Real Talk: is it time for a new Prime venue?

124

Posts

  • psykokiwipsykokiwi Registered User regular
    The warehouses often are air conditioned, but it's Seattle...we don't get that hot! How about the Puyallup fairgrounds then?

  • RidleyDragonRidleyDragon Registered User regular
    A viable space needs panel theaters with large AV hookups, a big empty area for an expo hall, and a loading dock to get stuff in, keep that in mind.

    PW0oFIs.png
  • psykokiwipsykokiwi Registered User regular
    Again...the fairgrounds have several expo halls, and spaces for theaters. Just sayin'...it is one if the largest fairs in the country and sees well over a million people. It also has the parking.

  • QuintiousQuintious Registered User regular
    psykokiwi wrote: »
    So thinking outside the box (as a true Seattle-ite)...we have LOTS of empty warehouses in the Kent/Auburn valley (about 30 minutes south of Seattle and closer to SEA). Many of which are over 500,000 square feet! Rent a couple of those, parking at Emerald Downs, and call it good! Gets people out of the city traffic, gives PAX a larger venue, and generates some revenue into the bedroom communities without really taking PAX out of its birthplace! Problem solved!

    So a warehouse... with no air conditioning or real panel/theater space... in August?

    Temperatures in Seattle around Labour Day typically hover around the low-to-mid 70's, so it's super comfortable. That's not the issue. The issue is it would be in Kent/Auburn, which is where all of the rednecks and slugs live. It would NOT be a good experience.

  • VapokVapok Just a Guy. BostonRegistered User regular
    I think @sye46 has hit the nail on the head.

    When I'm talking with people about the differences between PAX East and PAX Prime, one of the topics I cover is that in Boston, PAX East, the venue is the BCEC. However, at PAX Prime, in Seattle, the venue is the City of Seattle. It's almost that SXSW vibe. That's why the show has become so spread out in downtown Seattle. I think the essence and vibe of PAX Prime can only be had in Seattle and that if it were to be moved some place else for the sake of capacity, it'd be an entirely different show, and one that we might not like as much.

    Just my thought.

    enforceruserbarsplitcro.png
    Vapok
  • DracilDracil Registered User regular
    edited April 2013
    The biggest thing about moving it is that I would miss taking the PAX train up to PAX Prime. It's basically starting PAX at Day-1.

    Dracil on
    3DS: 2105-8644-6304
    Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
    MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
  • DeciusDecius I'm old! I'm fat! I'M BLUE!Registered User regular
    Well said @sye46. I know the only time I tend to spend in my hotel room during PAX is to sleep. Otherwise I am somewhere doing something.

    camo_sig2.png
    I never finish anyth
  • StarYoshiStarYoshi Game Designer / Data Scientist USARegistered User regular
    I don't think it's time for a new venue... But I think it may be time for bi-annual PAXs in Seattle. Perhaps between PAX East and PAX prime (EG in May/June). There should be more attendees for 1 of the 2 events than for both, which would relieve some of the demand while still saturating supply, IMO. I'm not as interested in going to Boston (in March) as I am in going to Seattle during the Summer months, personally. My two cents anyway.

    Attendance
    PAX Prime / PAX Dev 2014
    PAX Prime 2013
    PAX Prime 2009
  • VapokVapok Just a Guy. BostonRegistered User regular
    StarYoshi wrote: »
    I don't think it's time for a new venue... But I think it may be time for bi-annual PAXs in Seattle. Perhaps between PAX East and PAX prime (EG in May/June). There should be more attendees for 1 of the 2 events than for both, which would relieve some of the demand while still saturating supply, IMO. I'm not as interested in going to Boston (in March) as I am in going to Seattle during the Summer months, personally. My two cents anyway.

    Speaking from the viewpoint of an Enforcer and also one that helps organize the PC room, bi-annual PAXes create two issues.

    1) You very quickly burnout a volunteer community who typically end up spending a weeks worth of vacation to help out with the show.
    2) Planning the event takes months, and typically have very close to the same personnel, vendors, and exhibitors doing that multi-month long term planning just for one show. Resources become strained.

    I don't think that additional US based PAXii are the answer. I do think that, as a community, we just have to recognize that PAX is popular and that, just like there's no way to see ALL of PAX, there's no way for PAX to see ALL of you. /shrug

    Both Boston and Seattle have convention center expansion plans that will increase the size of PAX, and at least in Boston, PAX will be there until 2023. So, I think that as each respective city grows their convention space, PAX will grow too, and more people will be able to attend.

    Until then.. I think we just need to come to terms with the realization that PAX is popular, yo.. =)

    enforceruserbarsplitcro.png
    Vapok
  • StarYoshiStarYoshi Game Designer / Data Scientist USARegistered User regular
    edited April 2013
    Vapok wrote: »
    StarYoshi wrote: »
    I don't think it's time for a new venue... But I think it may be time for bi-annual PAXs in Seattle. Perhaps between PAX East and PAX prime (EG in May/June). There should be more attendees for 1 of the 2 events than for both, which would relieve some of the demand while still saturating supply, IMO. I'm not as interested in going to Boston (in March) as I am in going to Seattle during the Summer months, personally. My two cents anyway.

