Here we go again. At the end of November the controversial sacking of GameSpot reviewer Jeff Gerstmann, ostensibly linked to his critical review of Kane and Lynch (Joystiq catalogues the whole affair here) exhumed some long-standing questions about the close relationship between games publishers and the games media.

That alleged example of a publisher using intimidation to control the specialist press was far from clear-cut - no-one outside of GameSpot really knows why Gerstmann was fired (as this highly critical commentary on games journalism's response to the controversy points out). Now Dan Hsu, editor of US games mag EGM, has used his latest editorial column to name three publishers who have apparently threatened to 'ban' the magazine from covering its games due to previous poor scores. VGMWatch was first online with the 'details'.

Naturally, it's all over the web, but few sites have talked to Dan or really considered what it means to 'ban' a magazine from covering games. Seriously, the worst a publisher can do is refuse to send out preview and review code - aggravating and infantile but not quite censorship. I like Escapist's take on the story, which more-or-less accuses Hsu of attempting to drum up sales for his mag in the quiet post-Xmas period by inventing an outrage.

Still, it's got everyone talking about the state of games journalism again, which is always fun. I'm interested to see if any other editors feel compelled to leap out of the bullying closet and start throwing around accusations. Where will it all lead? Oh I know. Nowhere.

Publishers sometimes bully games mags - that's the way it is. The power relationship between these two symbiotic forces is intricate and erratic with neither side fully understanding the value or strength of the other at any given time. In the age of casual gaming and the unaccountable personal blog the ties have been stretched even further. But nothing will change because one editor names a few names.