Hmmmm.....I think a problem would be in logistics. PAX is still fantastic, but you have to admit that PAX has become the new E3. Right now PAX East and PAX West are fairly evenly spaced, and I wonder where they could fit in a third, let alone if the sponsors and video game companies are willing to commit to displaying their products at three shows with a fairly equal crossover in demographics.
DoctorArch on
Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
PAX Central should be in Iowa, true center of America.
Isn't that actually a place in Kansas?
Ah yes, a quick Google search tells me that it is in Lebanon, Kansas, while the geographic center of North America is in Rugby, North Dakota.
You fail both times DarkPrimus :P
DoctorArch on
Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited March 2010
I cannot support a convention taking place in Texas. And what the fuck is with that picture of the old dude?
If you wanna 'campaign' for it, why not ask them in like an email? Keep in mind, they just did their first PAX East which was already a big enough undertaking. They do two conventions a year, a charity auction dinner, and go to conventions. You're asking two busy guys to be even busier.
Omaha has a nice new and big convention center with ready hotel access. Also it's pretty damn centralized.
Omaha would be perfect, but there's people on these forums that get in a big huff anytime you even insinuate that PAX could be held anywhere but their current locations.
Also it is a damn fine convention center. It even has a skybridge to the hotel!
Omaha, Iowa, and Austin all lack major international airports.
Yes, they have airports, but they're small, and not regional hubs for any airlines, which makes flying there more expensive and more difficult (people will need more connections).
If you're going to do a "PAX Central" (which I think is a terrible idea), Chicago would really be the logical choice. Or, if you wanted to go south (because of some serious brain deficiency of some sort), Houston or DFW.
Omaha has a nice new and big convention center with ready hotel access. Also it's pretty damn centralized.
Omaha would be perfect, but there's people on these forums that get in a big huff anytime you even insinuate that PAX could be held anywhere but their current locations.
Also it is a damn fine convention center. It even has a skybridge to the hotel!
There is nothing there. The airport has 4 million passengers per year; Seattle has 29 million, Boston 30 million, and DFW 56 million.
Getting there would be such a huge pain in the ass, and it doesn't have the infrastructure to handle that many people getting there in one day. Not to mention that unlike Seattle or Boston, pretty much everyone going there would have to fly there. Everybody bashes on it because it's a terrible fucking idea.
Thanatos on
0
Options
Librarian's ghostLibrarian, Ghostbuster, and TimSporkRegistered Userregular
Omaha, Iowa, and Austin all lack major international airports.
Yes, they have airports, but they're small, and not regional hubs for any airlines, which makes flying there more expensive and more difficult (people will need more connections).
If you're going to do a "PAX Central" (which I think is a terrible idea), Chicago would really be the logical choice. Or, if you wanted to go south (because of some serious brain deficiency of some sort), Houston or DFW.
Hey man, Omaha's airport was used for that Up in the Air movie with George Clooney. Don't knock it.
Also a central PAX probably wouldn't see too many people from outside the US as one of the PAX in the east or west would most likely be closer.
Omaha has a nice new and big convention center with ready hotel access. Also it's pretty damn centralized.
Omaha would be perfect, but there's people on these forums that get in a big huff anytime you even insinuate that PAX could be held anywhere but their current locations.
Also it is a damn fine convention center. It even has a skybridge to the hotel!
There is nothing there. The airport has 4 million passengers per year; Seattle has 29 million, Boston 30 million, and DFW 56 million.
Getting there would be such a huge pain in the ass, and it doesn't have the infrastructure to handle that many people getting there in one day. Not to mention that unlike Seattle or Boston, pretty much everyone going there would have to fly there. Everybody bashes on it because it's a terrible fucking idea.
What an amazing show of ignorance.
Not only do we have the infrastructure, we hold events much bigger than PAX with no problem.
It would also be brand dilution. The show being two times a year is already stretching it, a third show would just push the idea and lessen the number of people going to all shows.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Omaha, Iowa, and Austin all lack major international airports.
Yes, they have airports, but they're small, and not regional hubs for any airlines, which makes flying there more expensive and more difficult (people will need more connections).
If you're going to do a "PAX Central" (which I think is a terrible idea), Chicago would really be the logical choice. Or, if you wanted to go south (because of some serious brain deficiency of some sort), Houston or DFW.
Hey man, Omaha's airport was used for that Up in the Air movie with George Clooney. Don't knock it.
