In less than two weeks, the Electronic Entertainment Expo will shrug off two years of stripped-down shows with an event expected to draw roughly 40,000 attendees. The shindig is being put on by the Entertainment Software Association, and the man in charge of that trade group is Michael Gallagher.

ESA CEO and president Michael Gallagher.

While E3 has operated on this scale before (the 2006 show attracted around 60,000 game industry insiders), it hasn't done so with Gallagher at its head. The CEO and president of the ESA first stepped into the role in 2007, inheriting his predecessor Doug Lowenstein's plans for a dramatically downsized E3 just weeks before the show took place.

Today, Gallagher offered answers to GameSpot on a spectrum of issues, from the ever-evolving trade show to the ESA's ongoing legislative battles and high-profile member defections like Activision and LucasArts.

For more on the show, check out GameSpot's complete coverage of E3 2009

GameSpot: So the big news today is that California is petitioning the Supreme Court to rule on the state's violent game law. Do you think the court will agree to hear it?

Michael Gallagher: We fully expect to prevail at the end of this. The odds of the court accepting the appeal are very slight based on historical patterns, but we have to be very vigilant and make sure we're protecting the interests of the industry and the game consumer.

The other thing that's a factor is you don't have a disagreement amongst the circuits. The decisions [in such cases] that have been reached across the country are the same. One of the grounds for taking a case is that there's a disagreement between the circuits, and in this case, there's none.

GS: Do you expect legislative efforts to taper off in an economy that presents so many more pressing concerns?

MG: Remember, you have a lot of actors out there. We have 50 states, and if you have a minimum of 100 legislators in each state at any given time, you have over 5,000 individuals that could potentially introduce legislation that would be hostile to the industry.

I think what's most important--and we're making headway--is we build champions. When we take our message to the states and tell them the truth about our industry, we're finding great receptivity. We just need to keep up our efforts in that regard as games attain greater cultural relevance as a medium.

GS: A few months before your predecessor Doug Lowenstein stepped down, he basically nuked E3, saying it would become a small invite-only trade show in Santa Monica starting in 2007. Talk a bit about inheriting the ESA presidency in the middle of that upheaval.

MG: I came into the industry one month before the Santa Monica show. I'd not been to any previous E3s with the older format. For me it was a time to meet everyone and be introduced to the industry and begin the learning curve that goes with this job. I look back at Santa Monica and I don't have the comparison to previous years.

For last year's show--comparing that experience to this year--was much more difficult. There were challenges around the format. There were people pressing very, very hard, asking questions about the format, which we believe was successful for what it was intended to do. This year, what I'm most pleased with is the enthusiasm across the board for the show. The enthusiasm from the companies, which is most important, because we have over 200 of them coming. We have over 3,500 credentialed media attendees coming, which is dramatically higher than last year. We have over 100 domestic and international retail companies attending the show. We're looking at about 40,000 people coming to the show.

So all those things are making this year one I'm really excited about. Plus, we moved the timing of the show into early June. I'm getting a sense there's going to be a lot of news.

GS: Nintendo took some criticism from the core gaming community last year for an E3 press conference focused on its plans to court the casual gamer. E3 used to speak for the entire industry, but with the industry getting so much larger and the diversity in gaming audiences, do you think that's still the case?

MG: I think E3 is going to showcase the breadth and depth of this industry in a very, very clear and exciting way. I absolutely believe that. If you look at the demographics, 25 percent of gamers are over age 50. You've got about 40 percent of gamers are women. You have a very significant broadening of the types of games that are played across society and the types of devices those games are played on. That's what you're going to see at the show, and it's entirely appropriate for that to be the case.

But a number of titles and announcements are going to be very pleasing to the traditional core gamer as well. We are now an entertainment medium that is very culturally significant and reaches across all aspects of society.

GS: What will be the criteria for determining if this year's event is a success?

MG: I think the criteria are looking at the breadth and the depth of the media coverage of the industry. That's an important set of measures because that's getting the word out. It's making sure that the consuming public--which is not just covered by gamer press these days and needs to be reached by other forms of communications--knows what's coming and gets excited.

There's also a qualitative assessment about who's covering the show. Who's covering the show that did not do it in the past? I think there will be some exciting developments there, and that's one of the measures of success.

And did the companies that came to E3 have a valuable and worthwhile business experience at the show? Did they get their business done? Were they able to demonstrate the excitement of their brands and their titles to the media and to retailers?

GS: Did those metrics suffer during the 2007 and 2008 shows?

MG: I think it's a different event. We changed the focus of the event so it was meant to be exclusive and intimate with one-on-one meetings and that type of thing. So yeah it had a different output, but that was intentional. What you'll notice about this [year's] show is that it incorporates the positive parts from the previous two...but not so low volume.