    Speaking from the viewpoint of an Enforcer and also one that helps organize the PC room, bi-annual PAXes create two issues.

    1) You very quickly burnout a volunteer community who typically end up spending a weeks worth of vacation to help out with the show.
    2) Planning the event takes months, and typically have very close to the same personnel, vendors, and exhibitors doing that multi-month long term planning just for one show. Resources become strained.

    I don't think that additional US based PAXii are the answer. I do think that, as a community, we just have to recognize that PAX is popular and that, just like there's no way to see ALL of PAX, there's no way for PAX to see ALL of you. /shrug

    Both Boston and Seattle have convention center expansion plans that will increase the size of PAX, and at least in Boston, PAX will be there until 2023. So, I think that as each respective city grows their convention space, PAX will grow too, and more people will be able to attend.

    Until then.. I think we just need to come to terms with the realization that PAX is popular, yo.. =)

    1) I would suggest raising ticket prices and offering compensation to formerly volunteer staff as a potential option. - There are many ideas that can be tossed around regarding this, of course.

    2) Since the event is limited in space and attendance, there can be heterogeneity between vendors at both events. I can't say for sure, but I would assume that there are vendors who are interested in attending PAX prime but are not included for whatever reason.

    The way PAX ticketing this year worked was... it didn't (as far as I'm concerned). There is a problem beyond "it's popular" and it's worth exploring many avenues :) I'd also certainly consider ticketing option changes before a venue frequency/location change - eg raising prices, binding tickets (or limiting their transferability in some way), etc. Whether something changes or nothing changes, it'll have been worth the discussion!

    StarYoshi on
    Attendance
    PAX Prime / PAX Dev 2014
    PAX Prime 2013
    PAX Prime 2009
  • VapokVapok Just a Guy. BostonRegistered User regular
    edited April 2013
    StarYoshi wrote: »
    Whether something changes or nothing changes, it'll have been worth the discussion!

    I'm always up for a good discussion.

    In regards to your response to #2, I wouldn't be quick to assume. A lot of the same vendors are used for both shows. I think this is partially because of the recipe that is "PAX" is successful because of those vendors, but also that there are limited options available. Considering that PAX is one of the largest conventions ran in the United States (taking into consideration both attendance and square footage, and combing both Prime and East), the sheer amount of logistics needed immediately reduce your available vendors.

    I think what you're talking about in regards to "consider ticketing options", was done with this PAX Prime. An additional day was put on the show. You might not think that the ticketing system this year worked, but for the unknown number of actual people that obtained passes, it did work for them. I would also venture to guess that more people obtained tickets to PAX Prime 2013 than PAX Prime 2012, meaning that more passes were made available.

    However, all that said, in my opinion, I don't think that a third US based PAX solves the ticketing issue. A large majority of people will still attend all three shows. In fact, I don't have any way of knowing the numbers on this, but based on the percentage of people that I personally know who are going to PAX Australia, no matter where PAX is, there will always be a significant number of returning attendees crossover.

    You might have some valid statements though. Increasing ticket prices will reduce the availability that some people have to PAX, meaning that it will take marginally longer for tickets to sell out. However, if you consider the target audience you could very quickly reduce that audience quickly. For what PAX is, I think PAX is appropriately priced, it's a huge value (especially the multi-day ticket), which, as we saw.. makes it very popular.

    Vapok on
    enforceruserbarsplitcro.png
    Vapok
  • PurpleSkyPurpleSky Registered User regular
    This topic became much more valid and applicable when PAX East moved to the Boston Convention Center. Space and size is one area where PAX East blows Prime out of the water. The entire convention fits under one roof and there still feels like there is more elbow room. So yes Prime has space issues. However, staying loyal to Seattle is a valid concern and I don't really want to see Prime move. So I really believe that a 3rd and possible 4th PAX is in order. One should definitely be in the Moscone center in San Fran, and the other in McCormick in Chicago. The San Fran one might really help alleviate the pressure off of Prime especially if it is scheduled somewhat close to Prime (like in Oct for example.)

  • DracilDracil Registered User regular
    If there's a SF one I would totally go to that instead of Prime. But Moscone also has a habit of being dicks (see Wondercon).

    3DS: 2105-8644-6304
    Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
    MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
  • DeciusDecius I'm old! I'm fat! I'M BLUE!Registered User regular
    Extending PAX beyond it's current 3 shows also has to look at the reality of not having Mike and Jerry show up at them. They only have some much time and still have a business to run; a business that is rather important to the continued existence of PAX ;-) .

    camo_sig2.png
    I never finish anyth
  • DracilDracil Registered User regular
    edited April 2013
    I'll be honest, I've never actually gone to one of their panels. /shame

    (though I've probably been to a grand total of 1 panel at PAX, and only 'cause a friend dragged me there)