Probably because they could shut down large portions of it for filming without disturbing anyone.
There is nothing there. The airport has 4 million passengers per year; Seattle has 29 million, Boston 30 million, and DFW 56 million.
Getting there would be such a huge pain in the ass, and it doesn't have the infrastructure to handle that many people getting there in one day. Not to mention that unlike Seattle or Boston, pretty much everyone going there would have to fly there. Everybody bashes on it because it's a terrible fucking idea.
What an amazing show of ignorance.
Not only do we have the infrastructure, we hold events much bigger than PAX with no problem.
There is nothing there. The airport has 4 million passengers per year; Seattle has 29 million, Boston 30 million, and DFW 56 million.
Getting there would be such a huge pain in the ass, and it doesn't have the infrastructure to handle that many people getting there in one day. Not to mention that unlike Seattle or Boston, pretty much everyone going there would have to fly there. Everybody bashes on it because it's a terrible fucking idea.
What an amazing show of ignorance.
Not only do we have the infrastructure, we hold events much bigger than PAX with no problem.
Like...?
College World Series, which last year had a total attendance of 350,000+.
Omaha, Iowa, and Austin all lack major international airports.
Yes, they have airports, but they're small, and not regional hubs for any airlines, which makes flying there more expensive and more difficult (people will need more connections).
If you're going to do a "PAX Central" (which I think is a terrible idea), Chicago would really be the logical choice. Or, if you wanted to go south (because of some serious brain deficiency of some sort), Houston or DFW.
Hey man, Omaha's airport was used for that Up in the Air movie with George Clooney. Don't knock it.
Probably because they could shut down large portions of it for filming without disturbing anyone.
Omaha, Iowa, and Austin all lack major international airports.
Yes, they have airports, but they're small, and not regional hubs for any airlines, which makes flying there more expensive and more difficult (people will need more connections).
If you're going to do a "PAX Central" (which I think is a terrible idea), Chicago would really be the logical choice. Or, if you wanted to go south (because of some serious brain deficiency of some sort), Houston or DFW.
Hey man, Omaha's airport was used for that Up in the Air movie with George Clooney. Don't knock it.
Probably because they could shut down large portions of it for filming without disturbing anyone.
And yet Brock Sampson was from Omaha...
BRB Timspork, going to the Henry Nothing Zoo then heading down to the Old Nothing Market that doesn't exist because there's nothing here
FyreWulff on
0
Options
Librarian's ghostLibrarian, Ghostbuster, and TimSporkRegistered Userregular
Omaha, Iowa, and Austin all lack major international airports.
Yes, they have airports, but they're small, and not regional hubs for any airlines, which makes flying there more expensive and more difficult (people will need more connections).
If you're going to do a "PAX Central" (which I think is a terrible idea), Chicago would really be the logical choice. Or, if you wanted to go south (because of some serious brain deficiency of some sort), Houston or DFW.
Hey man, Omaha's airport was used for that Up in the Air movie with George Clooney. Don't knock it.
Probably because they could shut down large portions of it for filming without disturbing anyone.
And yet Brock Sampson was from Omaha...
BRB Timspork, going to the Henry Nothing Zoo then heading down to the Old Nothing Market that doesn't exist because there's nothing here
Man I wonder what Buffet and Bill Gates do almost every week here.
There is nothing there. The airport has 4 million passengers per year; Seattle has 29 million, Boston 30 million, and DFW 56 million.
Getting there would be such a huge pain in the ass, and it doesn't have the infrastructure to handle that many people getting there in one day. Not to mention that unlike Seattle or Boston, pretty much everyone going there would have to fly there. Everybody bashes on it because it's a terrible fucking idea.
What an amazing show of ignorance.
Not only do we have the infrastructure, we hold events much bigger than PAX with no problem.
Like...?
College World Series, which last year had a total attendance of 350,000+.
Holding a PAX would be laughably easy.
The College World Series doesn't really have to market to get people to attend, though. It's got a huge built-in market, and people are going to go to wherever the hell it is. The same isn't true of PAX.
Not to mention that the per game attendance at the College World Series was closer to 20,000. 350,000 is the number you get when you add up every ticket purchased for every game. Many of which were undoubtedly purchased by the same person, since one person could conceivably go to all seventeen games. Also worth noting is the fact that the series takes place over a week, rather than over a weekend, and that it's a sports game, not a convention.
