Leigh, I'm hoping Kotaku (specifically you) will do some kind of article/feature talking about the ramifications of what appears to be a pretty significant change in the industry.

This is serious. Is it possible giants like Activision and/or Vivendi could create their own version of the ESA?

Hmm.....thats definetly not good

So Kotaku, I guess the question is . . . what does this mean for the industry? And what was the reason for the split?

Why would Vivendivision withdraw from the ESA? What the games industry needs is a more powerful lobbying presence, something it lacks in comparison with other media.

What exactly does this mean for the average gamer?

I'm not being snarky, I'm really just asking if this will have any effect on us at all.

I think we'll seeing the birth of a new industry group. Perhaps?

Maybe they were upset at certain other publishers having too much say within the ESA.

Just what we need, a new front in the gaming civil wars.

If the ESA were seen as an ineffective money sink, then one might be inclined to not join.

However if they are effective in protecting the rights of gamers, then yes it would be significant.

@J449: They're not really interested in protecting the rights of gamers. Their role is to protect the rights of the corporations who make games. Sometimes the two interests intersect, other times they do not.

@code.monkey:

I agree Leigh, write us up a nice Feature on what this means, impact, blah blah blah blah ok. Lie if you have to.
Have it on my desk monday morning (cause I'd rather read it than do my work.)

Thanks :D

To the end user, it probably means nothing. Then again, I have no idea what the ESA does.. *heads over to Wikipedia*

This is what happens when they take away the booth babes.

Sex sells, no one wants an intimate showing, big company's want rabid fans, big lights, big productions, lots of exposure for there big titles and of course 1/2 naked booth babes.

Note to self ESA, I think we screwed up :P

@J449: I'm going with the "ineffective money sink" theory until we hear otherwise.

What does anyone even need E3 for? The information age allows us to move beyond brick and mortar events and share important info directly with the public. Let GameStop and Wallmart come to them.

I feel a storm coming. Hopefully, Activision/Vivendi have made the right decision. I suppose only time will tell.

Can someone explain to me why it's such a bad thing?

I figure they're probably not happy about how much they have to pay to stay members in this organization. Associations are only really good if they actually do things that help your company and your industry. I'm going to go out on a limb, and say that soon we won't even really have a reason for an e3. E3 is only really for mainstream media, and small time gaming press that can't afford 100 trips a year. I'm guessing the gamer day experiments that most of the larger companies have adopted is proving to be much better marketing tool rather than an industry focused event. They don't want to share floor space with EA, Capcom, Square,and take-two.

The ESA essentially was supposed to be an industry lobbying, and marketing tool, and maybe its just not worth it anymore

I'm assuming that the ESRB is NOT a devision of the ESA, and if that holds true, I couldn't fart loud enough to express my opinion.

Yeah, we don't need no stinkin' ESA.

@ShirtGuyDom: DISCLAIMER: Not my actual opinion.

This comes a day after it was noted that Activision and a number of other notable publishers were not listed as showing at "WHAT USED TO BE" the industry's big conference.

Soooo...does this mean I can finally downloaded abandonware by activison since they no longer have that pesky ESA warnings? I kid, I kid, they dont have any abandonware worth downloading :P

so... what does this mean for blizzard? whom i thought were a subsidy of Vivendi - whom also only just recently merged with Activision just recently?