The PlayStation Store and Nintendo eShop are facing an influx of low-quality games, often described as "slop," characterized by misleading marketing, generative AI assets, and questionable practices. This issue, detailed by Kotaku and Aftermath, has recently extended to the PlayStation Store, particularly impacting the "Games to Wishlist" section.
These aren't merely "bad" games; the problem lies in the sheer volume of strikingly similar titles, often simulation games perpetually on sale, mimicking popular games' themes or even names. They frequently feature AI-generated art and screenshots that misrepresent the actual game quality, which is typically subpar with poor controls and technical issues. A small number of companies appear responsible for this deluge, exhibiting opaque business practices and frequently changing names.
Growing user frustration has led to calls for stricter storefront regulation. To understand the situation, this investigation explores the game release process across Steam, Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo Switch, interviewing eight anonymous game developers and publishers.
The Certification Process
The release process generally involves pitching to platform holders (Valve, Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo), completing game description forms, and undergoing certification ("cert"). Cert verifies technical compliance with platform requirements, legal adherence, and ESRB rating accuracy. While Steam and Xbox publicly list their requirements, Nintendo and Sony do not. Cert is not a quality assurance (QA) check; that's the developer's responsibility. Rejection often comes with minimal explanation, particularly from Nintendo.
Store Page Review
Platform holders require accurate game representation in screenshots, but enforcement varies. While Nintendo and Xbox review store page changes before launch, PlayStation performs a single check near launch, and Valve only reviews initially, allowing subsequent modifications without further review. While some diligence exists in verifying product accuracy, standards are loosely defined, allowing many games to slip through. Penalties for misleading information are typically limited to content removal, though delisting or developer removal is a potential consequence. None of the console storefronts have specific rules regarding generative AI usage in games or store assets, although Steam requests disclosure.
The "Slop" Problem: Platform Differences
The disparity in "slop" across platforms stems from developer approval processes. Microsoft vets games individually, while Nintendo, Sony, and Valve vet developers. This allows developers approved on Nintendo and PlayStation to easily release multiple games, leading to the current problem. Xbox's game-by-game approach makes it less susceptible. One developer described Nintendo as "probably the easiest to scam." Some developers exploit loopholes, such as repeatedly releasing bundles with minimal changes to maintain high placement in "New Releases" and "Discounts" sections. PlayStation's "Games to Wishlist" sorting by release date exacerbates the issue, surfacing upcoming games with vague release dates.
Steam, despite having potentially more "slop," faces less criticism due to its superior discoverability options and constantly refreshing new releases section. Nintendo's approach of presenting all new releases in an unsorted manner contributes to the problem.
Calls for Regulation and Concerns
Users are urging Nintendo and Sony to address the issue, but responses from the companies were unavailable. Developers express pessimism, citing Nintendo's history of slow storefront improvements. While Nintendo's web browser eshop is relatively problem-free, the console app remains problematic. Sony has taken action against similar issues in the past, suggesting potential future intervention.
However, overly aggressive filtering, as demonstrated by Nintendo Life's "Better eShop" attempt, can harm legitimate games. Developers worry that stricter regulation might inadvertently target quality software. The final point emphasizes the human element involved in reviewing submissions, highlighting the challenge of distinguishing between genuinely bad games and deliberate attempts at exploitation. Platform holders strive for balance, but the task is complex and challenging.
