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 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 visually similar titles, often employing themes and names from popular games. These games frequently feature hyper-stylized, AI-generated art that misrepresents their actual gameplay, which is typically janky, poorly controlled, and lacking in features. A small number of companies appear responsible for this prolific output, often operating with limited public information and frequently changing company names.

User complaints have mounted, particularly concerning the eShop's deteriorating performance due to the sheer volume of games. This investigation explores the reasons behind this phenomenon, comparing the experiences of Steam and Xbox stores.

The Certification Process: A Key Difference

Interviews with eight game development and publishing professionals (all requesting anonymity) revealed insights into the game release process across Steam, Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo Switch. The process generally involves pitching to the platform holder, completing game description forms, and undergoing certification ("cert") to ensure compliance with technical requirements and legal standards. Certification focuses on technical aspects and legal compliance, not quality assurance. Platform holders, especially Nintendo, are often criticized for rejecting games with minimal explanation.

Store Page Review: A Variable Process

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 initially, allowing subsequent modifications. Although some diligence exists, the definition of "accurate representation" is loose, enabling misleading imagery to slip through. Penalties for inaccurate information typically involve removal of the offending content, rather than harsher repercussions. Importantly, none of the console storefronts have explicit rules regarding generative AI use in games or store assets, unlike Steam, which requests disclosure but doesn't restrict its use.

Why the Discrepancy?

The differences in platform policies contribute to the "slop" problem. Microsoft's game-by-game vetting process, unlike Nintendo and Sony's developer-based approach, makes it less susceptible to flooding. Nintendo's system is particularly vulnerable, allowing developers to easily publish numerous low-quality games. Exploitation of sales and "New Releases" sections further exacerbates the issue. While generative AI is a factor, it's not the sole cause. The underlying issue is a lack of robust quality control and discoverability problems.

Discoverability and Curation: A Crucial Factor

The problem is compounded by discoverability issues. Xbox's curated store pages minimize exposure to low-quality games, while PlayStation's "Games to Wishlist" sorting by release date highlights unreleased games, including "slop." Steam, despite its own discoverability challenges, avoids a similar backlash due to its high volume of releases, which quickly overshadows new low-quality entries. Nintendo's unfiltered "New Releases" section contributes significantly to the problem, contrasting with its functional web browser storefront.

The Path Forward: Challenges and Concerns

Users are urging Nintendo and Sony to address the issue, but responses have been limited. Developers express pessimism about significant improvements, particularly regarding Nintendo's track record. While Sony has taken action in the past, the effectiveness of aggressive platform regulation is questionable. Overly aggressive filtering, as demonstrated by the "Better eShop" project, can inadvertently harm legitimate games. Concerns exist about potentially targeting quality software through stricter regulations. Ultimately, the human element in reviewing submissions and the difficulty in distinguishing between genuinely bad games and deliberate cash grabs pose significant challenges for platform holders. The balance between allowing creative freedom and preventing exploitation remains a complex issue.