    Dracil on
    3DS: 2105-8644-6304
    Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
    MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
  • StarYoshiStarYoshi Game Designer / Data Scientist USARegistered User regular
    edited April 2013
    PAX tickets as they stand right now represent a small portion of the total cost to attend for anyone who has to travel. My plane tickets cost more than twice what four 1-day passes costs, not to mention the cost of a reasonably close hotel. Given the overall expense (of travel), I think that the ticket price could stand to increase, particularly if it meant additional benefits became available to attendees (Better customer service, additional/better staffing, more events, etc)

    To maintain the event as more of an open, casual get together may be somewhat naive at this point - They can retain much of the DNA that makes PAX great... but further consideration about the scale and scope of the event couldn't hurt, even if that means some restriction on some of the perceived "free spirit" of the event. I'm sure that there's been much thought about such a balancing act, but since I wasn't involved I get to talk about it here as if it hasn't occurred :P

    Some of our speculation won't be particularly useful because we simply don't have access to the information that those involved with the event do, but at least we can rely on a combination of common sense, business principles, and thoughtful discussion to create a frank and worthwhile set of paragraphs :P

    StarYoshi on
    Attendance
    PAX Prime / PAX Dev 2014
    PAX Prime 2013
    PAX Prime 2009
  • DracilDracil Registered User regular
    edited April 2013
    For us out-of-towners, PAX is expensive no matter what. I think those most opposed to price increases are probably the locals.

    e.g., if we doubled the price, that represents maybe 5-10% of what I'll be spending, but it would probably be a 50-100% increase to a local which could very well price out students and such.

    Dracil on
    3DS: 2105-8644-6304
    Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
    MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
  • zerzhulzerzhul Registered User, Moderator mod
    please stay on topic, this is a venue discussion.

  • LexiconGrrlLexiconGrrl Registered User regular
    An interesting side effect to not changing the venue and letting the event continue to grow is the inevitable ability of people to fill the void that the convention leaves in their schedules. I'm talking about community run events, which I predict will get more involved and more interesting as future PAXes become more crowded and the one-day passes get more attention.

    A lot of people - especially the forumers - go to PAX as much for the community as for the convention itself. Think about the things you like doing at PAX and then think about how much of that is really dependent on being physically inside the convention versus being in the same city with a bunch of like minded people who have shared interests. There's not that much that can only happen inside the WSCC. Want to see Front in concert? Go to his Post-PAX show. Want to get some boardgame on? Go to one of the many boardgame meetups before and after PAX. Can't attend a panel? Get together at someone's hotel room and stream it on Twitch TV.

    I predict that the venue won't change, but instead we're going to see more and more PAX-centric events - both planned and spontaneous - outside of PAX that are thrown by attendees who only got partial tickets. It's not unrealistic to envision a day in the near future where PAX attendees come to Seattle and schedule their PAX tickets around the other events that are happening.

    I personally don't see the popularity of the con as some huge problem to overcome, I see it as an opportunity for community members to come forward and expand PAX on their own. As individuals, we can define the convention as broadly or narrowly as we want to but in the end, what makes PAX special is the amazing community that's attracted to it, and to fully experience that, we don't need no stinkin' badges.

    Happily on Sabbatical. Don't bug me.
  • BionicDovakinBionicDovakin Registered User regular
    I don't think the guys want to move PAX out of Seattle, but I definitely think we will be hearing an announcement of a new PAX event in the US soon. It was mentioned during the second PAX East 2013 Q&A that Robert seems to think the guys could do about 5 PAX events per year. That being said, it would not surprise me at all if they started a new PAX at a larger venue than WSCC.

  • Cultural Geek GirlCultural Geek Girl Registered User regular
    Vapok wrote: »
    StarYoshi wrote: »
    Whether something changes or nothing changes, it'll have been worth the discussion!

    I'm always up for a good discussion.

    In regards to your response to #2, I wouldn't be quick to assume. A lot of the same vendors are used for both shows. I think this is partially because of the recipe that is "PAX" is successful because of those vendors, but also that there are limited options available. Considering that PAX is one of the largest conventions ran in the United States (taking into consideration both attendance and square footage, and combing both Prime and East), the sheer amount of logistics needed immediately reduce your available vendors.

    I think what you're talking about in regards to "consider ticketing options", was done with this PAX Prime. An additional day was put on the show. You might not think that the ticketing system this year worked, but for the unknown number of actual people that obtained passes, it did work for them. I would also venture to guess that more people obtained tickets to PAX Prime 2013 than PAX Prime 2012, meaning that more passes were made available.

    However, all that said, in my opinion, I don't think that a third US based PAX solves the ticketing issue. A large majority of people will still attend all three shows. In fact, I don't have any way of knowing the numbers on this, but based on the percentage of people that I personally know who are going to PAX Australia, no matter where PAX is, there will always be a significant number of returning attendees crossover.

    You might have some valid statements though. Increasing ticket prices will reduce the availability that some people have to PAX, meaning that it will take marginally longer for tickets to sell out. However, if you consider the target audience you could very quickly reduce that audience quickly. For what PAX is, I think PAX is appropriately priced, it's a huge value (especially the multi-day ticket), which, as we saw.. makes it very popular.

    I know a bit about the games industry.

