Pax Prime, not in Seattle (2015?)

135

Posts

  • Gamedeals.caGamedeals.ca Registered User regular
    Vegas would be a great "PAX West" location, as hotels are affordable, flights are cheap from pretty much everywhere, and it's just close enough to Seattle to take a bit of the pressure off of Prime. They have the space, getting around the city is easy, and the weather is good all year.

    GameDeals Video Games
    407 Columbia St. New Westminster (GVA)
    Just off Columbia Skytrain Station.
    http://www.gamedeals.ca
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    So I kind of just skimmed over the responses and I don't think it has been brought up yet but what about the LoL NA Championship. This is being held at PAX this year (again) and I don't think it helps the room issue that we're having. I love PAX, and I love LoL...just not together.

    I agree with this. Some of the big single-game events should, ideally, be their own thing. Perhaps during PAX, but not taking up PAX space, allowing people who only care about LoL or whatever to still hang out with people who go to PAX. Between Seattle Center and the numerous hotel venues within walking distance of the Convention Center, there are plenty of reasonable options. I will say that ideally they would set up a shuttle service for people with physical disabilities so they don't get wiped out by the walking. For anyone at normal health it's a pretty easy walk to the Center - just head down toward Pike Place until you can see the Westlake Mall, walk under the tracks of the monorail (or ride the thing), and bam, another decent-sized venue with its own food options and cool scenery and built-in entertainments.

    It would be pretty rad if PAX Weekend turned into Gamer Takeover Weekend.

  • DashDDashD Dread Pirate Chef Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    I agree with this. Some of the big single-game events should, ideally, be their own thing. Perhaps during PAX, but not taking up PAX space, allowing people who only care about LoL or whatever to still hang out with people who go to PAX. Between Seattle Center and the numerous hotel venues within walking distance of the Convention Center, there are plenty of reasonable options. I will say that ideally they would set up a shuttle service for people with physical disabilities so they don't get wiped out by the walking. For anyone at normal health it's a pretty easy walk to the Center - just head down toward Pike Place until you can see the Westlake Mall, walk under the tracks of the monorail (or ride the thing), and bam, another decent-sized venue with its own food options and cool scenery and built-in entertainments.

    It would be pretty rad if PAX Weekend turned into Gamer Takeover Weekend.

    The only problem with this idea is that Bumbershoot takes over Seattle Center during Labor Day weekend. So unless PAX switches back to a different weekend (unlikely now that it is four days), Seattle is rapidly running out of large(ish) venues.


    "Brilliant! Oh wait, if we were meant to fly, we would have been born with little bags of nuts."
    PAX_Badge_Sig.png
  • miaAusamiaAusa GOD Gamer Of Daters ValhallaRegistered User regular
    PedroAsani wrote: »
    miaAusa wrote: »
    it be nice if it was were they held E3 in la, its rather large and it be close to me, i want to go to a pax in seattle but i'm in southern cali : C

    LACC has 860,000 sqft total. That's a big plus.

    It is in LA. That's...hmm. I mean, it's right by the freeway, so in theory that makes it easy to get the trucks there and set up. On the other hand, LA traffic is notorious on an international level.

    They have a huge international airport close by. That is a plus. But again, it is LAX. So that is heading towards minus country.

    As to the "vibe" aspect, I just threw my GoogleEarth guy randomly at the map near the LACC. The historic and downtown sections actually look like a more LA-ified Seattle than I thought they would.

    I think the clincher will be price. All that sqft needs to be about the same cost as Seattle to avoid a price hike on the tickets, booth space, etc. Hotels would need to be roughly the same, perhaps a touch more expensive.

    It is rather Large, I know E3 has a few big halls there then the area for endless publishers, I think Anime Expo is held there so it would be fitting espally E3, maybe it could grow to be larger than E3 as E3 is trade only show not for the public.

    LA is really bad though I don't like going there, Seattle looks alot more beautiful though I've only been up there once. But if they manage to have the largest US Video Game Show there I'd imagine pax would be great there, almost be the same setup just more for PAX, but yeah LA area is kinda blah but there is LAX and other things near by but it really is smoggy : C and the traffic is tough, though there's plenty of parking down there...

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    DashD wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    I agree with this. Some of the big single-game events should, ideally, be their own thing. Perhaps during PAX, but not taking up PAX space, allowing people who only care about LoL or whatever to still hang out with people who go to PAX. Between Seattle Center and the numerous hotel venues within walking distance of the Convention Center, there are plenty of reasonable options. I will say that ideally they would set up a shuttle service for people with physical disabilities so they don't get wiped out by the walking. For anyone at normal health it's a pretty easy walk to the Center - just head down toward Pike Place until you can see the Westlake Mall, walk under the tracks of the monorail (or ride the thing), and bam, another decent-sized venue with its own food options and cool scenery and built-in entertainments.

