Behind the silicon curtain — Nvidia’s media pressure tactics and the fallout from Gamers Nexus

As Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang addresses the world with updates on artificial intelligence, Gamers Nexus has chosen this exact moment to pull back the curtain on what it describes as Nvidia's increasingly aggressive and manipulative relationship with the media. The editorial, delivered in Steve Burke's signature style, outlines a disturbing pattern of editorial pressure, access-based coercion, and retaliatory tactics that the outlet claims go well beyond acceptable industry norms.

From partnership to pressure

According to Gamers Nexus, Nvidia has been exerting pressure on its team for over six months, insisting they include Multi-Frame Generation 4X (MFG4X) performance figures in GPU reviews. This demand extends to scenarios where the tested graphics cards do not even support the feature. GN declined, stating that such inclusion would be misleading, unethical, and ultimately dishonest.

Rather than backing down, Nvidia allegedly escalated its response by threatening to withhold access to respected internal engineers — specifically thermal engineer Malcolm and latency expert Gamm0 — both of whom are popular with GN’s audience. These individuals have no direct connection to MFG technology, yet their continued availability was apparently made conditional on GN complying with Nvidia’s editorial demands.

Controlled narratives, engineered consent

The central accusation from GN is that Nvidia is not merely trying to influence coverage — it is attempting to dictate it. This includes suggesting that reviewers portray the RTX 5070 as equivalent to the far more powerful RTX 4090 by emphasizing synthetic MFG-enhanced numbers. Such comparisons can create misleading impressions among consumers, especially when stripped of proper context.

In Burke’s view, this approach transforms Nvidia’s open communication with the media into something closer to manipulation. While Nvidia has always offered technical insight and briefings, GN argues that this access is now being used as a lever to force compliance with corporate messaging. Once a symbol of transparency, Nvidia's engineer access is increasingly perceived as conditional and transactional.

Not just GN

Gamers Nexus is not alone in raising red flags. Burke states that the outlet reached out to other reviewers and media professionals worldwide, uncovering a pattern of behind-the-scenes pressure to shape editorial content. This includes overt or implied expectations around product framing, benchmark selection, and feature emphasis. According to GN, these tactics suggest a broader company-wide strategy that extends beyond individual regional PR teams.

Nvidia is no stranger to controversy when it comes to media influence. In 2020, it temporarily revoked Hardware Unboxed’s GPU sampling access over that outlet’s reluctance to prioritize ray tracing metrics. A similar pattern allegedly emerged again, with Nvidia pushing GN to adjust its editorial direction around MFG and DLSS coverage.

Shifting expectations, shifting access

Burke claims Nvidia told Gamers Nexus that including MFG in reviews was required to “secure budget” for interviews with engineers — despite the fact that GN pays out of pocket to travel, film, and edit those interviews. Nvidia does not compensate them for that coverage. According to GN, this framing suggests Nvidia sees all media relationships as inherently transactional, whether money changes hands or not.

This framing also creates a chilling effect on other media outlets. Once Nvidia sets a precedent for tying access to coverage direction, every interview, performance chart, or editorial choice becomes suspect. GN argues that this undermines not only their credibility, but the credibility of any reviewer who talks about MFG or DLSS without full transparency on whether those talking points were voluntary.

Honest engineers, weaponized goodwill

Gamers Nexus makes it clear that their frustration is not directed at Nvidia's engineers. On the contrary, they describe staff like Malcolm and Gamm0 as trustworthy, intelligent professionals who speak from experience rather than marketing scripts. These individuals have built a genuine rapport with GN and its audience. However, GN now believes that Nvidia is deliberately weaponizing that rapport to enforce compliance.

Burke claims that Nvidia repeatedly brings up the names of these engineers in discussions about coverage requirements. This strategy appears to be aimed at applying emotional leverage, knowing GN values those relationships. GN describes it as a form of manipulation: "If denying access to GPUs doesn't work, maybe denying access to engineers you respect will."

Manipulation under the guise of transparency

Despite producing over an hour of standalone content on MFG and DLSS — including frame-by-frame analysis and technical deep dives — GN says Nvidia remained unsatisfied because the coverage was not housed within review content itself. The demand was clear: include MFG4X in the charts or lose access.

This insistence, GN argues, has tainted any MFG or DLSS coverage from any outlet. Even if another reviewer includes those figures out of genuine interest, audiences may now wonder whether they did so voluntarily or under pressure. This erosion of trust damages both independent media and Nvidia’s own credibility.

A pattern of retaliation

Gamers Nexus is no stranger to conflict with major companies. They have previously challenged Intel and AMD over similar issues, and they emphasize that this isn’t personal. However, the outlet believes Nvidia’s tactics have crossed a new threshold — one that now includes not only hardware access, but personnel access, and possibly internal retaliation.

Burke refers to previous reports from former Nvidia employees who described a corporate culture where executives frequently shift blame downward. GN worries that by going public with these accusations, they may inadvertently harm the engineers and PR contacts who have no role in setting top-level policy. Still, the outlet insists that sunlight is the only real disinfectant.

Revisiting GPP and historical pressure

The feature also recalls Nvidia’s controversial GeForce Partner Program (GPP) in 2018. That initiative effectively required board partners to align their gaming brands exclusively with GeForce if they wanted to retain access to Nvidia support. This program, widely criticized as anti-competitive, was eventually withdrawn following public pressure and investigative reporting.

In GN’s view, the current situation echoes GPP in both tone and tactics. The company is allegedly trying to shape perception and constrain coverage using access and relationships as pressure points, rather than relying on product quality and openness. Whether it's GPUs or interviews, the message seems to be: follow the script, or lose your place in the conversation.

If you give an inch...

GN closes its feature with a strong message: they will not capitulate. Even if it costs them future review samples, interviews, or relationships, they intend to uphold editorial independence. They also encourage other outlets to do the same. "If you give Nvidia an inch, they’ll take a mile," Burke warns.

The piece ends not with a call to boycott, but with a reminder: Nvidia makes impressive products, and its engineers produce valuable insights. But consumers and reviewers alike must be able to trust that coverage is accurate, independent, and not dictated by corporate pressure.

At its core, this conflict is not just about charts or drivers. It’s about the role of the press in an industry where access has become a bargaining chip and transparency comes at a cost.

We will continue monitoring this situation and provide updates as new developments unfold.