Is it perhaps unrealistic to expect gameplay at these conferences? There are so many factors and variables that can prevent this from happening. Games are incredibly difficult to create and your primary task is to complete the game on budget at your intended deadline. Getting a game up and running and then presentable for E3 or any public event is just complicating things more. These games have to be a of a quality and portray the 'fun' during these demos. It may not be there. Sony nor MS dictate that this must be done...they ask. A lot of it has to do with the scope of the game as well. A game from ND is expected to be of a certain quality; this doesn't come without effort. Smaller games, less intensive games, or well established annual games like indies, Nintendo, or Activision can likely meet this criteria. What many of you are asking for is a means to judge the game? But ask yourselves, how good of a judge are you or your peers? Typically when gamers have seen gameplay of any sort, they expect it to be representative of the final game. They're looking at everything in that showing as confirmation of how things work. Sony and MS are looking thru the catalogue of developers they work with and piecing together the ones who just so happen to fall within the time frame. Game design is not the same as writing a book report, or digging a ditch. Working harder or longer doesn't necessarily equate to a finished product, let alone a product that's fun.
Some will say, well don't show it if you can't show gameplay. But in this climate, where we gauge winners of E3...where people have this expectation of being 'convinced' at a show of whether to get one platform or another; you have to show something. You have to let you audience know that you have games coming. It is unrealistic to suggest that they shouldn't show something. The lashing any company would get in the media would be huge. They'd question your commitment, your future, the list goes on. The majority of the industry is interested in the final product; not in how the industry actually works. That includes some members of our media. EA came out and showed early footage of some of its games...and it didn't do them many favors. I've heard many ask, "what have they been doing all this time?" Their game might be in the same stage as Phantom Dust, but in the minds of most Phantom Dust is more real, because it had a trailer for it (albeit a CG one).
Its all very much a catch 22; damned if you do, damned if you don't. Though some moves are more damning than others...having nothing to show is still worse than CG I would say.
With regard as to what constitutes a PS fan...its everything. That goes for MS too. We see games like CoD sell millions of copies, but these consoles, like their older siblings, will have a userbase that consists of tens of millions. There are all sorts of taste. There are going to be games and that are diametrically opposed to what any one person may like or find interesting. I know people who bought PS4s for the F2P games, or the indie games alone. The goal is to appeal to as many as possible. The PS fan isn't one demographic; it isn't one taste. Every game is an opportunity to pull in a gamer of some particular taste. Another reason why its folly to use E3 alone to decide what console to purchase or who wins, in my opinion. In the end, it doesn't matter if a company's pacing was great. What matters is the games they offer and how many opportunities they present for you to find a game you like. I look at all of the conferences cause they all show a part of a much bigger picture. And thats what we ought to be piecing together and basing our purchase decisions on. That larger picture includes the past, the present, and the future.