    It would be pretty rad if PAX Weekend turned into Gamer Takeover Weekend.

    The only problem with this idea is that Bumbershoot takes over Seattle Center during Labor Day weekend. So unless PAX switches back to a different weekend (unlikely now that it is four days), Seattle is rapidly running out of large(ish) venues.

    Oof. Been going to PAX every year I've been here or was otherwise occupied so I didn't know where it was held. Still, there are hotels and concert venues nearby, but I'll admit that aside from the stadiums Seattle is kind of short on large venues.

  • MordrothMordroth EntrepreNerd New Republic of AlbertaRegistered User regular
    PedroAsani wrote: »
    Mordroth wrote: »
    Suggestion: PAX North in Calgary - Downtown facilities can handle 130k people a day.

    http://news.calgarystampede.com/Media-Resources/Media-Guide-2013/AbouttheStampede/Attendance/default.aspx

    That is a largely outdoor event, with a stadium providing the bulk of the seating. Seattle could up the numbers if they were to use my ludicrous tent-on-the-pier idea. But it isn't great for what is in the main a convention.

    The point I was trying to make was that the city can handle large events, has an international airport, and tons of hotel capacity. Also, http://www.winsportcanada.ca/privatefunctions/venues.cfm, there's another 500k sqft of indoor space available.

  • QuintiousQuintious Registered User regular
    edited August 2013
    Whilst most of the "move it" commentary here is worthy of little but a snort, moving LoL is something that's probably a very good idea. They should do like DOTA did when they had their championship here not too far back - put it in Benaroya Hall (where the symphony plays at). Solves some foot traffic problems, solves some ticket sellout pain points, adds capacity to PAX for more panels or exhibits, etc.

    LoL is its own monster. It's one thing for them to have a couple of booths on the floor like they did a couple of years ago - that was cool and raised awareness to their brand. It's quite another to have a major e-"sport" (what a ridiculous term) tournament right in the middle of the gaming convention gumming up all the works. Let them sell tickets explicitly to that tournament and it'll free up a lot of people who buy PAX badges for no other reason than to watch someone else play a video game.

    Quintious on
    PocketJellyTeganJIncenjucaradias.angel
  • zerzhulzerzhul Registered User, Moderator mod
    except Halo4 is taking up the Benaroya this year ;)

  • QuintiousQuintious Registered User regular
    zerzhul wrote: »
    except Halo4 is taking up the Benaroya this year ;)

    Fair, but had LoL claimed it first, Halo 4 wouldn't be there.

  • KevaduKevadu Registered User regular
    Nobody's mentioned Vancouver. It's not that far from Seattle and if they used both the East and West buildings of the Vancouver Convention Center (they're right next to each other, it's not a big deal) there should be substantially more space than Seattle. It also happens to be the most scenically-located convention center I've ever seen in my life (and I've been to a lot of conventions...), but that isn't really important...

  • PedroAsaniPedroAsani Brotherhood of the Squirrel [Prime]Registered User regular
    Kevadu wrote: »
    Nobody's mentioned Vancouver. It's not that far from Seattle and if they used both the East and West buildings of the Vancouver Convention Center (they're right next to each other, it's not a big deal) there should be substantially more space than Seattle. It also happens to be the most scenically-located convention center I've ever seen in my life (and I've been to a lot of conventions...), but that isn't really important...

    Check the first page. Vancouver was shot down due to lack of space.

  • sarge1445sarge1445 Registered User regular
    Vegas would be a great "PAX West" location, as hotels are affordable, flights are cheap from pretty much everywhere, and it's just close enough to Seattle to take a bit of the pressure off of Prime. They have the space, getting around the city is easy, and the weather is good all year.
    read my earlier response to the last person who suggested Vegas

    I AM THE VAMPIRE
  • NijhazerNijhazer Sunnyvale, CARegistered User regular
    I was on the fence regarding this topic, but PAX Prime 2013 convinced me that not only is Seattle more than capable of handling this event, it's still ideally-suited for it. I simply would not enjoy PAX as much if it were anywhere else.