    It costs vendors A LOT to come to PAX. Each additional PAX is more money, and there will always be an extra evaluation. "Going to PAX:A raises awareness of our product's release by 25%. Going to PAX-B adds another 15%. If PAX-C only adds another 8%, but costs the same amount to attend, will it be worth it?

    I think that math would be a lot more attractive if it were a 3rd North American con in a different location, even if it wasn't annual. As much as I dislike Vegas, I think Vegas might be the best bet, because travel and lodging costs to Vegas are always artificially low. A friend of mine had his wedding there for exactly that reason, despite the fact that most of his friends and family lived on the East Coast or in the Midwest.

    Another NA PAX isn't entirely off the table, either. I can't remember where I heard this, it might have been one of the Q&As, but Tycho told a story of a conversation he had with Robert.

    "PAX is great, but it kind of takes over our lives, and now we've got this Australia one. I don't know if we could do more a year."
    "Oh, I think you could do like 4 or 5."
    "How would that even work?"
    "Don't worry about it."

    Buttoneer, Brigadeer, and Keeper of the Book of Wil Wheaton.
    Triwizard Drinking Tournament - '09 !Hufflepuff unofficial conscript, '10 !Gryffindor
    Nerd blog at culturalgeekgirl.com
  • BionicDovakinBionicDovakin Registered User regular
    I'm pretty sure they said that during on of the PAX East Q&As this year.
    Vapok wrote: »
    StarYoshi wrote: »
    Whether something changes or nothing changes, it'll have been worth the discussion!

    I'm always up for a good discussion.

    In regards to your response to #2, I wouldn't be quick to assume. A lot of the same vendors are used for both shows. I think this is partially because of the recipe that is "PAX" is successful because of those vendors, but also that there are limited options available. Considering that PAX is one of the largest conventions ran in the United States (taking into consideration both attendance and square footage, and combing both Prime and East), the sheer amount of logistics needed immediately reduce your available vendors.

    I think what you're talking about in regards to "consider ticketing options", was done with this PAX Prime. An additional day was put on the show. You might not think that the ticketing system this year worked, but for the unknown number of actual people that obtained passes, it did work for them. I would also venture to guess that more people obtained tickets to PAX Prime 2013 than PAX Prime 2012, meaning that more passes were made available.

    However, all that said, in my opinion, I don't think that a third US based PAX solves the ticketing issue. A large majority of people will still attend all three shows. In fact, I don't have any way of knowing the numbers on this, but based on the percentage of people that I personally know who are going to PAX Australia, no matter where PAX is, there will always be a significant number of returning attendees crossover.

    You might have some valid statements though. Increasing ticket prices will reduce the availability that some people have to PAX, meaning that it will take marginally longer for tickets to sell out. However, if you consider the target audience you could very quickly reduce that audience quickly. For what PAX is, I think PAX is appropriately priced, it's a huge value (especially the multi-day ticket), which, as we saw.. makes it very popular.

    I know a bit about the games industry.

    It costs vendors A LOT to come to PAX. Each additional PAX is more money, and there will always be an extra evaluation. "Going to PAX:A raises awareness of our product's release by 25%. Going to PAX-B adds another 15%. If PAX-C only adds another 8%, but costs the same amount to attend, will it be worth it?

    I think that math would be a lot more attractive if it were a 3rd North American con in a different location, even if it wasn't annual. As much as I dislike Vegas, I think Vegas might be the best bet, because travel and lodging costs to Vegas are always artificially low. A friend of mine had his wedding there for exactly that reason, despite the fact that most of his friends and family lived on the East Coast or in the Midwest.

    Another NA PAX isn't entirely off the table, either. I can't remember where I heard this, it might have been one of the Q&As, but Tycho told a story of a conversation he had with Robert.

    "PAX is great, but it kind of takes over our lives, and now we've got this Australia one. I don't know if we could do more a year."
    "Oh, I think you could do like 4 or 5."
    "How would that even work?"
    "Don't worry about it."

  • KnightbringrKnightbringr Registered User regular
    ramen215 wrote: »
    L337Zombie wrote: »
    Just pointing out that PAX Prime was originally held in the Meydenbauer center in Bellevue, WA until '07 when they moved to the WSCC which coincidentally is when I started attending. IMO I think that Prime should stay in seattle I feel they have done a decent job of outsourcing to other buildings in the area to accommodate for the lack of space, I think they just need to iron out the registration process and all should be good.

    So basically I feel PAX should stay true to its roots it should atleast stay in WA preferably seattle. Did you guys ever consider holding a PAX in Vegas or San Diego and just call it PAX West? Or I agree with the idea of having a central PAX.

    Just my two cents.

    PAX Central at the Dallas Convention Center would be awesome!

    Wikipedia: "The center is over 2,000,000 square feet (190,000 m2) in size and contains over 1,000,000 square feet (93,000 m2) of exhibit space. The largest contiguous exhibit-space in the structure is 726,726 square feet (67,515 m2). A 203,000-square-foot (18,900 m2) column-free exhibit hall in the center is the largest of its kind in the United States."

