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 and misleading store pages to attract unsuspecting buyers. This issue, initially 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 visually similar, low-effort titles flooding the market, obscuring higher-quality releases. These games often feature perpetually discounted prices, derivative themes and names, and AI-generated assets that misrepresent the actual gameplay experience. They typically suffer from poor controls, technical glitches, and a lack of engaging content.
A small number of companies appear responsible for this mass production, making them difficult to identify and hold accountable due to limited online presence and frequent name changes.
User complaints have spurred calls for increased storefront regulation, particularly concerning the eShop's declining performance due to the sheer volume of games. This investigation explores the reasons behind this phenomenon, comparing the experiences of PlayStation, Nintendo, Steam, and Xbox stores.
The Certification Process
Interviews with eight game development and publishing professionals (all requesting anonymity) revealed insights into the game release process across the four major storefronts. The process generally involves pitching to the platform holder (Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, or Valve), gaining access to development portals and devkits (for consoles), completing game description forms, and undergoing certification ("cert").
Cert involves verifying technical compliance with platform requirements, legal compliance, and ESRB rating accuracy. Platform holders are particularly stringent about age ratings. While cert checks technical specifications, it's not a quality assurance (QA) process; that responsibility lies with the developer/publisher. Feedback from platform holders on submission failures is often limited, particularly from Nintendo.
Store Page Review
Platform holders require accurate game representation in store page screenshots, though enforcement varies. While Nintendo and Xbox review all store page changes, PlayStation conducts a single check near launch, and Valve only reviews the initial submission. While some diligence exists to ensure accuracy, standards are loosely defined, allowing misleading content to slip through. Consequences for inaccurate screenshots usually involve removal of the offending content, rather than significant penalties. None of the three console storefronts have specific rules regarding generative AI use in games or store assets, although Steam requests disclosure.
Why the Discrepancy?
The disparity in "slop" across storefronts stems from several factors. Microsoft's game-by-game vetting process, unlike Nintendo, Sony, and Valve's developer-based approach, makes it less susceptible to mass uploads of low-quality games. Xbox's hands-on approach and high standards for store pages contribute to its relative cleanliness.
Nintendo's developer-based approval process, coupled with a lack of robust store page oversight, allows companies to easily flood the eShop with similar, low-quality games. Tactics like perpetually extending discounts and releasing near-identical bundles maximize visibility on "New Releases" and "Discounts" pages. PlayStation's "Games to Wishlist" sorting by release date exacerbates the issue, prioritizing games with distant release dates, often of low quality.
Steam, despite having a high volume of games, avoids similar criticism due to its robust search and filtering options, and the constantly refreshing nature of its "New Releases" section. Nintendo's unfiltered "New Releases" section, however, contributes to the problem.
The Path Forward
Users have urged Nintendo and Sony to address the issue, but neither company responded to requests for comment. While some believe stricter regulation is necessary, concerns exist about potentially harming legitimate games through overly aggressive filtering, as demonstrated by the "Better eShop" project. Developers emphasize that platform holders are ultimately individuals trying to balance allowing diverse games while preventing exploitative practices, a task made challenging by the sheer volume of submissions. The image quality of the games, while often utilizing AI, isn't the core issue; the problem is the volume of low-effort games overwhelming the stores.