    Clixadias.angel
  • GreenizdabestGreenizdabest Southeast CT - USARegistered User regular
    sarge1445 wrote: »
    Vegas would be a great "PAX West" location, as hotels are affordable, flights are cheap from pretty much everywhere, and it's just close enough to Seattle to take a bit of the pressure off of Prime. They have the space, getting around the city is easy, and the weather is good all year.
    read my earlier response to the last person who suggested Vegas

    You're insane.

    Supposing that they did open an Vegas Pax at the Las Vegas Convention Center, you're looking at roughly ~500 for a flight and 4 nights of hotel stay from the east coast alone. Nevermind that the LVCC is almost double the size of the BCEC (Pax East), which would put it nearly triple the WSCC's capacity. This would allow for quite a few more attendees alone. Putting up with a "dirty city full of rude people" would be an easy trade off considering. Of course, I never found Vegas dirty to begin with. Rude, sure, but all cities are.

    If you were to move it to LA or San Diego, you're looking at some steeply increased travel costs. Vegas is just built to handle tourism and massive influxes of people.

  • AxonAxon Registered User regular
    whypick1 wrote: »
    PedroAsani wrote: »
    I keep coming back to this, and honestly the 150k on top of the 400k at WSCC isn't going to cut it (unless they are currently only occupying part of WSCC) if they are looking to double capacity.

    Here's something that I see people keep assuming. Who says they are looking to dramatically increase the capacity? I believe at some point, the con can have too many people, and the attendee experience will suffer greatly because of it. Just because they could in theory sell twice as many passes as they have doesn't mean that they should.

    I believe we've already reached the point of diminishing returns. I think 30-40k is the sweet spot for PAX. As to the general point, Khoo is simply keeping options open. Nothing to be concerned with.

  • AxonAxon Registered User regular
    edited September 2013
    sarge1445 wrote: »
    Vegas would be a great "PAX West" location, as hotels are affordable, flights are cheap from pretty much everywhere, and it's just close enough to Seattle to take a bit of the pressure off of Prime. They have the space, getting around the city is easy, and the weather is good all year.
    read my earlier response to the last person who suggested Vegas

    You're insane.

    Supposing that they did open an Vegas Pax at the Las Vegas Convention Center, you're looking at roughly ~500 for a flight and 4 nights of hotel stay from the east coast alone. Nevermind that the LVCC is almost double the size of the BCEC (Pax East), which would put it nearly triple the WSCC's capacity. This would allow for quite a few more attendees alone. Putting up with a "dirty city full of rude people" would be an easy trade off considering. Of course, I never found Vegas dirty to begin with. Rude, sure, but all cities are.

    If you were to move it to LA or San Diego, you're looking at some steeply increased travel costs. Vegas is just built to handle tourism and massive influxes of people.

    I'm not sure Vegas would be interested in the PAX crowd. I suppose it would be a bit cheaper, as I sometimes can't believe the cost for me to get to SEA from NYC when combined with the cost of a hotel. This year, I think I laid out $560 for flight and $500 for a three way hotel split, wed 8/28 or whatever-tues 9/3. That said, Vegas is really a pain in the ass when you're on the strip though, it's ungodly hot, and it's pure and straight up hood when you go off the strip (I have no knowledge of what the area around LVCC is like). The younger crowd tends to be bro-ish, which doesn't bother me but might bother other PAX people.

    Axon on
  • HeadhunterHeadhunter Registered User regular
    Beker wrote: »
    Robert is very smart. He may have just said that to keep WSCC from thinking they had a monopoly on PAX Prime and raising prices too much or something. "too difficult" can mean a lot of things, and to him, shows selling out and dealing with a bit of internet drama is not too difficult.

    I agree, I am more inclined to read this as strategic flexibility and/or savvy gamesmanship rather than a statement of intent.

    "Perception is reality." -unknown
  • PedroAsaniPedroAsani Brotherhood of the Squirrel [Prime]Registered User regular
    Headhunter wrote: »
    Beker wrote: »
    Robert is very smart. He may have just said that to keep WSCC from thinking they had a monopoly on PAX Prime and raising prices too much or something. "too difficult" can mean a lot of things, and to him, shows selling out and dealing with a bit of internet drama is not too difficult.

    I agree, I am more inclined to read this as strategic flexibility and/or savvy gamesmanship rather than a statement of intent.

    That depends on your view of The Khoo. Every time someone says he doesn't seem ruthless, or that he is bluffing I think of the Nuclear Game story.

