The inaugural E For All Expo, or E4, wrapped up its quiet four days at the Los Angeles Convention Center on Sunday. E4 was a new attempt to revive America's biggest video game show... and failed terribly. E4 was meant to fill the void left when the industry's biggest trade show, the Electronic Entertainment Expo, or E3, downsized and moved out of the LA Convention Center, but the crowds were non-existent and so were the big-name game companies that drew in said crowds. As such, E4 was an entertaining disgrace to the entire video game entertainment industry.
Over the past decade, E3 has been the keystone event in establishing a look into upcoming projects within the video game industry. Its attendees included, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Electronic Arts, Capcom, and Rockstar just to name a few, on top of the throngs of video game enthusiasts just waiting to get a hands on demonstration to blog about for weeks. E3 can be credited to hyping the Nintendo Wii (and conversely Sony stealing their idea and turning it into the SIXAXIS controller) as well as creating the buzz for highly anticipated video games such as Halo 3. The expo had ballooned to over 60,000 attendees before being reduced this past July to 3,000 hand-picked guests who attended a more buttoned-down show that received mixed reviews from participants.
What these ignorant organizers haven't realized is that the former E3 expo is exactly what the video game industry needs to create excitement for upcoming projects. By not bringing in the biggest names and by not creating a show thats worthy of recognition, there is nothing worth talking about within the video game industry. The last thing I've heard for upcoming projects was a new Madden, but when hasn't there been a new Madden. E3 downsized for the little guy... and effectively killed any type of talk for new exciting stuff. So why in god's name wouldn't you try to bring in the biggest and best for this thing?? The whole excitement that surrounded E3 was the fact that everyone in the industry would see what's in store for the future... creating competition to make the best game/system possible. But they killed that, so who's left to pick up the pieces? Nice attempt E4, but you just got romped.
E4 already announced that the expo will be returning next year in August, closer to the date of the new E3 as well as the Penny Arcade Expo. However, PAX is quickly becoming the new expo that the video game industry will flock to (attendance at the expo reaches a new peak every year). But if E4 wants to compete, they better do something on the level of the former E3... not this stellar piece of crap they just pulled together.
iPredict E4 will E-flop as PAX kicks their ass. Alas, I click over to www.penny-arcade.com for my tri-weekly comic relief...
E4 = pwnd
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Comcast Acknowledges Blocking Traffic
Comcast Corp. acknowledged Tuesday that they had been "delaying" some subscriber Internet traffic, but said any roadblocks it puts up are temporary and intended to improve surfing for other users. Personally I believe that what they did was complete crap. On top of that, other groups have also denounced Comcast's actions, calling it an example of the kind of abuse that could be curbed "Net Neutrality" legislation. Net Neutrality is the idea that Internet Service Providers are required to treat all internet traffic equally.
The thing that causes me to lose all credibility in Comcast is that they have repeatedly denied blocking any Internet application, and then reversing their statements, acknowledging that they have denied PAYING CUSTOMERS usage of the internet. The programs that they've blocked included "peer-to-peer" file-sharing programs like BitTorrent, Gnutella, and Lotus Notes, an IBM Corp. program used in corporate settings. Mitch Bowling, the senior vice president of Comcast Online Services, added a nuance to their prior statement, saying that while Comcast may block initial connection attempts between computers, it would eventually allow access if the computers keep trying. "During periods of heavy peer-to-peer congestion, which can degrade the experience for all customers, we use several network management technologies that, when necessary, enable us to delay — not block — some peer-to-peer traffic. However, the peer-to-peer transaction will eventually be completed as requested," Bowling said.
"Comcast is making arbitrary bandwidth allocation decisions slowing use of basic (programs) without being clear to consumers what they really get when they buy a broadband connection," said Markham Erickson, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Open Internet Coalition, a group that counts Google Inc. and eBay Inc. among its supporters. Basically this means that if Comcast doesn't approve of the application being used for internet usage, they can essentially hinder access indefinitely. Yes, they claim that they only delay access for those programs, but that paradoxically translates into a unfair allocation of bandwidth for other paying customers.
In addition, I say that I agree with Peter Eckersley, a staff technologist at Electronic Frontier Foundation when he says, "If ISPs start regularly engaging in conduct like this, then kids in their dorm rooms or small startup companies that are trying to develop innovative new uses of the Internet are going to have to come and get permission from players like Comcast to get their protocols working properly. That kind of veto over innovation would be very bad news." By limiting connections, I feel that Comcast has opened Pandora's Box. Not only are they losing face, but they have effectively began turning the wheels to essentially prevent them from ever doing this sort of thing again. What were they thinking? Obviously management missed the full implications on this one, and on top of that, effectively proved what a lackluster bunch of brainless idiots they all are.
Comcast Corp: 0
Internet Users: 10,000,000,000 and counting...
The thing that causes me to lose all credibility in Comcast is that they have repeatedly denied blocking any Internet application, and then reversing their statements, acknowledging that they have denied PAYING CUSTOMERS usage of the internet. The programs that they've blocked included "peer-to-peer" file-sharing programs like BitTorrent, Gnutella, and Lotus Notes, an IBM Corp. program used in corporate settings. Mitch Bowling, the senior vice president of Comcast Online Services, added a nuance to their prior statement, saying that while Comcast may block initial connection attempts between computers, it would eventually allow access if the computers keep trying. "During periods of heavy peer-to-peer congestion, which can degrade the experience for all customers, we use several network management technologies that, when necessary, enable us to delay — not block — some peer-to-peer traffic. However, the peer-to-peer transaction will eventually be completed as requested," Bowling said.
"Comcast is making arbitrary bandwidth allocation decisions slowing use of basic (programs) without being clear to consumers what they really get when they buy a broadband connection," said Markham Erickson, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Open Internet Coalition, a group that counts Google Inc. and eBay Inc. among its supporters. Basically this means that if Comcast doesn't approve of the application being used for internet usage, they can essentially hinder access indefinitely. Yes, they claim that they only delay access for those programs, but that paradoxically translates into a unfair allocation of bandwidth for other paying customers.
In addition, I say that I agree with Peter Eckersley, a staff technologist at Electronic Frontier Foundation when he says, "If ISPs start regularly engaging in conduct like this, then kids in their dorm rooms or small startup companies that are trying to develop innovative new uses of the Internet are going to have to come and get permission from players like Comcast to get their protocols working properly. That kind of veto over innovation would be very bad news." By limiting connections, I feel that Comcast has opened Pandora's Box. Not only are they losing face, but they have effectively began turning the wheels to essentially prevent them from ever doing this sort of thing again. What were they thinking? Obviously management missed the full implications on this one, and on top of that, effectively proved what a lackluster bunch of brainless idiots they all are.
Comcast Corp: 0
Internet Users: 10,000,000,000 and counting...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
