The PlayStation Store and Nintendo eShop are experiencing an influx of low-quality games, often described as "slop," characterized by misleading marketing, generative AI assets, and questionable practices. This article investigates the reasons behind this phenomenon, comparing the experiences across various storefronts.

Kotaku and Aftermath have highlighted the prevalence of these games, particularly on the eShop, where numerous titles utilize generative AI and deceptive store pages to lure unsuspecting buyers. This issue has recently spread to the PlayStation Store, notably impacting the "Games to Wishlist" section.

These aren't simply "bad" games; the problem lies in the sheer volume of strikingly similar, low-effort titles flooding the market, overshadowing legitimate releases. These games, frequently simulation titles, are perpetually discounted, often mimicking popular games' themes or even names. Their hyper-stylized visuals and screenshots strongly suggest the use of generative AI, yet the actual gameplay rarely matches the advertised quality. They often suffer from poor controls, technical glitches, and a lack of engaging content.

A small number of companies appear responsible for this prolific output, making them difficult to identify and hold accountable due to limited online presence and frequent name changes.

Users of both stores are demanding stricter regulation to curb this "AI slop," especially given the eShop's declining performance due to the sheer number of games.

The Certification Process:

The article explores the game release process across Steam, Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo Switch, interviewing eight anonymous game developers and publishers. Generally, developers must pitch their games to the platform holders, complete detailed forms, and undergo a certification process ("cert") to ensure compliance with technical requirements, legal standards, and age ratings. This process primarily focuses on technical compliance, not quality assurance. While all platforms require accurate screenshots, enforcement varies significantly. Nintendo and Xbox review store page changes before launch, while PlayStation performs a single check near launch, and Valve only reviews pages initially.

The punishment for misleading information often involves only the removal of the offending content, not necessarily delisting the game or penalizing the developer. None of the console storefronts have specific rules against using generative AI for games or store assets, although Steam requests disclosure of AI usage.

Why the Discrepancy?

The article posits several reasons for the disparity in "slop" across platforms:

• Microsoft's game-by-game vetting: Unlike Nintendo, Sony, and Valve, which vet developers, Microsoft vets each game individually, making it less susceptible to the problem.
• Nintendo's ease of exploitation: Once approved, developers can easily flood the eShop with low-quality games. The practice of constantly releasing new bundles with minimal changes to stay at the top of "New Releases" and "Discounts" is highlighted.
• PlayStation's "Games to Wishlist" sorting: The default sorting by release date, regardless of actual release, pushes many low-quality games to the top.
• Steam's high volume and search functionality: While Steam has its own discoverability issues, its sheer volume of games and robust search options dilute the impact of low-quality releases.
• Nintendo's unsorted "New Releases": Nintendo's approach to showcasing new releases contributes to the problem.

Despite user complaints, Nintendo and Sony have not publicly responded to requests for comment regarding potential solutions. Developers interviewed express pessimism about significant improvements, although some hope for incremental changes with the Nintendo Switch 2. The article notes that Nintendo's web browser eShop is significantly less affected than the console app. While Sony has taken action against similar issues in the past, there's no guarantee of immediate action.

The article also cautions against overly aggressive filtering, citing the example of Nintendo Life's "Better eShop" project, which faced criticism for incorrectly categorizing games. The developers interviewed emphasize the difficulty of distinguishing between genuinely bad games, asset flips, and AI-generated content, urging understanding of the challenges faced by platform holders in navigating this complex issue. The article concludes by highlighting the human element in the certification process and the inherent difficulty in objectively defining "good" or "bad" games.