When GameSpot fired Jeff Gerstmann soon after his negative review of the heavily-advertised Kane & Lynch, no one in the gaming press was surprised. Now, keep in mind we're not saying that Gerstmann was fired because of the review; he wrote the review, then was fired. The two events may well be unrelated. The fact that the entire GameSpot site looked like a Kane & Lynch advertisement at the time might have been coincidence. CNet, the parent company of GameSpot, released a statement claiming it takes its editorial integrity "very seriously."

The fact that advertisers put pressure on sites and magazines isn't exactly breaking news; companies spend much time and money trying to get the most people to give their games the highest scores. If you as a gaming writer want an exclusive, you had better treat the game nice in the review, thanks. You want that advertising campaign to run on your site? This preview better make the game sound perfect.

While gaming may look like a huge, scary industry from the outside, it can be a surprisingly cozy place once you know that world a bit. It's easy to make enemies, and since public relations staffers change on an almost monthly basis, you never know who is holding a grudge at what company. If you anger one publisher or the wrong PR person, you could find yourself out of luck for information, interviews, or even invitations to trade shows for a long time to come. For sites that need fresh, exclusive news to function, it's the kiss of death. Even without lording advertising dollars over your head, they know how to hurt you.

Of course, publishers also want to help you. Microsoft doesn't send people gigantic bags filled with systems, games, and hardware because they really like you. They want to get products reviewed, and they'd also like you to think of Microsoft as the cool company that gives you free stuff. One gaming company even sent a few members of the gaming press onto a zero-g flight to promote its game. The trip would have cost thousands of dollars if purchased, and one writer who went gushed about how the gaming company made his dreams come true. Again, it's not paying for a review or positive coverage, it's just a very expensive gift. When you hear writers say things like "they cannot thank so-and-so enough" for a gift like that, you know it's a lie. There is a very specific way to thank them. That is why the money was spent.

We're lucky to be largely on the outside of that system; Ars isn't beholden to game companies for advertising dollars (although if you are a game company and would like to advertise with us, we're not going to say no), and we don't run previews of games or accept free tickets or hotel rooms for coverage. We do accept pre-release copies of games if they're sent to us, but we'll pan those games if they deserve it. Heck, we don't even give numerical scores anymore, so no one can pressure us for a higher score.

I know many people who aren't as lucky, and they write knowing that if they annoy the wrong person or their editors think something is too harsh, the words may be smoothed out a little. The score may increase slightly. It's not a matter of selling reviews, nor do editors come out and say that you can't annoy certain people; instead, the data just gets massaged into something that will allow said company to keep buying advertising space on the site without feeling slighted. If you're a site that relies on nothing but gaming advertisements to stay afloat, making enemies could mean a cold winter with nothing but AdSense to keep you warm. That's because readers aren't your customers.

"Do not patronize me by telling me the reader is the customer—your real customer is the one that pays you your revenue," 3DO president Trip Hawkins said in an e-mail to GamePro after one of his games was panned. "And it is game industry advertisers."

One of the most common conversations that occurs when game writers get together to drink (and we all drink, since we mostly hang out at trade shows, and when Sony's pouring, are you going to say no?) is who likes you, who you're on the outs with, who is easy to deal with... the standard issues of working with so much pressure from your sources of review samples and quotes. Pressure is a part of the game, and the good writers, the ones with integrity, know that it's a roller coaster. You annoy some people, but they come back to you in the end. It's a matter of riding it out. You just have to make sure they need you more than you need them.

Game writers at certain sites and gaming magazines get a hunted, terrified look during these conversations, and I've found that writers at mainstream newspapers and magazines enjoy discussing these issues. Publishers need such writers to spread the word about a game to the masses, and they can't threaten to pull advertising, because odds are they don't plan on advertising heavily in these places. When you need someone to keep you in business, they have power over you. There is no simpler concept.

Everyone in the gaming press who writes for a site that relies on gaming advertisements is in the opposite situation. They face obvious pressure to be political with coverage, and the advertisers have some very big carrots to dangle in front of the editorial staff at such places. Nothing is free: not exclusive previews, not first-run screenshots, and certainly not flights into space.

The reason this issue came up at GameSpot was simple: the site allows one company to blanket GameSpot when a new game is released. When one title occupies every ad spot on your site and also features a launch center, trailers, and anything else you can think to sell, the game's makers have too much control over what writers say. After all, at that stage, it's their site. They paid for it, it's covered with their intellectual property, and it's by their graces that you're still in operation. It may very well be that GameSpot let Gerstmann go for reasons not directly connected to the Kane & Lynch review (and in a statement released late last night, the company said that was the case), but the timing of his release raises questions—while providing a disconcerting look into the world of gaming journalism.