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 similarities to popular titles, sometimes even directly copying names and concepts. This issue, initially prominent 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 nearly identical, low-effort titles flooding the market and obscuring higher-quality releases. These games often feature poor controls, technical glitches, and limited content, failing to meet the promises made on their store pages. A small number of companies appear responsible for this surge, making them difficult to identify and hold accountable due to a lack of readily available information and frequent name changes.
User complaints have prompted calls for stricter storefront regulation, especially given the eShop's deteriorating performance due to the sheer volume of games. To understand the situation, this investigation explores the game release process across different platforms (Steam, Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo Switch), focusing on certification and store page approval.
The Certification Process
Interviews with eight game development and publishing professionals (all requesting anonymity) revealed insights into the game release process. Generally, developers must first gain access to platform-specific development portals and devkits (for consoles). This involves submitting information about the game and undergoing certification ("cert"), where the platform holder verifies technical compliance, legal adherence, and ESRB rating accuracy. While Steam and Xbox publicly share their requirements, Nintendo and Sony do not.
Certification is often misunderstood as a quality assurance (QA) check. It primarily focuses on technical specifications and legal compliance, not game quality. Rejection often comes with minimal explanation, especially from Nintendo.
Store Page Approval
Platform holders require accurate game representations on store pages, but enforcement varies. While Nintendo and Xbox review page changes before launch, PlayStation performs a single check near launch, and Valve only reviews the initial submission. The level of scrutiny for accurate game representation is inconsistent, with developers often operating on a "forgiveness, not permission" basis. Consequences for misleading information typically involve removing the offending content, not necessarily delisting the game or penalizing the developer. None of the console storefronts have specific rules regarding generative AI use in games or marketing materials, although Steam requests disclosure.
Why the Discrepancy?
The disparity in "slop" across storefronts stems from differences in developer approval processes. Microsoft vets games individually, making it less susceptible to the problem. Nintendo, Sony, and Valve approve developers, allowing easier mass-publishing of games once approved. This, combined with a lack of rigorous store page vetting, enables a few companies to saturate the market with low-quality titles. Nintendo's system is particularly vulnerable to exploitation, with developers employing strategies to maintain high visibility on sales and new releases pages. PlayStation's "Games to Wishlist" section, sorted by release date, also contributes to the issue.
Steam, despite having a large volume of potential "slop," is less criticized due to its robust search and filtering options and rapidly updating new releases section. Nintendo's eShop, however, lacks these features, leading to a cluttered and overwhelming experience.
The Path Forward
Users are demanding action from Nintendo and Sony, but the developers interviewed expressed pessimism. While Sony has taken action in the past, the effectiveness of future interventions is uncertain. The "Better eShop" project, while well-intentioned, highlighted the risk of overly aggressive filtering accidentally harming legitimate games. Concerns exist that stricter regulation might unfairly target quality software. The challenge lies in balancing the need to curb low-quality releases with the potential for unintended consequences. The developers emphasized that platform holders, while seemingly monolithic entities, are ultimately composed of individuals facing an ever-increasing workload, tasked with verifying technical specifications rather than judging game quality.