  • XeroxCopycatXeroxCopycat Registered User new member
    Could also consider Columbus, OH as a Pax Central. Got a proven location that already holds some of the biggest gaming expos in the nation (Origins mainly), easy to get to, good weather overall (especially during the late summer/fall months), and it's also central to a significant portion of the US population. If my memory serves, I believe it's around 60-70% within an 8 hour drive of C-Bus.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited September 2013
    Nijhazer wrote: »
    I was on the fence regarding this topic, but PAX Prime 2013 convinced me that not only is Seattle more than capable of handling this event, it's still ideally-suited for it. I simply would not enjoy PAX as much if it were anywhere else.

    Agreed, and not because I'm semi-local. ;)

    If the Seattle location doesn't matter to you, and you're open to travel, just go to East. It doesn't sell out as quickly, or at least it hasn't in the past.

    And as has been mentioned in these threads before, more floor space can mean more attendees, but not necessarily more or larger booths. Okay, you move to Vegas, and pack 200,000 more nerds into the con. Now what do you think the ESO or even CAH lines look like now? AAA titles will now have four hour lines instead of two. Enjoy.

    PAX is leveraging downtown hotel space for theaters and tabletop/freeplay space, and it's helping. An expansion of the WSCC is needed, but really even without it I'm unconvinced that the con improves dramatically in a new, larger venue. There are just trade offs.

    mcdermott on
    SkeleVaderadias.angelalegria
  • CybitCybit Merch Underling RedmondRegistered User regular
    Also, note, WSCC has a very, very large fire code for a building its' size versus most convention centers, due to the layout and exits available on multiple floors. IIRC, the BCEC actually can hold not that many more people even though it is double the size -- because there are not nearly as many exits outside.

    Hence the issue with LACC -- although it is much bigger, I do not know how many more simultaneous people it could handle.

  • digitarddigitard I walked up hill BOTH ways AZRegistered User regular
    edited September 2013
    I dont think adding more PAX's is going to happen. It's already a HUGE undertaking for the PA staff to just handle these 3 PAX events. Adding another designed to be grand in scale for the US means basically year round planning and working. Plus it's very costly for Exhibitors to do this, and with events already in the prime periods (and other events outside those nonPA related) it's hard to schedule it in a travel friendly time. Especially considering they eventually want to give something for their European friends to visit that's local to their continent.

    Adding more days, from an exhibitors perspective, isn't really the option either. Already 4 days is pushing your ability to function. It's got to be even worse for the PA staff being on site from hours before open until midnight working on things. By Monday "close of expo hall" I was barely functional. We all went out to dinner after, and I almost nodded off at the table. It's a very taxing event for exhibitors since you're literally on your feet, talking, and hyping your product from the moment the doors open until everyone has left the hall.

    I think Khoo was just acknowledging that PAX is growing... and they know it. While there's no immediate plan to exit the current location they're fully aware that the events are HUGE and that they can't stay in the "it's here and thats that" mentality and part of his job is simply making sure he ALWAYS keeps the door open for the future of the company, and it's events.

    While I'd love to see a San Diego PAX (I already travel to San Diego often with the family since it's just a 6hr car drive) it's going to be a lot harder to do it in travel friendly times for people.

    digitard on
    Dave K
    Media / Social Monkey
    GregRedHastings.com
    Now available for iOS - Coming Soon for Android / Ouya
  • PedroAsaniPedroAsani Brotherhood of the Squirrel [Prime]Registered User regular
    digitard wrote: »
    I dont think adding more PAX's is going to happen.

    You probably were elsewhere during the Q&A's this year, but they repeatedly stated that Robert thinks they can sustain a few more PAXes in the PA schedule.

    You are right that there probably isn't room in the calendar for another US PAX, but Europe and Asia are viable markets. Hence my prediction of a PAX UK and PAX Japan/Korea.

    One thing I will say from seeing the impact of the 4th day on Prime is that Sunday morning was a lot emptier than usual. I think that will make a difference to the numbers of single day tickets for that day. A "hangover allowance", if you will.

    But still, the numbers Robert quoted for available tickets vs. requested tickets still has a large discrepancy. And if Prime can't be expanded to accommodate that, then it is possible it will be moved until it can.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    PedroAsani wrote: »
    But still, the numbers Robert quoted for available tickets vs. requested tickets still has a large discrepancy. And if Prime can't be expanded to accommodate that, then it is possible it will be moved until it can.

    Right, but I'll point it out again, and keep pointing it out, that many attractions of PAX simply don't scale...so even if you can increase badges sold, you wind up deteriorating the experience at a given site.

    The bulk of the big expo hall booths that I'd like to have seen had either long (1.5 hours or more) lines or straight-up capped lines. Those only get longer if you sell more badges, at a larger venue. The actual booth can really only push so many people through in a day. It's possible that in some cases the exhibitor can increase their throughput (more demo units) if they buy more floor space and buy more equipment and send more employees...which the exhibitor may or may not do.

