<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: More Rumors That E3 Is Coming Back To The Way It Was</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.slashgamer.com/2008/09/04/more-rumors-that-e3-is-coming-back-to-the-way-it-was/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.slashgamer.com/2008/09/04/more-rumors-that-e3-is-coming-back-to-the-way-it-was/</link>
	<description>saving the princess 24/7</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 21:05:53 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ruben O.</title>
		<link>http://www.slashgamer.com/2008/09/04/more-rumors-that-e3-is-coming-back-to-the-way-it-was/comment-page-1/#comment-712</link>
		<dc:creator>Ruben O.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:06:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.slashgamer.com/?p=1023#comment-712</guid>
		<description>I think E3 should maintain its media only access that it has and leave the public access to PAX. 

Reason being is that with E3 it gives the media a chance to evaluate the games and conduct interviews without having to deal with the tens of thousands of gamer fans around them. Thus leaving PAX (which has doubled attendance every year since its premiere 5 years ago) as the biggest public show for the gaming industry in the states. 

I believe with this we will just get better quality material from the media at E3 and better quality from the developers at PAX. Having two different massive public venues, on the same coast non the less, seems excessive to me and might jeopardize on the quality given to the public.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think E3 should maintain its media only access that it has and leave the public access to PAX. </p>
<p>Reason being is that with E3 it gives the media a chance to evaluate the games and conduct interviews without having to deal with the tens of thousands of gamer fans around them. Thus leaving PAX (which has doubled attendance every year since its premiere 5 years ago) as the biggest public show for the gaming industry in the states. </p>
<p>I believe with this we will just get better quality material from the media at E3 and better quality from the developers at PAX. Having two different massive public venues, on the same coast non the less, seems excessive to me and might jeopardize on the quality given to the public.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Smith Smith</title>
		<link>http://www.slashgamer.com/2008/09/04/more-rumors-that-e3-is-coming-back-to-the-way-it-was/comment-page-1/#comment-706</link>
		<dc:creator>Smith Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2008 23:57:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.slashgamer.com/?p=1023#comment-706</guid>
		<description>Why did they close E3 to the public, anyways?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why did they close E3 to the public, anyways?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
