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 assets and misleading store pages to attract unsuspecting buyers. This issue, initially more prevalent on the eShop, has recently spread to the PlayStation Store, particularly impacting the "Games to Wishlist" section.
The problem isn't simply the presence of bad games; it's the overwhelming quantity of strikingly similar, low-effort titles overshadowing higher-quality releases. These games often feature perpetually discounted prices, derivative themes and names, AI-generated art, and poor gameplay mechanics. A small number of companies appear responsible for this surge, making them difficult to identify and hold accountable due to limited online presence and frequent name changes.
Users have voiced their frustration, particularly regarding the eShop's declining performance due to the sheer volume of these games. To investigate, this article examines the game submission processes of major storefronts (Steam, Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo Switch) and how they contribute to the differing levels of "slop."
The Certification Process
Interviews with eight anonymous game development and publishing professionals revealed insights into the game release process. Generally, developers must first gain access to platform-specific portals and devkits (for consoles). They then submit game details and undergo certification ("cert"), where the platform checks for technical compliance, legal issues, and ESRB rating accuracy. While certification ensures technical specifications are met, it's not a quality assurance check; that responsibility lies with the developer/publisher. Feedback from platform holders on cert failures is often limited, with Nintendo cited as particularly opaque in its rejections.
Store Page Review
Platform holders require accurate game representation in store page screenshots. However, enforcement varies. While Nintendo and Xbox review all store page changes, PlayStation conducts a single pre-launch check, and Valve performs an initial review but rarely revisits the page afterward. While some diligence exists to ensure accuracy, standards are loosely defined, allowing misleading content to slip through. Penalties for inaccurate information typically involve content removal, with delisting or developer removal as a more severe consequence. Crucially, none of the console storefronts have specific rules regarding generative AI use in games or store assets, although Steam requests disclosure.
Why the Disparity?
The varying levels of "slop" across storefronts can be attributed to several factors. Microsoft's game-by-game vetting process, unlike Nintendo, Sony, and Valve's developer-based approach, makes it less susceptible to mass submissions of low-quality games. Xbox's hands-on approach and high standards for store pages contribute to its relative immunity. Nintendo's developer-based approval and lack of robust store page moderation allow companies to flood the eShop with similar games, particularly through exploiting discount periods. PlayStation's "Games to Wishlist" sorting by release date exacerbates the problem by prominently featuring upcoming games, many of which are low-quality.
Steam's extensive search and sorting options, coupled with its high volume of releases, mitigate the visibility of low-quality games. Nintendo's poorly organized New Releases section, however, contributes directly to the problem.
The Path Forward
Users have urged Nintendo and Sony to improve storefront regulation. While Sony has taken action in the past, the effectiveness of stricter regulations is debated. Examples like the "Better eShop" project highlight the risk of overly aggressive filtering, potentially harming legitimate games. Concerns exist that stringent quality control might inadvertently target quality software. The challenge lies in balancing the need to prevent misleading content with the potential for unintended consequences. Ultimately, the human element in reviewing submissions, coupled with the difficulty in distinguishing between genuinely bad games and deliberate cash grabs, complicates the solution.