    Frankly, I don't think many of us want to go to a PAX that has 200,000 individual attendees (at any location). It wouldn't be all that fun. Personally, I'd rather risk not being able to go.

    vespachica
  • PedroAsaniPedroAsani Brotherhood of the Squirrel [Prime]Registered User regular
    edited September 2013
    mcdermott wrote: »
    PedroAsani wrote: »
    But still, the numbers Robert quoted for available tickets vs. requested tickets still has a large discrepancy. And if Prime can't be expanded to accommodate that, then it is possible it will be moved until it can.

    Right, but I'll point it out again, and keep pointing it out, that many attractions of PAX simply don't scale...so even if you can increase badges sold, you wind up deteriorating the experience at a given site.

    The bulk of the big expo hall booths that I'd like to have seen had either long (1.5 hours or more) lines or straight-up capped lines. Those only get longer if you sell more badges, at a larger venue. The actual booth can really only push so many people through in a day. It's possible that in some cases the exhibitor can increase their throughput (more demo units) if they buy more floor space and buy more equipment and send more employees...which the exhibitor may or may not do.

    Frankly, I don't think many of us want to go to a PAX that has 200,000 individual attendees (at any location). It wouldn't be all that fun. Personally, I'd rather risk not being able to go.

    So your solution for those who want to go but can't due to space restrictions is simply: "tough. You don't get to be part of this. If you come as well, it will ruin it for me."

    If increasing the capacity of the venue means that lines are going to be longer, then we simply look for a solution to that new problem. You don't throw your hands up and say "Nothing can be done." Something can always be done. You just need to look harder, and be willing to work at it for longer.

    For example, if they were able to magically double the convention space, allowing twice as much booth space, attendees, panels and concerts, but current exhibitors were unable or unwilling to buy those booths, why not fill them with other exhibitors? The Indie Megabooth would welcome more space, and at the Q&A one guy mentioned a Game-themed musical. Boring but utilitarian, some booths had very cramped queuing space, so a bit of extra breathing room there wouldn't be amiss.

    I agree that more days would be unfeasible. But there are plenty of alternatives, and things I'm sure I haven't thought of, that could ameliorate the situation. Adding extra people to Sunday would be one of the simplest, given that many people with the 4-day badge took the Saturday as a reason to get crazy drunk and use Sunday as a rest day. That is a situation I don't see changing next year, since by all accounts the PAX parties were some people's favourite things.

    PedroAsani on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited September 2013
    PedroAsani wrote: »
    So your solution for those who want to go but can't due to space restrictions is simply: "tough. You don't get to be part of this. If you come as well, it will ruin it for me."

    Pretty much, yes. Keeping in mind that I don't have a Golden Ticket to All PAX Forever, so I could easily be one of those left out in the cold in the future.

    I'd prefer Awesome PAX with less attendees over Terrible PAX with more. I hope I'm not alone there. I'm not sure where the breakpoint there is, but surely we must all realize there is one...right? I mean, going into absurdity would PAX still be the amazing convention that it is if it had, say, 600,000 attendees? Of course not. It would almost certainly no longer be "Home" at that point, right? Has Khoo even told us what, approximately, the shortfall in badges is? Is it even realistic to close that shortfall with a larger venue? Or are we just leaving less people out? I know that in my personal social circle, only about 20% of us who wanted to go got badges. Seattle's a big town, and any town you move it to will probably be a big town, so it's conceivable that any increase in space gets at least partially eaten simply by increased interest from locals.

    If increasing the capacity of the venue means that lines are going to be longer, then we simply look for a solution to that new problem.

    You know that it is possible to ruin something, right? Like, to "fix" it to death?

    You don't throw your hands up and say "Nothing can be done." Something can always be done. You just need to look harder, and be willing to work at it for longer.

    So something like...expanding into multiple local hotel ballrooms, adding the Paramount and Benaroya Hall, and adding a fourth day...only to see badges sell out within hours? PAX Prime will sell out in Vegas, or San Diego, or any other city you name. There will still be "those who are left out." And yes, personally I'd rather get left out of an awesome convention than get to go to a crappy one.


