By: Wagner James Au

When I launched Kotaku's Preview Ho column a couple weeks ago, I did so on the assumption that the gaming press hyped up their previews primarily to stay in good stead with the publishers, whose access and ad revenue they depend on. But in the case of the top two gaming sites, at least, I quickly learned that the story is more complicated—and disturbing— than even that.

Shortly after the first Preview Ho, I was contacted by a former media buyer for various game publishers. This person was irked by the game media's pretense that previews were pure editorial. But unlike their readers— or for that matter, me— my source had hard proof they were much more than that.

"I was the media buyer who made the purchase," the source told me, "signed the insertion order, and then followed up to make sure that what we had been promised was in fact delivered."

What was delivered, my source went on, was editorial placement on the two largest game websites for a sizeable fee.

This source sent me some invoices for a game studio client. (For good measure, I faxed copies to my Gawker editors.) Several were from Gamespot, and while most of the items referred to legitimate ads, a couple mentioned something called "Front Door rotation"— or what Gamespot staffers refer to as a "gumball". Gumballs are those thumbnail screenshots you see on the front page of Gamespot, when you visit the site— clicking on these takes you to an article about the game.

In the Gamespot invoice I looked at, a gumball for two weeks cost the media buyer's client over $7000.

"You can purchase messaging plus units that increase the likelihood of an article about your game showing up on their front page," the source said. In other words, if you want your game to get more editorial prominence, you pay extra.

Then the source showed me an invoice for the same game, this one from
IGN/Gamespy. What Gamespot calls a gumball, Gamespy calls, less charmingly, a "Gamespy Spotlight". But the content and the principle is basically the same: the Spotlights are those thumbnail screenshot links that you see on the site's front page. "What you're looking at on the front page is not what the editors decided is the best game," the media buyer informed me.

Reached for comment, both the editors of Gamespot and Gamespy, unsurprisingly, have a much different way of looking at their policies.

"I can confirm that GameSpot does offer publishers programs that promote their content on our site using a variety of means," Gamespot Executive Editor Greg Kasavin acknowledged. "The promotion causes gumballs linking to specific content to appear more often than other gumballs (which are auto-generated for all new content and displayed randomly and dynamically upon page load)." But for the "vast majority of cases", he goes on, the gumball doesn't feature Gamespot editorial, but an official asset like the game's trailer or a playable demo. "Our editors have the authority and responsibility to decide which content gets top billing," Kasavin added.

I asked Kasavin about this "vast majority" of gumballs— what was an exception, where a paid gumball linked straight to Gamespot editorial?

As it happened, he said, such a gumball is currently in play, for Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter for the Xbox 360. "I wouldn't want you to jump to the incorrect conclusion that the extra push being given to the review must mean that the game's publisher somehow influenced the review in the first place," Kasavin added hastily. "My guess is this promotional deal was negotiated after we decided to give the game a positive review, but since I'm not privy to the details of these types of deals, I don't know for sure." He insisted that Gamespot maintains a strict separation between editorial and ad sales.

IGN/Gamespy had a similar explanation for the selling of their editorial space.

First noting that the practice is "pretty common both in print and online", Peer Schneider, IGN's VP of Content Publishing, described their Spotlights as "'sponsored' slotting, sometimes called 'digital reprint.' This is a practice where advertisers want to make sure coverage of their titles is seen. For example, some magazines sell their cover image (or part of it) to the highest bidder." Schneider insisted IGN and GameSpy don't sell their "top story" placement to anyone. "We have, however, designated spots that can be 'sponsored.' What this means is that a publisher interested in exposing more users to a title (including games, movies, etc.) can book a one-day sponsorship in what we call 'spotlights.'" Like Kasavin, Schneider enunciated a principle of strict separation between editorial and ad sales.

"In the time I have been here (six years now)," Gamespy editorial director John "Warrior" Keefer added, "there has never been any deliberate intent to deceive our readers. If anything, we try to err in the other direction. I am a strong proponent of editorial integrity. My staff knows that the quickest way to get on my bad side is to mess with GameSpy's name or reputation. We have made a few mistakes (Donkey Konga, anyone?), but those we have never shied away from or tried to sweep under the carpet (I spent three days after Donkey Konga answering questions and posting on boards)."

Hos, or honest brokers? We leave that to the readers of Gamespot and Gamespy to decide. To us, however, their answers raise more questions than they answer. Can any indy game studio really compete for attention against publishers who can afford to stack the deck? With so much money at stake, how separate can editorial and ad sales truly be? And what would happen if it were discovered that, say, the websites of Premiere and Entertainment Weekly charged the studios extra to put their trailers (no matter how mediocre) in a prominent place on their page?

We leave readers with those questions to ponder, as well. For now, consider this a glimpse inside the sausage factory, where games often reach the public awareness not because of their quality, but because of the billing that goes with them.

And the search for Hos continues.

Send samples of egregiously fawning game previews and information on backroom deals that influence them to au@kotaku.com. Tips from editors and writers in the game press especially welcom—all correspondence kept strictly confidential.

Send an email to the author of this post at editor@kotaku.com.