Game showings is what wins events, and how its done.
I simply think Sony & Nintenod will have more to show in that area.

MS reveal scorpio and still lose E3.

Ka-pi96 said: S.T.A.G.E. said: Microsoft will have a new IP for sure. They have to or their fight is pretty much over. The question is whether those exclusives will be good or not.  If not not Sony will trample them. hmm, when it comes to MS at the moment isn't the question will those exclusives actually release or not, rather than whether they'll be good?

Yep. Phil Spencer showed off the scorpio specs for a reason. E3 is going to be all about the games. The question is whether either their studios can make the IP or whrther they found a third party who would do what they could not (again). If they found a third party that could give them a hot IP they better buy the company because they desperately need it. Halo and Gears were the fruits of acquisition, and as their franchises lose popularity, perhaps thats how Microsoft will survive this generation. They are selling very well regardless but they are a company that is sorely in need of identity right now.  I See Crackdown, State of Decay 2 and Forza 7 dropping with content being featured on the scorpio tech. The rest remains to be seen. I dont really care of Sea of Thieves (as I am not longer in highschool and wouldve loved to play that back then).

Ultrashroomz said: Not to come off as a negative nancy, but am I the only one who kinda finds it cringeworth when people say such company will "win" E3? Like, obviously, one company is gonna have a better conference than another, but when we say "win" it's like we're treating E3 like the Superbowl or something, which I find kinda weird. Anyways, Microsoft will have to show some big guns to help really push out Scorpio, Nintendo is all dependent if they can show off some kickass content for the Switch, and I don't doubt Sony will show off some cool looking stuff as well.

I find the idea that only one company can "win" coming out of E3 to be kind of meaningless without listed criteria, which is why I have both Nintendo and Sony listed as winners.  Anyone who puts on a good show can improve their position in the marketplace.

It's a formless question that people ask that can have all kinds of answers.  Do they mean personal perspective?  Financial results?  Presentation quality?  I never know.

I have a bad feeling that Nintendo will show just ports/remasters and small indie games for Switch. So my money is on them for being the losers of E3. (The press wouldn't dare say it though, even if they were).

This year will be very interesting, microsoft with new hardware a new games, nintendo started great with the switch and will show good first party games to secure the good sales, and sony giving release dates for already announced great games and hopefully some big surprises to counter microsoft and nintendo

Winner: gamers
Loser: single console plebs

Winner: Sony
Loser: For me it's most likely going to be Nintendo

The whole "your favorite company will be the winner" thing will probably be true but it's not always the case. Most Nintendo fans would agree Nintendo's last two E3 showings have been garbage-tier. However that's also why this year I'm subscribing to the "my favorite will win no matter what the others do" crowd, since Nintendo has a lot to make up for and I believe they'll do so here. Just give me an amazing Animal Crossing for Switch and they've won in my book!

pokoko said: Ultrashroomz said: Not to come off as a negative nancy, but am I the only one who kinda finds it cringeworth when people say such company will "win" E3? Like, obviously, one company is gonna have a better conference than another, but when we say "win" it's like we're treating E3 like the Superbowl or something, which I find kinda weird. Anyways, Microsoft will have to show some big guns to help really push out Scorpio, Nintendo is all dependent if they can show off some kickass content for the Switch, and I don't doubt Sony will show off some cool looking stuff as well. I find the idea that only one company can "win" coming out of E3 to be kind of meaningless without listed criteria, which is why I have both Nintendo and Sony listed as winners.  Anyone who puts on a good show can improve their position in the marketplace. It's a formless question that people ask that can have all kinds of answers.  Do they mean personal perspective?  Financial results?  Presentation quality?  I never know.

 

I think the criteria for 'winning' is fairly quantifiable.

The conference should have a variety of games - annuals need to REALLY impress to count, and some (good) surprises are needed. Actual gameplay is better than CG trailers, and even that can range from boring to exciting. UbiSoft has a problem here because they've used bullshit footage to make their games look amazing, so nobody takes their visuals seriously. Microsoft also has a problem, as they need to somehow guarantee the shown games will not be canceled.

Showing a new hardware, peripheral, or service is fine, but don't dwell much beyond a brief description of what it is, legitimately interesting new features, and the price. Game trailers featuring the new stuff is fine. Dwelling too much on this stuff, as well as corporate number bullshit nobody cares about, sucks the life out of an E3 conference quick.

Then there's basic showmanship - is it a professional show that is tuned into the audience or is it cringey? One or two technical goofs are fine, unless the goof undermines what's being shown (like a peripheral not working well).

"Winning" E3 simply means achieving the most hype. It doesn't mean much long term, unless that hype can be sustained.

onionberry said: Nintendo is going to win with Diddy Kong Racing Returns

Jesus Christ please this