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 assets 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.
These aren't simply "bad" games; the problem lies in the sheer volume of nearly identical, low-effort titles flooding the stores, overshadowing legitimate releases. Many share similar themes, often mimicking popular games or outright copying names and concepts. Their visuals and screenshots heavily rely on generative AI, often misrepresenting the actual game quality. Gameplay is typically janky, with poor controls and technical issues, lacking substantial features or engaging content.
A small number of companies appear responsible for this mass production, making them difficult to identify and hold accountable due to limited public information and frequent company name changes. Users of both stores are demanding stricter regulation to address this "AI slop," particularly given the eShop's declining performance due to the sheer number of listings.
To understand the situation, the article investigates the game release process across Steam, Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo Switch. Eight game development and publishing professionals (all anonymous due to fear of reprisal) provided insights.
The general process involves pitching to the platform holder, completing game description forms, and undergoing certification ("cert"). Cert checks for compliance with technical requirements, legal issues, and ESRB rating accuracy. It's crucial to note that cert is not a quality assurance check; that's the developer's responsibility. While platform holders have requirements for accurate store page screenshots, enforcement varies significantly. Nintendo is cited as frequently rejecting games with little explanation.
Store page reviews focus mainly on avoiding conflicting imagery and ensuring correct language. One anecdote highlights Nintendo catching a game with PC screenshots unsuitable for the Switch's capabilities. While Nintendo and Xbox review store page changes before launch, PlayStation performs a single check near launch, and Valve only reviews initially, allowing later modifications without further checks.
The article suggests that while some diligence exists in verifying product accuracy, standards are loosely defined, allowing many games to slip through. Consequences for misleading information typically involve removal of the offending content, not delisting or developer removal. Importantly, none of the three console storefronts have rules against generative AI use in games or store assets; Steam requests disclosure but doesn't restrict its use.
The article explores why Sony and Nintendo's stores are more affected than Xbox's. The key difference lies in Microsoft's game-by-game vetting process, unlike Nintendo, Sony, and Valve's developer-based approval. Xbox's more rigorous approach makes it less susceptible to "slop." Nintendo is described as particularly easy to "scam," with some developers exploiting discount periods to keep their games near the top of "New Releases" and "Discounts" sections. PlayStation's "Games to Wishlist" sorting by release date exacerbates the problem, surfacing upcoming games, including low-quality titles, prominently.
Steam, despite having potentially more "slop," faces less criticism due to its robust search and sorting options, and the constantly refreshing new releases section diluting the impact of individual low-quality games. Nintendo's approach of presenting all new releases in an unsorted pile contributes to the issue.
The article concludes with a discussion of potential solutions. While users demand stricter regulation, developers express concern that overly aggressive measures might inadvertently harm legitimate games. The article also highlights the human element involved in reviewing submissions, acknowledging the difficulty in distinguishing between student projects, genuinely bad games, asset flips, and AI-generated content. The article ends on a note of empathy for the platform holders, who face the challenge of balancing allowing diverse games while preventing cynical exploitation.