    I've made this argument before, but why not go to East? Badges for all three days East 2013 were on sale for...oh, looks like almost two months (Saturday sold out first, obviously). I hear East is a blast, I have a couple friends who go. If there's something about Prime that makes it somehow superior to East, such that even the easy availability of East is not a suitable substitute for Prime...well, that's something you should spend a long time thinking about. I know there are some legitimate factors that make Prime desirable over East, but I think some of the factors that lead to Prime selling out in an hour while pretty much anybody who wants to can go to East are exactly the kinds of things you risk killing to death if you start trying to "fix" the attendance problem.

    Just to be clear, I'll reiterate that I'm not implying that East is somehow "bad." Like I said, I have friends that go, and love it, and if I lived on the east coast I'd probably go to East rather than scrap for Prime badges. But if we're willing to move the city, thus making all the current locals that go (and it's a LOT of locals) fly, then I'm going to keep asking...what's wrong with East? Why can't those folks just go there?


    I agree that more days would be unfeasible. But there are plenty of alternatives, and things I'm sure I haven't thought of, that could ameliorate the situation. Adding extra people to Sunday would be one of the simplest, given that many people with the 4-day badge took the Saturday as a reason to get crazy drunk and use Sunday as a rest day. That is a situation I don't see changing next year, since by all accounts the PAX parties were some people's favourite things.

    A note on this...while I believe some concessions to actual traffic patterns for fire code purposes are made (which is to say that expansion into other venues does increase the number of badges sold, all attendees aren't assumed to be inside the WSCC), I don't think they can sell additional badges for a day because they claim ahead of time "man, a bunch of people will be hung over that day." Both because some of those people will show up eventually, and because the fire marshal just ain't gonna hear that jibber-jabber.

    One way you actually address this issue, distasteful as it may seem, is through scalpers. If I decide I'm not that invested in Sunday, I'll sell my badge on the street to a guy for $15, who will turn around and sell it to you for $35. He earns his $20, to some extent, by standing around all day being hated. Moving PAX to a jurisdiction where this is not allowed can theoretically lead to less people attending, as it can lead to more badges going unused.

    As it was, my Sunday badge was almost entirely unused. I brought it up in the BYOC thread, but the only reason I kept it rather than letting another nerd enjoy PAX that day was because I wanted to be able to get into BYOC that night, and my "day" badge had been checked a couple times. If I could "officially" have gotten into BYOC on just my BYOC badge, I'd have sold it off. I spent the whole day, pretty much, up at Bumbershoot.

    mcdermott on
    vespachicaSkeleVader
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Seriously, though, they need to sell that Golden Ticket to All PAX Forever. I got room on the VISA.

  • digitarddigitard I walked up hill BOTH ways AZRegistered User regular
    edited September 2013
    PedroAsani wrote: »
    So your solution for those who want to go but can't due to space restrictions is simply: "tough. You don't get to be part of this. If you come as well, it will ruin it for me."

    If increasing the capacity of the venue means that lines are going to be longer, then we simply look for a solution to that new problem. You don't throw your hands up and say "Nothing can be done." Something can always be done. You just need to look harder, and be willing to work at it for longer.

    I kind of agree, honestly. My reasoning is this.

    #1. Let's look at the SDCC as a prime example. It's BEYOND enormous now, but when I first went back in 2007 it was a bit smaller, and while extremely packed it was a fun experience. Fast forward to massive growth and 6yrs later, and I've had numerous people tell me that it's just TOO big and crowded now. They're doing nothing but being herded around due to the flow of people and size, and sitting ALL day (and night) for the bigger items because even holding huge amounts of people in the bigger panel rooms the line is full many hours before the big events.

    This goes into #2... the burdon of fixing the "longer lines" falls onto the exhibitors, and many can't simply justify the costs it would take to do that. To fix longer lines exhibitors would need bigger booths, and in turn they'd have to bring in more demo stations, etc. This falls onto them. None of their stuff is paid for by the PAX facility/event. They would have to pay for bigger booths (large cost) and more stations/booth items (larger cost) and then the staff to maintain that larger area. You've seen how much space the big companies take already, and they're already rocking huge lines. The amount of space, work and equipment needed to efficiently make a dent in the line time would be much MUCH higher and if you've ever seen reports online of how much it costs for an average exhibitor to have a decent booth you'd understand that a lot of companies wouldn't be able to shell out the cash needed. Remember the event to them is a way to show off their new products, drum up interest, and to basically give the community some looks at things. It does generally help their visibility to their target audience, but there's a point where they're going to have diminishing returns on money invested to show off their product and money that comes in from buyers who are introduced at these events or learn about it because of the event.

    It's a catch 22... you clearly WANT as many people to go as possible, but you have to weigh in the cost to exhibitors to effectively manage the increased volume (either that or those 2hr lines now become 3-4-5hr lines), the cost to the attendee experience, and then all the other logistics.

