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 marketing materials and often bear striking resemblance to popular titles, sometimes even directly copying names and concepts. This issue, initially more prominent on the eShop, has recently spread to the PlayStation Store, particularly impacting the "Games to Wishlist" section.
The problem transcends simple "bad" games; it's a deluge of near-identical titles overwhelming legitimate releases. These games often feature poor controls, technical glitches, and limited gameplay, despite alluring AI-generated marketing. A small number of companies appear responsible, employing tactics like frequent name changes to evade accountability.
User complaints regarding both stores' performance, particularly the increasingly sluggish Nintendo eShop, have amplified the issue. This investigation explores the reasons behind this phenomenon, comparing the experiences across PlayStation, Nintendo, Steam, and Xbox storefronts.
The Certification Process: A Key Difference
Interviews with eight game developers and publishers (all requesting anonymity) revealed insights into the game release process across the four major platforms. The process generally involves pitching to the platform holder (Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, or Valve), completing forms detailing the game's technical specifications, and undergoing certification ("cert"). Cert verifies compliance with platform requirements, legal standards, and ESRB ratings. While Steam and Xbox publicly share their requirements, Nintendo and Sony do not.
A common misconception is that cert constitutes a quality assurance (QA) check. This is incorrect; QA is the developer's responsibility. Platforms primarily assess technical compliance, not game quality. Several sources noted Nintendo's tendency to reject games without clear explanations.
Store Page Review: A Variable Process
All platforms have requirements for accurate game representation on store pages, but enforcement varies. While Nintendo and Xbox review all page changes, PlayStation performs a single check near launch, and Valve reviews only the initial submission. The focus is primarily on preventing conflicting imagery and ensuring correct language, not necessarily on verifying the accuracy of screenshots or descriptions. One anecdote involved Nintendo rejecting screenshots that were technically impossible to render on the Switch, highlighting the lack of direct access to game builds by the store review teams.
The punishment for misleading store pages is typically the removal of the offending content, not necessarily developer delisting. None of the console storefronts have specific rules regarding generative AI use in games or marketing materials, unlike Steam, which requests disclosure but doesn't restrict its use.
Why the Discrepancy?
The differences in storefront experiences stem from how each platform handles developer vetting. Microsoft vets games individually, making it less susceptible to "slop." Nintendo, Sony, and Valve vet developers, allowing approved developers to easily release multiple games, even low-quality ones, as long as they pass cert. This allows a small number of companies to flood the stores with similar, low-effort games.
One developer described Nintendo's system as "easy to scam," while another highlighted a tactic used to maintain high visibility on the eShop: releasing new bundles immediately after previous ones expire to remain consistently near the top of "New Releases" and "Discounts." A similar issue exists on the PlayStation Store due to the "Games to Wishlist" tab's sorting by release date, prioritizing games with distant release windows.
Steam's vast library and robust search/sorting options mitigate the "slop" problem, despite its own discoverability issues. Nintendo's approach of presenting all new releases in an unsorted manner exacerbates the issue.
The Path Forward: Challenges and Concerns
Users are demanding action from Nintendo and Sony, but platform holders have yet to respond publicly. Developers express pessimism, citing Nintendo's history of incremental improvement and the potential for arbitrary judgment in quality control. The "Better eShop" project, while well-intentioned, demonstrates the challenges of automated filtering and the risk of mistakenly targeting legitimate games.
Concerns exist about overly aggressive platform regulation potentially harming quality software. Developers emphasize that platform holders are ultimately individuals attempting to balance allowing varied games while preventing exploitative practices. The difficulty in distinguishing between genuinely bad games, asset flips, and AI-generated content adds to the complexity of the problem.