    Dallas is a great suggestion!! This gets my vote!

  • sergentzimmsergentzimm Bellingham WARegistered User regular
    edited April 2013
    The ticketing was a mess this year. I really see the need for a lotto type system. It really shouldn't be up to the lucky people who were on the internet the exact minute they announced it, not even giving advanced notice.

    Seattle is also not equipped to handle the show. The new arena might make it interesting to have it down at the stadiums, though sports timing is rough. I really think that Vegas is the way to go. Flights and hotels are cheap and plentiful. They can easily handle PAX. It's time to say good bye to Seattle. And I am from just north of Seattle here.

    sergentzimm on
  • DeciusDecius I'm old! I'm fat! I'M BLUE!Registered User regular
    ramen215 wrote: »
    L337Zombie wrote: »
    Just pointing out that PAX Prime was originally held in the Meydenbauer center in Bellevue, WA until '07 when they moved to the WSCC which coincidentally is when I started attending. IMO I think that Prime should stay in seattle I feel they have done a decent job of outsourcing to other buildings in the area to accommodate for the lack of space, I think they just need to iron out the registration process and all should be good.

    So basically I feel PAX should stay true to its roots it should atleast stay in WA preferably seattle. Did you guys ever consider holding a PAX in Vegas or San Diego and just call it PAX West? Or I agree with the idea of having a central PAX.

    Just my two cents.

    PAX Central at the Dallas Convention Center would be awesome!

    Wikipedia: "The center is over 2,000,000 square feet (190,000 m2) in size and contains over 1,000,000 square feet (93,000 m2) of exhibit space. The largest contiguous exhibit-space in the structure is 726,726 square feet (67,515 m2). A 203,000-square-foot (18,900 m2) column-free exhibit hall in the center is the largest of its kind in the United States."

    Dallas is a great suggestion!! This gets my vote!

    Anything like that in Austin? I've always wanted to go to Austin.

    camo_sig2.png
    I never finish anyth
  • akTheraakThera akjak Registered User regular
    I haven't read this whole thread, but here's what I think.

    No. It's not time for a new Prime venue. It's not time for even more PAX events. I said it last year, and I'll say it again here: I don't want Penny Arcade to become all about PAX all year long. Three PAX should be enough, and I want The Guys to be able to spend their time on their various creative endeavors that everyone gets to enjoy, badge lottery or no.

    Everyone (me included) needs to get over the idea that it's "Prime or nothing!" If you didn't get tickets to Prime, go to East in the spring. It didn't sell out completely until a few weeks before the show. AUS still had tickets during East (iirc).

    Stop thinking you're entitled to a PAX every year. You're not. Stop thinking that Penny Arcade exists only to provide you with PAX. It doesn't.

    Potentially hundreds of thousands of people will get to go to PAX Prime. We all feel bad for everyone who wanted to go but couldn't. All hope is not lost, some legit badges will come from the community in the days or weeks before the show.

    PAX, and Penny Arcade, began in Seattle, and there should always be a Seattle PAX. Downtown is the best place for it: Lots of nearby hotels, attractions and restaurants.

    Take a few days to calm down, and better luck to all of us next year. Also: See you at East!

    Switch: SW-4133-1546-2720 (Thera)
    Twitch: akThera
    Steam: Thera
  • anabbeynormalityanabbeynormality Registered User regular
    I really doubt that PAX will ever abandon its mother city. I think they should improve their registration process to give people a more even shot at getting passes (or at least not have it take 3 hours), but there will always be a lot of people who don't get to go. I was out of luck last year. I got lucky this year. I just have to accept that I probably won't get to go every year.

    That said, I think Las Vegas is the best option by far for an additional PAX. It's not just about convention size, it's also about accessibility and cost. It's cheap to fly there and cheap to stay. It's a lot easier for the midwest to get to Vegas than for most of the country to get to the midwest, and what about the southern half of the country? It would really suck for there to be three PAX conferences in the US all in the north. Any other city is good for those nearby, Vegas is good for the whole country. I'm only a 3 hour drive from Seattle, but I'd definitely go to Vegas whether or not I got into Prime.

  • DracilDracil Registered User regular
    edited April 2013
    So hearing about some feedback of PAX East, and given the gaming community is pretty diverse, and the comment about vendors not wanting to go to all the PAXes for cost reasons, it might make sense to make each PAX focused on some aspect. For example, I heard PAX East was super great for tabletop and not as good for video games, so maybe keep it that way intentionally. Maybe make PAX Prime more focused on actual PA (the comics and anything with the site)/Seattle. And a third location can be more focused on video game exhibitions.

    That's not to say each location can't have some presence of the other aspects, but it might help give people more reason to go to specific ones that align more closely with their current interests. But the goal is to not have a "catchall" PAX, because otherwise that will forever be the most popular and crowded when the goal is to get the attendees to focus on not going to every con.

    Dracil on
    3DS: 2105-8644-6304
    Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
    MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
  • DracilDracil Registered User regular
    edited April 2013
    Ooops, got confused from the auto draft saving.

