"+30 points, a brand new exclusive IP."

You'll count indie in this ? Because almost all of them are new IPs by default and will be a free +30 :D

I think it makes more sense to grade each conference on its showmanship. Plus two points for every instance of a strong positive response from the crowd or unprompted applause and cheering, minus five points for every instance of obvious disdain displayed by the audience. Sony and Microsoft should end up with net positives probably greater than 5 points, but if they botch the show they'll be rightfully penalized, whereas Nintendo's Digital Event is not eligible for these scores.

So since ms had showed nothing of sunset over drive. Then they showed a ton right before e3 so that they could show more AT e3. they get the +5 instead of +15?

i agree

My expectations for E3 are low now. There hasn't been a really good E3 since 2008 for me.

considering these rules, who won last year?

I won't do this point thing, It's too much work!

I'll just do it the normal way, watching all 3 and choose the one I think is the best, with a sprinkle of bias!

How about this: having been released on iOS, The World Ends With You is technically a multiplatform game. If Square-Enix announces a sequel exclusively for the 3DS, why should Nintendo (or Square, I'm not sure which company would lose the points under this rule) be penalized for that? The same is true of the Ace Attorney series, traditionally a Nintendo exclusive yet available on mobile devices. Let's not forget Monster Hunter, which thanks to Frontier is now a multiplatform series, yet has always been exclusive at initial release.

Furthermore, the rule as it stands doesn't cover always-exclusive series changing platforms. If a new Professor Layton game was announced for Vita, no one would be penalized. It also doesn't cover series that have always been exclusive, but not to the same platform, such as Shin Megami Tensei and Fatal Frame. Would Nintendo be punished for announcing a new Fatal Frame title, despite owning exclusive rights to the IP? This rule was made with good intentions, but is too vague. Campanies should not be punished for making or securing exclusive games for their platforms. There was nothing under-handed about the making of Bayonetta 2.

I'd also like to ask about localization announcements. If Dragon Quest X were announced for Western release, would it be treated as a new game announcement, or as new gameplay of a previously announced game, or would it be ignored? Or would Nintendo be penalized because the DQ series was once on Sony platforms?

And speaking of Shin Megami Tensei, what about cross-over games? Would Nintendo be punished for Hyrule Warriors or a new Pokemon X Nobunaga's Ambition (Pokemon Conquest in the West)?

If a multiplatform series going exclusive results in lost points because of an alienated fanbase, what about a multiplatform series being multiplatform on fewer systems? If Assassin's Creed doesn't come to Wii U this year, will Ubisoft be penalized for abandoning what little fanbase they've made for themselves on Nintendo consoles?

I understand why the rule exists, but it has too many loopholes which would result in point deductions for companies that don't deserve it. Let the inevitable fan backlash be the punishment for shady deals. Give companies points for securing exclusive games for their consoles. Deduct points from publishers for having mutually exclusive DLC.

Money-hats don't benefit gamers, but they most certainly do benefit platform makers. There's no denying that an exclusive like Dead Rising 3 on XB1 had a positive impact on its sales. Good for Microsoft, bad for gamers... you have to give them points for it. It was beneficial to their console, which is what this is all about.

I think Sony might win, but Microsoft will improve from last year.

Don't agree at all. Exclusives define a system. If there are no exclusives, there should only be one console.