The Omaha Convention Center also has only about 75% of the capacity of the Washington State Convention Center or the Hynes Convention Center.
Thanatos on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited March 2010
EuroPAX sounds like a badass idea, moreso than PAX Central.
Henroid on
0
Options
RaakamToo many years...CanadalandRegistered Userregular
edited March 2010
Pax in London? Could be fun. How known is Penny-Arcade in those parts though?
Raakam on
My padherder they don't it be like it is but it do
PAX is still fantastic, but you have to admit that PAX has become the new E3.
No I don't. PAX is not the "new E3", nor do I want it to be. And the misconception underlying this thought is one of the big problems for gaming. E3 is a trade show for the industry, and as such is focused on the business of gaming - as I heard one person put it, the most important person at E3 is the lead buyer for Walmart. The gaming industry needs to be able to have different conferences for the different parts of the industry, without worrying about making them an event for gamers as well.
Pax in London? Could be fun. How known is Penny-Arcade in those parts though?
Paris or Amsterdam would be more accessible for more people, if it was expected to be a Europe-wide thing. I don't know if the European PA following is UK-centric.
Posts
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Isn't that actually a place in Kansas?
Ah yes, a quick Google search tells me that it is in Lebanon, Kansas, while the geographic center of North America is in Rugby, North Dakota.
You fail both times DarkPrimus :P
If you wanna 'campaign' for it, why not ask them in like an email? Keep in mind, they just did their first PAX East which was already a big enough undertaking. They do two conventions a year, a charity auction dinner, and go to conventions. You're asking two busy guys to be even busier.
But no one wants to go to Kansas or North Dakota, while Iowa features international airports with reasonable airfare rates.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Omaha would be perfect, but there's people on these forums that get in a big huff anytime you even insinuate that PAX could be held anywhere but their current locations.
Also it is a damn fine convention center. It even has a skybridge to the hotel!
Yes, they have airports, but they're small, and not regional hubs for any airlines, which makes flying there more expensive and more difficult (people will need more connections).
If you're going to do a "PAX Central" (which I think is a terrible idea), Chicago would really be the logical choice. Or, if you wanted to go south (because of some serious brain deficiency of some sort), Houston or DFW.
They need to put them in the 4 "corners" of the US, then a central one.
Getting there would be such a huge pain in the ass, and it doesn't have the infrastructure to handle that many people getting there in one day. Not to mention that unlike Seattle or Boston, pretty much everyone going there would have to fly there. Everybody bashes on it because it's a terrible fucking idea.
Hey man, Omaha's airport was used for that Up in the Air movie with George Clooney. Don't knock it.
Also a central PAX probably wouldn't see too many people from outside the US as one of the PAX in the east or west would most likely be closer.
What an amazing show of ignorance.
Not only do we have the infrastructure, we hold events much bigger than PAX with no problem.
pleasepaypreacher.net
But then people would need to fly to Florida!
People needing to fly to PAX would just unsustainable
College World Series, which last year had a total attendance of 350,000+.
Holding a PAX would be laughably easy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Cochran
Well that'd be easy to do because they would just use their dopplegangers.
And yet Brock Sampson was from Omaha...
BRB Timspork, going to the Henry Nothing Zoo then heading down to the Old Nothing Market that doesn't exist because there's nothing here
Man I wonder what Buffet and Bill Gates do almost every week here.
Not to mention that the per game attendance at the College World Series was closer to 20,000. 350,000 is the number you get when you add up every ticket purchased for every game. Many of which were undoubtedly purchased by the same person, since one person could conceivably go to all seventeen games. Also worth noting is the fact that the series takes place over a week, rather than over a weekend, and that it's a sports game, not a convention.
The Omaha Convention Center also has only about 75% of the capacity of the Washington State Convention Center or the Hynes Convention Center.
they don't it be like it is but it do
No I don't. PAX is not the "new E3", nor do I want it to be. And the misconception underlying this thought is one of the big problems for gaming. E3 is a trade show for the industry, and as such is focused on the business of gaming - as I heard one person put it, the most important person at E3 is the lead buyer for Walmart. The gaming industry needs to be able to have different conferences for the different parts of the industry, without worrying about making them an event for gamers as well.
I could actually drive to PAX this way. It wouldn't take an hour.
Paris or Amsterdam would be more accessible for more people, if it was expected to be a Europe-wide thing. I don't know if the European PA following is UK-centric.