    We'll see where it goes. It's a hard nut to crack, but the PA team has done a pretty good job so far with everything.

    digitard on
    Dave K
    Media / Social Monkey
    GregRedHastings.com
    Now available for iOS - Coming Soon for Android / Ouya
    mcdermott
  • PurpleSkyPurpleSky Registered User regular
    Keep in mind PAX isn't just the expo floor. If there is a PAX at a larger venue with more attendees yeah lines could be longer. However, there are ways to tackle that, and I don't see it being a reason not to have a larger PAX. By this logic E3 shouldn't be at the LA Convention center because its too big and there are too many media attendees. PAX can remain PAX and still support more attendees. I'm fine with a larger expo floor with more people and then line caps just become stricter. I'd rather have that than not have a new/larger PAX at all.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    It's funny you mention E3, given that PAX in its present form was in some ways a response to those issues with E3.

    PAX can remain PAX with more attendees...to a point. I'll ask, though, just to establish if we can discuss this from a common premise...do you accept that there is a cutoff at which a larger convention is no longer PAX as we know it? When it's no longer "home?"

    If 2,000,000 badges were sold to Prime, would it still be "home?"

    Those are not rhetorical, I'd like to know your answer.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    And I realize PAX isn't just the expo floor. Hell, I spend little time on the floor now, but part of that is because everything has a line. And show-wide, it feels like almost everything has gotten more crowded or harder to get into. From offsite parties to freeplay.

    Only obvious exception to me is te main theater panels. The Paramount (and Benaroya before that) are awesome.

  • PurpleSkyPurpleSky Registered User regular
    Yes I get your point and there is a limit to how big any convention can be. And your point is valid if PAX can no longer fit in any convention center. If there is ever a PAX Chicago and the demand is still so large that it can't fit in the McCormick center then yes. But I don't believe PAX is no longer Pax just because we increase the space/attendee ratio. Allowing more people to go should not affect PAX in any manner as long as they don't change what's offered. If things like panels, console free play, concerts, tabletop games, etc.. start getting axed then yes Pax is no longer PAX. This discussion is about meeting demand and that's what my point is. Honestly McCormick is overkill and would more than be able to accommodate PAX's demand at the present time. Until the point where there isn't a convention center that can house PAX's demand and they have to start axing some of the elements that make PAX then I'll start agreeing.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited September 2013
    Allowing more people to go should not affect PAX in any manner as long as they don't change what's offered.

    Anybody who's been going for more than a couple years can tell you that you are utterly wrong. I've only been going since '09, and I can tell you that the growth of the con has "affected PAX in any manner" even as the same events are offered.

    Now, we can argue whether that effect is worth it to get more people in the doors. And where that cutoff may be. But acting as if there is no effect so long as there exists an expo floor, some freeplay and tabletop areas, and panels is just plain ignorant.

    That's like saying that a concert in a small club for a couple hundred and an arena show for tens of thousands are the same thing, as long as you've got the same band playing the same songs.


    Edit: I'm also curious what we think the current capacity shortfall even looks like. How many attendees would an unbounded Prime have, all else held equal? 10k more per day? 20k? 50k?

    mcdermott on
  • PurpleSkyPurpleSky Registered User regular
    Ok first of all PAX has not drastically changed since 09. Everything that people have enjoyed about PAX was present at 13. There were evnt areas where 13 was better than 09. Multiple people, including me, have said 13 had the best offering of panels. So PAX improving is not something we should complain about. What problems were there are addressed at the Suggestions thread in the Prime forum. Only difference is size, which is what I'm arguing should not be a factor. 13 was much bigger than 09. Plus there will always be changes since the games industry itself is changing.

    PAX becoming more commercialized is probably the biggest change since 09. That I can't argue against. Things like MD and Comcast are things I wish would go away. But that was a minor change and still did not affect the overall enjoyment of the show. Those are also mentioned in the comments. PAX is a well organized show and I'm sure they have heard the complaints about that.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited September 2013
    Ok first of all PAX has not drastically changed since 09. Everything that people have enjoyed about PAX was present at 13.

    You obviously don't even understand what I'm talking about, especially since you reiterated this "everything was present" idea.

    I really can't talk to you until you do.

    That's fine, though, we don't need to agree, or even discuss it.

    Only difference is size, which is what I'm arguing should not be a factor. 13 was much bigger than 09.

