The PlayStation Store and Nintendo eShop are experiencing an influx of low-quality games, often described as "slop," raising concerns among users. These games, frequently simulation titles, utilize generative AI for misleading store page assets and often bear striking resemblance to popular titles, sometimes even directly copying names and themes. This issue, initially prominent on the eShop, has recently spread to the PlayStation Store, particularly impacting the "Games to Wishlist" section.
The problem transcends simply "bad" games; it's the sheer volume of near-identical, low-effort titles overwhelming legitimate releases. These games often feature poor controls, technical glitches, and limited content, failing to deliver on their advertised promises. A small number of companies appear responsible for this surge, operating with limited public information and sometimes changing names to avoid accountability, as highlighted by YouTube creator Dead Domain.
Users are demanding stricter storefront regulation to address this "AI slop," particularly given the eShop's declining performance due to the sheer number of games. To understand the situation, this investigation explores the game release process across Steam, Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo Switch, examining why some platforms are more affected than others.
The Certification Process
Interviews with eight anonymous game developers and publishers revealed insights into the game release process across various platforms. Generally, developers pitch their games to platform holders (Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, or Valve), gaining access to development portals and devkits (for consoles). They then complete forms detailing game specifics and undergo certification ("cert"), where platform holders verify compliance with technical requirements. These requirements, publicly available for Steam and Xbox but not Nintendo or Sony, cover various scenarios, including corrupted saves and controller disconnections. Certification also ensures legal compliance and accurate ESRB ratings.
A common misconception is that certification equates to a quality assurance (QA) check. Developers are responsible for QA before submission; certification focuses solely on technical platform compliance. Rejection often provides limited feedback, with Nintendo cited as particularly opaque in its rejection reasons.
Store Page Review
Platform holders require accurate game representation on store pages, but enforcement varies. While Nintendo and Xbox review all page changes, PlayStation conducts a single check near launch, and Valve reviews only the initial submission. Diligence in verifying accuracy differs significantly, with some platforms prioritizing developer trust over preemptive checks. Consequences for inaccurate representations typically involve removal of the offending content, not necessarily developer delisting. Importantly, none of the console storefronts have specific rules regarding generative AI use in games or store assets, though Steam requests disclosure.
Platform Differences
The disparity in "slop" across platforms stems from several factors. Microsoft uniquely vets games individually, unlike Nintendo, Sony, and Valve, which vet developers. This makes Microsoft less susceptible to the influx of low-quality games. Xbox's hands-on approach, including direct collaboration with developers on store pages and builds, contributes to its higher standards.
Nintendo's developer-based approval system, coupled with its focus on technical compliance, allows companies to easily flood the eShop. One developer described Nintendo as "probably the easiest to scam." Exploitation of discount periods and automatic "New Releases" sorting further exacerbates the issue. PlayStation's "Games to Wishlist" section, sorted by release date, also contributes to the problem, surfacing numerous low-quality games with vague release dates.
Discoverability and Steam
Steam, while potentially having the most "slop," avoids widespread user frustration due to its superior discoverability features and constantly refreshing new releases section. The sheer volume of games dilutes the impact of individual low-quality releases. In contrast, Nintendo's lack of robust sorting and filtering mechanisms contributes to the perceived "eshop slop" problem. The browser-based eShop, however, is generally considered less problematic.
Potential Solutions and Concerns
Users are urging Nintendo and Sony to improve storefront regulation. While Sony has taken similar action in the past, the effectiveness of aggressive platform regulation is debated. The "Better eShop" project, attempting to filter out low-quality games, highlighted the risk of inadvertently targeting legitimate titles. Concerns exist about accidentally penalizing quality games that don't utilize generative AI or other shortcuts. Ultimately, the human element in reviewing submissions, coupled with the challenge of distinguishing between genuinely bad games and cynical cash grabs, complicates the situation. The platform holders are ultimately trying to balance allowing a wide range of games while preventing the overwhelming presence of low-effort, misleading titles.