    Dracil on
    3DS: 2105-8644-6304
    Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
    MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
  • DreamwriterDreamwriter Registered User regular
    The Seattle one would have to be the one based on video game exhibitions, because of the point that so many of the big video game companies are here in the Seattle area, and for many of them the reason they put the most effort into PAX Prime is because it's local.

  • DracilDracil Registered User regular
    edited April 2013
    I've heard that claim, but is that actually true? I'm pretty sure they put more effort into E3. And if they intentionally limit the expo space at PAX Prime, while giving a lot of expo space at a different venue, then they'd have to adapt anyway.

    Some quick Googling:
    Seattle: Nintendo, Microsoft, WotC, PopCap, BigFishGames

    SF Bay Area: EA, Ubisoft, Capcom, Sega, Konami

    I think there are big game companies in many locations. It might change which companies have a bigger/smaller presence though.

    Dracil on
    3DS: 2105-8644-6304
    Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
    MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
  • RidleyDragonRidleyDragon Registered User regular
    I mean no offense, but PAX East certainly has a huge amount of video game content, East is simply the bigger PAX. (Not necessarily better, but bigger)

    Pax East is so huge that it's not particularly hard to get tickets. From my understanding, Prime is more like a huge party in downtown Seattle than a video game convention, and East is the opposite.

    PW0oFIs.png
  • Cultural Geek GirlCultural Geek Girl Registered User regular
    edited April 2013
    The Seattle one would have to be the one based on video game exhibitions, because of the point that so many of the big video game companies are here in the Seattle area, and for many of them the reason they put the most effort into PAX Prime is because it's local.

    It's local(ish... a bunch of companies are from California, but the point still stands), and it's also the perfect time for marketing. It's pre-holiday. The "holiday sales season" is essentially October onward. A late August/early September con is a great time to spend your marketing money.
    Dracil wrote: »
    I've heard that claim, but is that actually true? I'm pretty sure they put more effort into E3. And if they intentionally limit the expo space at PAX Prime, while giving a lot of expo space at a different venue, then they'd have to adapt anyway.

    Some quick Googling:
    Seattle: Nintendo, Microsoft, WotC, PopCap, BigFishGames

    SF Bay Area: EA, Ubisoft, Capcom, Sega

    LA/OC Area - Blizzard, Carbine, inXile, Obsidian, Riot, Activision, Atlus/XSeed, Infinity Ward, Naughty Dog

    Also, if you're pretty sure they put more effort into E3, you're pretty sure wrong. That was the case a decade ago, maybe even five years ago, but certainly not now. I've been to both. I don't know a single game industry person who prefers it to PAX. I know quite a few gaming entities who barely do E3 anymore, but who go all out at PAX. The reverse is true for a lot of mainstream phone and tablet stuff. It varies.

    PAX is more popular than any cons because being about everything makes it better! The PAXes have diverged a little not because they were designed that way, but because they've adapted to the niche in their environment. PAX East is more about tabletop and indie, because it's not during the time of year when the big game studios have their big marketing budgets, and it's not local to a lot of other studios. It also has more dedicated tabletop space, so that area has really blossomed.

    Explicitly specializing PAX would be like cutting off a limb because a patient is "too healthy." I love PAX specifically because I like tabletop, MMOs, console games, Loading Ready Run, Magic: the Gathering, and Penny-Arcade.

    Cultural Geek Girl on
    Buttoneer, Brigadeer, and Keeper of the Book of Wil Wheaton.
    Triwizard Drinking Tournament - '09 !Hufflepuff unofficial conscript, '10 !Gryffindor
    Nerd blog at culturalgeekgirl.com
  • DehumanizedDehumanized Registered User regular
    Dracil wrote: »
    So hearing about some feedback of PAX East, and given the gaming community is pretty diverse, and the comment about vendors not wanting to go to all the PAXes for cost reasons, it might make sense to make each PAX focused on some aspect. For example, I heard PAX East was super great for tabletop and not as good for video games, so maybe keep it that way intentionally. Maybe make PAX Prime more focused on actual PA (the comics and anything with the site)/Seattle. And a third location can be more focused on video game exhibitions.

    That's not to say each location can't have some presence of the other aspects, but it might help give people more reason to go to specific ones that align more closely with their current interests. But the goal is to not have a "catchall" PAX, because otherwise that will forever be the most popular and crowded when the goal is to get the attendees to focus on not going to every con.

    PAX is for all nerds, it just wouldn't be the same expo if it was announced to be just for people who like tabletop, or just people who want to see new video games, or just people who like MOBAs, or whatever.

  • trickycooljtrickycoolj Registered User regular
    In suggesting the absurd, lets rent an airplane hangar at Boeing Field!

    But in all seriousness, I was in Vegas a little over a week ago and stayed in the Venetian. We took a wrong turn getting back to the room elevators and wound up in the Sands Expo meandering giant empty hallways with ballroom after ballroom. I seriously turned to my friend and said "Why isn't PAX here? We wouldn't have missed out on tickets last year if it was here!" It's not even that bad of an airfare from Seattle about $200 if you don't try for discounts. But as a local Seattlite it adds $200 airfare and $200/night hotel and more vacation days (travel time outside PAX dates) and bigger food expenses. Though we do make Prime a "stay-cation" and splurge on meals out downtown (don't get that excuse much) and pay for parking daily PAX isn't a crazy big vacation expense locally and it's very hard to wrap my head around the idea of added travel costs for PAX.