    As a hint, you aren't so much "arguing" that size should not be a factor. You're just, like, saying it. Any concerns that size might actually be a factor, you hand-wave away.

    mcdermott on
  • PurpleSkyPurpleSky Registered User regular
    Ok so PAX has to remain this stagnant, boring convention that cannot adapt and grow? I love how I've been able to name multiple things that have not changed that are at the core of the experience and you still haven't mentioned one of the things that seem to have had a major impact on the show from 09 to 13. Like I even admitted, PAX will change in minor ways but at its core it hasn't drastically changed. Obviously the changes that you refer to must be minor because at the moment they haven't been used to help your argument.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited September 2013
    PurpleSky wrote: »
    Ok so PAX has to remain this stagnant, boring convention that cannot adapt and grow? I love how I've been able to name multiple things that have not changed that are at the core of the experience and you still haven't mentioned one of the things that seem to have had a major impact on the show from 09 to 13. Like I even admitted, PAX will change in minor ways but at its core it hasn't drastically changed. Obviously the changes that you refer to must be minor because at the moment they haven't been used to help your argument.

    I never said it must remain stagnant.

    I do think there is a size beyond which any given convention should not grow. You seemed to agree. We're merely disagreeing on where that limit is. You have suggested that its "able to fit into any convention center, anywhere."

    And the "core" of an experience can remain even if the overall feel deteriorates. Again, I've seen the same band play similar set lists to crowds of 500 and of 25,000. The "core" of these experiences is the same, but the former was absolutely a superior experience.

    Personally, I feel like PAX has slowly grown into one long line over the last five years. Almost every line feels longer, every crowd feels bigger. The core has not changed, but the quality feels less. You'll probably claim this is a "minor" change. Well, that's subjective, and plenty of people I've talked to seem to agree with me so it's not like I'm just imagining it.

    As it stands, I think it's been worth it so far to expand and let more people enjoy the con. But again, there's a breakpoint beyond which now more people get to go, but the con gets significantly worse. If you get what you want, let's hope you're right about where that breakpoint lies.

    I'm not too concerned, because I'm confident that Khoo and the guys are putting more thought into that than you are. I trust their judgment, for the most part. But it's something I worry about.

    mcdermott on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Also, I asked what you thought the current supply shortfall even was, in attendees per day. You didn't answer. The reason I ask is because frankly I'm unconvinced any venue is going to be sufficient to keep Prime from selling out. I think you could double attendance, and still sell out.

    Chasing the "everybody who wants to gets to go" ideal is a fools errand. It won't happen. Not everybody gets to go to every event they want to, that's life. So pardon me if I concern myself more with maintaining the admittedly subtle and subjective quality of the con (beyond "still contains all elements such as tabletop") than chasing some impossible ideal.

  • PurpleSkyPurpleSky Registered User regular
    There is nothing wrong with adding another PAX to a larger convention center. I'm not advocating moving Prime. I want prime where it is. But East has proven that the core of PAX does not change with moving to a slightly larger convention center and being able to accommodate more people. PAX Prime 13 has proven that a larger PAX that has more people does not affect the core of the experience. These imaginary issues, which must be imaginary since they haven't been mentioned yet, (if they are valid issues) could be addressed just like the commercialization issue.

    Size is not the factor. It's the show organizers. If they decide to change things drastically that will have the biggest effect on what makes PAX.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    PurpleSky wrote: »
    There is nothing wrong with adding another PAX to a larger convention center. I'm not advocating moving Prime. I want prime where it is. But East has proven that the core of PAX does not change with moving to a slightly larger convention center and being able to accommodate more people. PAX Prime 13 has proven that a larger PAX that has more people does not affect the core of the experience. These imaginary issues, which must be imaginary since they haven't been mentioned yet, (if they are valid issues) could be addressed just like the commercialization issue.

    Size is not the factor. It's the show organizers. If they decide to change things drastically that will have the biggest effect on what makes PAX.

    First off, I thought you were talking about moving prime to grow attendance. I agree that adding a show may be fine. Though I'll note again that East takes almost two months to sell out (just for Saturday), so obviously this doesn't help the "everybody who wants to go can" thing.

    The problem is that, for whatever reason, people WANT Prime. Such that badges sell out three orders of magnitude faster.

    So PAX Chicago doesn't fix that.

    And your repeated focus on the "core" of the experience is my issue. Dude, the surface experience matters too. The core can still be there, even if the details suck.

    As for my "imaginary" issues, almost every single line feels longer. Almost every crowd is larger. It affects the overall feel of the con. Are these "core" issues? No. But they MATTER.

This discussion has been closed.