Most would agree that last week's E3 was a success by very few measures. Holding one at all, given the current climate of unrest, and improving upon the fractured Santa Monica event were certainly steps in the right direction. But there were many missteps that are easily rectified such as the overt and distasteful exclusion of some of the industry's leading executives, rock star developers and even some media for whom the event now is fashioned. Before we launch into how E3 can be repaired we should set the record straight about how we arrived at the current state.

The original Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) was conceived as a standalone show for the games industry as we matured back in the early nineties. Game publishers were members of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) and showed their wares at their annual confab, the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) - a gargantuan event, which is still held in the Las Vegas Convention Center in early January each year. As the sector grew and the confines of the LVCC did not, it was the new games business folks who paid the price. We were moved into a large circus-style tent in the far back right of the show, adjacent to the halls. Air conditioning blew in through large ducts that lead to blast zones of frigid cool and pockets of "dry heat." The final insult came when it rained and the tent proved leaky, creating safety issues in addition to the general discomfort. Game publishers complained to each other about their second-class treatment and talked of their own show.

Few seem to know for certain what happened next, but the general consensus seems to be that the publishers approached the CES staff and CEA about a CEA-owned and run dedicated gaming event. The CEA board passed, likely thinking that the up-and-coming business was a fad or otherwise not significant enough to support its own large-scale show. That fateful decision remains one of the biggest concerns of the CEA and (among other factors) led the disenfranchised games folks to launch the Interactive Digital Software Association (IDSA), the predecessor of the ESA. But without any expo knowledge the brand new trade association - which had its own significant challenges in the creation of the ESRB and early days of lobbying - created a joint venture with IDG, the publishers of GamePro magazine and a formidable event marketing and publishing business based out of Boston. E3 was born.

Over the next decade or so the event grew from a relatively small intimate event into the behemoth of 2006. Another change over that same period of time was the consolidation of games retailers and the importance of mass merchants and electronics retailers in the sector. That consolidation meant that the original thousands of buyers, for whom the E3 was created, were reduced in number to about 12 powerful merchants, so about 100 people in total. They would go to E3 to "see" the products and then, in July, attend their own event - called the IEMA Executive Summit - to do the actual planning and purchasing.

With the relative importance of E3 shifting from a retail focus to a media one, major publishers began questioning their return on investment; how does one quantify press coverage? Another issue came about with two of the platform holders cloning the Executive Summit - Sony, creating Destination PlayStation and holding it in February, and Microsoft, creating Vision for late July. What little retail focus there was for E3 was entirely removed in the process.

The ESA board had some difficult decisions to make with publishers unhappy with the ROI from the 2006 large format event and yet contractual obligations to the venue (LA Convention Center), the city and many of the area hotels. Scaling down the show would mean much lower expenditures, but create new unanticipated problems in the process... And then there was CES, which put out feelers to the industry for taking over the mantle - which many had craved. The CEA folks backed down, waiting to see how the ESA would handle the situation.

2007 was a year of compromise: E3 would be re-tooled and re-named the E3 Business & Media Summit and attempt to blend the old IEMA Executive Summit's beloved intimacy and timing with the grandeur and spectacle of E3. The reason for the move to the west side of LA was to satisfy outstanding hotel contracts. Additionally, a new deal was struck with IDG whereby a consumer-focused event would be held at the LACC and using the east side hotels. It was an ingenious idea that solved many of the short-term obstacles. The problem was that retailers still weren't interested and the media had been pared down to just 5,000 and invited by a popularity contest held by publisher's PR submissions. It created a bit of discontent before the event even took place. Additionally, publishers, whom IDG was hoping would support the new E for All show (dubbed by some as "E4") instead threw their weight increasingly behind the upcoming Penny Arcade Expo (PAX), Digital Life, VGXPO and a half dozen other consumer-focused shows.