    That said since I didn't get in for 2012 I thoroughly enjoyed ECCC this year instead and even saw the Stripsearch panel which was only half full with no line and consisted of Mike, Jerry, Khoo, Erica and Mac! I've never even gotten close to entering a PA panel at the 4 PAXii I've attended!! And of course I love randomly encountering PA staff in the wild at REI and Nordstrom LOL!

  • QuintiousQuintious Registered User regular
    Dracil wrote: »
    I've heard that claim, but is that actually true? I'm pretty sure they put more effort into E3. And if they intentionally limit the expo space at PAX Prime, while giving a lot of expo space at a different venue, then they'd have to adapt anyway.

    Some quick Googling:
    Seattle: Nintendo, Microsoft, WotC, PopCap, BigFishGames

    SF Bay Area: EA, Ubisoft, Capcom, Sega, Konami

    I think there are big game companies in many locations. It might change which companies have a bigger/smaller presence though.

    I go to E3 every year. PAX East this year. More effort is put into Prime, I assure you. E3 is more of a general electronics expo - and it's a trade show, not something meant to build up hype amongst the masses.

    For the record, EA employs more people in Seattle than it does San Francisco. And you're forgetting a lot of developers up here like Bethesda, Sucker Punch, Bungie, etc.

  • sanovahsanovah Nerd of the West San Diego, CaliforniaRegistered User regular
    An interesting side effect to not changing the venue and letting the event continue to grow is the inevitable ability of people to fill the void that the convention leaves in their schedules. I'm talking about community run events, which I predict will get more involved and more interesting as future PAXes become more crowded and the one-day passes get more attention.

    A lot of people - especially the forumers - go to PAX as much for the community as for the convention itself. Think about the things you like doing at PAX and then think about how much of that is really dependent on being physically inside the convention versus being in the same city with a bunch of like minded people who have shared interests. There's not that much that can only happen inside the WSCC. Want to see Front in concert? Go to his Post-PAX show. Want to get some boardgame on? Go to one of the many boardgame meetups before and after PAX. Can't attend a panel? Get together at someone's hotel room and stream it on Twitch TV.

    I predict that the venue won't change, but instead we're going to see more and more PAX-centric events - both planned and spontaneous - outside of PAX that are thrown by attendees who only got partial tickets. It's not unrealistic to envision a day in the near future where PAX attendees come to Seattle and schedule their PAX tickets around the other events that are happening.

    I personally don't see the popularity of the con as some huge problem to overcome, I see it as an opportunity for community members to come forward and expand PAX on their own. As individuals, we can define the convention as broadly or narrowly as we want to but in the end, what makes PAX special is the amazing community that's attracted to it, and to fully experience that, we don't need no stinkin' badges.

    But does PAX have to be in Seattle for any of this to happen?

    Don't get me wrong I love Seattle and Washington, hell I'm moving up there, but PAX has grown to big for Seattle to accommodate. You guys are planning an expansion but that's probably years off. So do we just tell everyone to suck it up and go to east or not at all until the expansion is finished because PAX is too big for the current convention center? I love PAX and the city it's in but it's undeniable that it's grown too big for where it is and until that changes the venue needs to and should change.

    My ideal solution would be to leave Seattle for say SF or Vegas for a couple years. Let Seattle expand the center and come back bigger and better than ever when it's finished.

    PAX does belong in Seattle but at the current time they can't give it the space it needs. We've expanded into Seattle but that doesn't mean any more can attend.

  • QuintiousQuintious Registered User regular
    sanovah wrote: »
    An interesting side effect to not changing the venue and letting the event continue to grow is the inevitable ability of people to fill the void that the convention leaves in their schedules. I'm talking about community run events, which I predict will get more involved and more interesting as future PAXes become more crowded and the one-day passes get more attention.

    A lot of people - especially the forumers - go to PAX as much for the community as for the convention itself. Think about the things you like doing at PAX and then think about how much of that is really dependent on being physically inside the convention versus being in the same city with a bunch of like minded people who have shared interests. There's not that much that can only happen inside the WSCC. Want to see Front in concert? Go to his Post-PAX show. Want to get some boardgame on? Go to one of the many boardgame meetups before and after PAX. Can't attend a panel? Get together at someone's hotel room and stream it on Twitch TV.

    I predict that the venue won't change, but instead we're going to see more and more PAX-centric events - both planned and spontaneous - outside of PAX that are thrown by attendees who only got partial tickets. It's not unrealistic to envision a day in the near future where PAX attendees come to Seattle and schedule their PAX tickets around the other events that are happening.