GS: In 2006 and before, the ESA drew a majority of its income for the year from the E3 show. For 2007 and 2008, the shortfall from the smaller E3s was made up for by hikes in membership fees. Do you expect the show to once again provide the organization with most of the money it needs to operate throughout the year?

MG: This show allows us to diversify our revenue in a way that's much more balanced. This show will not provide anywhere near the level of support of the prior shows. And it's not intended to. But it does contribute in a balanced way to the economics of running the ESA. It also allows us to reduce dues and make membership more accessible for a broader cross section of the industry.

GS: Besides your "state of the industry" address, will there be a keynote speaker this year?

MG: Nope, this is it. You'll hear my thoughts on where we're at and I'm excited to share those, but that'll be enough for this year.

GS: In 2006 and prior, E3 included a conference program of presentations and roundtables, similar to the Game Developers Conference. Why was this dropped, and why hasn't it returned? Is it something the ESA even wants to get back to?

MG: You ask a lot of questions about 2006 and earlier. I wasn't here, so it's a little difficult for me to refer back. I am aware. I've seen the conference program guides from those years. The focus on this show was making sure there was a platform that was high energy and reflective of the innovation and excitement of this industry. That's the core focus. That's what we'll execute on, and then we'll take a look at some of these other ideas.

But just because something was done in the past doesn't mean it's the right thing to do now. I'm very open to considering it. Obviously it takes a lot of commitment, and we'll take a look at it. But for this year, it's all about the games.

GS: You established clearly that you weren't here for 2006 and before, but that will be the inevitable comparison.

MG: I don't think it has to be. I'd rather say compare it to where we are right now. Or if you have to compare it to another year, compare it to last year. 2006 was a different economy. The industry was in a different place, different leadership not only of the ESA but the companies themselves, different games, different technologies. I think the more accurate comparison is to compare it where we are right now, or if you have to, last year.

GS: You've replenished your member ranks this year with a handful of new publishers, but Activision is still out there as a conspicuous nonmember. What does it say about the US game publishers' trade association when a company the size and influence of Activision isn't part of the fold?

MG: What I'll say right now is that the ESA is the only trade association that represents the interests of the video game industry. We're alive and well and focused on the mission we're meant to be accomplishing, and we're doing it well. When we had some members leave, what we did was we went back and reexamined how we were providing value to members.

We went all the way down to the basics and looked at everything we do. And with very strong guidance from industry leadership, we were able to reestablish the value equation of the ESA in several ways. For one, the trade show is relevant, exciting, and reflective of the greatness of this industry. It's going to be a high-energy affair, which games are.

Another is that if you look at the challenges we face in the US, the ESA continues to be the only line of defense for the industry in the States, and we continue to have success. In Utah, Governor Huntsman had the wisdom and the political courage to veto a piece of legislation that was deeply flawed. But it was not easy because the bill had passed by a wide margin. He could not have done that without the advocacy and communications effort that came from the ESA on behalf of the industry. It was critical input at just the right time.

When you have those high-profile, impactful successes on behalf of the industry, you attract membership and show the relevance of your mission and value of what you offer. And that is now reflected by the eight members that have joined in the past few months.

You mention Activision, and they're coming to E3. We're delighted to have them there, just as we're delighted to have LucasArts at E3. We're offering them a platform to project their image, their brand, their titles alongside the rest of their video game brethren.

GS: Even without Activision, the ESA is still fighting game legislation successfully, still lobbying government, and still putting on E3, which Activision is taking part in. So why should they be a member? What added benefits are they supposed to reap from that?

MG: It's a benefit to be part of the decision-making for that leadership, right? The format for the trade show, the timing and the placement of it, the priority placement you get within the show, the rates you pay to be in the show, there are a whole variety of member benefits you get that are very significant.

The other thing is that we're focused on the future of policy foundation for our industry. Things like antipiracy enforcement and online policies are being set by the industry leadership represented by ESA today. For those companies that want to participate in that discussion, our door is open and they have the ability to sit at the table. Similarly, if you look at broadband policy-making at the federal level, we're the ones pushing and advancing concepts on behalf of the industry, and you have a choice to be at the table or not. The companies of the ESA are being heard.

GS: When there are disputes within the membership, how are they resolved?

MG: I'll give you a couple thoughts. First, it's really important to be involved. When you're involved, you get to have a say in the direction we ultimately take. Another point I would make is that's part of the art of running a trade association, providing mechanisms and tools for conflict resolution of different viewpoints. This is a passionate industry and there are many different approaches considered for all the issues we've discussed. So there's a real premium on being there and making sure there's a harmonization of those approaches. There are also committees that member companies get to sit on that work through those challenges.