material to show, but simply aren't willing to do it and will pass the wrong message to the public.

I don't think Nintendo Directs are always the best way to show news. When an announcement is close to a big event like E3 or TGS, it should be revealed there. The public perception will be tons of E3 news about MS and Sony and none about Nintendo. Revealing things in a separated event with way fewer eyes on it won't have the same strength. The power of E3 is that you can announce several titles, even the ones that won't launch in less than a year, and give the impression you are full of momentum.

Even if they do, the message they pass is that they don't believe it's enough. So who will believe that something good is coming?

Those who bother to follow it, which is much less people than E3 :P

Each approach has its advantages. Pre-recorded prevents screw ups and awkwardness, but it isn't as exciting as a live presentation.

What makes people come up with and believe stuff like that, is beyond me.

none of that is true.

It's better if you post reasons about why you disagree. I could even understand your point and change my opinion if your argument convinced me, but just that won't prove anything.

the onus is yours to prove those claims. Nintendo is doing it's usual E3 announcements. saying BS like "nintendo is admiting it's inferior" is really crossing the line.

Ok, so let's go then. Not having a full press conference at E3 is attracting some bad media coverage now. They already knew that before announcint that it would be this way. Looking at the coverage, they know MS and Sony announcements will gather public attention and whatever they announce won't get as much attention because of the lack of the live conference. So they are losing a good marketing opportunity here to appeal to the gamer public and a great chance to appeal to the casual public, since E3 as the biggest yearly conference for electronics will get some time in tradicional media like TV and will reach a portion of the larger public. This marketing is what they get (or in this case lose) with a live conference.

The downsides for a live conference are very few. Cost? Pretty much nothing for any company. Live mistakes? This kind of thing isn't that common, despite minor mistakes here and there that won't get much more thansome laughs. Bad reactions to live conferences aren't because the presentation was bad, but because what was presented was (like the reaction to MS last E3) and doing it live or not won't change the reaction in this case. So, nothing to lose and a marketing opportunity to gain.

Another factor we can consider is that all big announcements are made on big events. That's how Apple shows the iPhone, Samsung shows the S phones and it's how PS4 and One were announced. You can even tease this things or even say that they are coming (basically stating the obvious) just to get coverage and attention to the big and real announcement. And that has to be made live.

And I'm not stating Nintendo is inferior. I even said they have a great and anticipated game to show (SSB). But the public perception when you aren't there is that you don't have nothing to show. Each company has to make the consumers know their product and what they have to offer and Nintendo simply isn't willing to do it at the biggest electronic expo of the year by the second straight time.