    I personally don't see the popularity of the con as some huge problem to overcome, I see it as an opportunity for community members to come forward and expand PAX on their own. As individuals, we can define the convention as broadly or narrowly as we want to but in the end, what makes PAX special is the amazing community that's attracted to it, and to fully experience that, we don't need no stinkin' badges.

    But does PAX have to be in Seattle for any of this to happen?

    Don't get me wrong I love Seattle and Washington, hell I'm moving up there, but PAX has grown to big for Seattle to accommodate. You guys are planning an expansion but that's probably years off. So do we just tell everyone to suck it up and go to east or not at all until the expansion is finished because PAX is too big for the current convention center? I love PAX and the city it's in but it's undeniable that it's grown too big for where it is and until that changes the venue needs to and should change.

    My ideal solution would be to leave Seattle for say SF or Vegas for a couple years. Let Seattle expand the center and come back bigger and better than ever when it's finished.

    PAX does belong in Seattle but at the current time they can't give it the space it needs. We've expanded into Seattle but that doesn't mean any more can attend.

    And this brings us back full circle to a point many of us have already brought up: Making it any bigger is not going to enhance the experience - it will actually detract from it. PAX East was a joke if you were wanting to play an actual video game from a major publisher.

  • Cultural Geek GirlCultural Geek Girl Registered User regular
    sanovah wrote: »
    An interesting side effect to not changing the venue and letting the event continue to grow is the inevitable ability of people to fill the void that the convention leaves in their schedules. I'm talking about community run events, which I predict will get more involved and more interesting as future PAXes become more crowded and the one-day passes get more attention.

    A lot of people - especially the forumers - go to PAX as much for the community as for the convention itself. Think about the things you like doing at PAX and then think about how much of that is really dependent on being physically inside the convention versus being in the same city with a bunch of like minded people who have shared interests. There's not that much that can only happen inside the WSCC. Want to see Front in concert? Go to his Post-PAX show. Want to get some boardgame on? Go to one of the many boardgame meetups before and after PAX. Can't attend a panel? Get together at someone's hotel room and stream it on Twitch TV.

    I predict that the venue won't change, but instead we're going to see more and more PAX-centric events - both planned and spontaneous - outside of PAX that are thrown by attendees who only got partial tickets. It's not unrealistic to envision a day in the near future where PAX attendees come to Seattle and schedule their PAX tickets around the other events that are happening.

    I personally don't see the popularity of the con as some huge problem to overcome, I see it as an opportunity for community members to come forward and expand PAX on their own. As individuals, we can define the convention as broadly or narrowly as we want to but in the end, what makes PAX special is the amazing community that's attracted to it, and to fully experience that, we don't need no stinkin' badges.

    But does PAX have to be in Seattle for any of this to happen?

    Don't get me wrong I love Seattle and Washington, hell I'm moving up there, but PAX has grown to big for Seattle to accommodate. You guys are planning an expansion but that's probably years off. So do we just tell everyone to suck it up and go to east or not at all until the expansion is finished because PAX is too big for the current convention center? I love PAX and the city it's in but it's undeniable that it's grown too big for where it is and until that changes the venue needs to and should change.

    My ideal solution would be to leave Seattle for say SF or Vegas for a couple years. Let Seattle expand the center and come back bigger and better than ever when it's finished.

    PAX does belong in Seattle but at the current time they can't give it the space it needs. We've expanded into Seattle but that doesn't mean any more can attend.

    At this point, I think we've mostly coalesced into two main groups.

    Group 1: It's OK to sacrifice a walkable, hospitable city, PA and the community's established relationships with local hotels and venues, and the entire general vibe of the original PAX to simply provide a larger PAX that takes place during key marketing times when vendors would spend more money on making fancy booths.

    Group 2: The walkable, hospitable city and our relationships with local organizations and vendors are a key part of PAX. If you want to easily buy tickets, go to East. Maybe we'll get some more PAXes later, but there's something about Seattle that makes it a nice place. Also, the weather there is better, this time of year, than most other places.

    At this point, it's a matter of opinion. I barely go to the show floor, (cause cookies!), so I don't feel like going to PAX East instead is the booby prize. The only thing that's worse about PAX East than PAX Prime for me is the area I step out into when I step outside the door. The first year of PAX East, it was in the beautiful center of marvelous Boston. Now it's in a bigger con center, at the expense of having anything fun or useful within walking distance of the con itself.

    I understand thinking the fancy "Ok guys, this is our marketing PUSH! Gogogo!" show floor being a huge draw, and the one at East being slightly less amazing, but I don't think it's worth it to sacrifice the total package that is Seattle so that more people can go to the convention that happens to coincide with prime marketing season.

    Buttoneer, Brigadeer, and Keeper of the Book of Wil Wheaton.
    Triwizard Drinking Tournament - '09 !Hufflepuff unofficial conscript, '10 !Gryffindor
    Nerd blog at culturalgeekgirl.com
  • VapokVapok Just a Guy. BostonRegistered User regular
    Being from Boston, and living here in the Boston area, I can concur with any sentiments that the environs around the BCEC in Boston.. absolutely suck donkey nuggets.

    enforceruserbarsplitcro.png
    Vapok
This discussion has been closed.