'I Could Make \

There’s been a peculiar trend emerging on the PlayStation Store and the Nintendo eShop over the past few months, with users dubbing the influx of low-quality games as "slop." Both Kotaku and Aftermath have shed light on this issue, particularly emphasizing how the eShop has been increasingly filled with games that use a combination of generative AI and deceptive store pages to lure consumers into buying substandard games. This trend has recently extended to the PlayStation Store, especially affecting the "Games to wishlist" section with an array of unusual-looking games.

The games in question aren’t merely poor quality; they represent a deluge of similar-looking titles that overshadow other offerings. These so-called "slop" games are typically simulation games, perpetually on sale, often mimicking themes or outright copying concepts and names from more popular titles. They frequently feature hyper-stylized art and screenshots that hint at the use of generative AI, but in reality, the games do not match the promised visuals. They tend to be buggy, with clunky controls and minimal gameplay elements.

Moreover, these games are often mass-produced by a small number of companies. As YouTube creator Dead Domain discovered, these companies are elusive, with little to no public information available, and some even change their names frequently to avoid scrutiny.

In recent times, users of both platforms have voiced their frustrations, demanding better regulation to curb the spread of "AI slop." This call for action is intensified by the poor performance of Nintendo’s eShop, which has become increasingly sluggish as more games flood the store.

To understand why these games are proliferating on these platforms, I spoke with eight individuals in the game development and publishing industry, all of whom requested anonymity due to concerns about platform holder retaliation. Their insights into the game release process on Steam, Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo Switch offer clues as to why some platforms are more affected by "slop" than others.

The Magical World of Cert

The general process for getting a game onto these storefronts involves pitching to the platform holders (Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, or Valve) to gain access to development tools and backend portals. Developers then fill out forms detailing their game’s features and technical requirements before submitting it for certification (or "cert"). This process checks if the game meets specific technical standards and complies with legal and rating requirements. Notably, Steam and Xbox publish their certification requirements publicly, while Nintendo and Sony do not.

A common misconception is that certification equates to a quality assurance check. However, as one publisher clarified, "A common misconception amongst The Gamers™ and even inexperienced devs is this is tantamount to a QA check. This is incorrect, that's the responsibility of the developer/publisher prior to submission. The platforms check to make sure the game's code complies with hardware specifications."

If a game fails certification, it must be resubmitted with fixes, although developers often receive only error codes without detailed explanations, particularly from Nintendo.

Front and Center

Platform holders have some guidelines for store page content, requiring accurate representations of the games. However, the review process primarily checks for competing imagery and language appropriateness rather than the accuracy of the game representation. One developer recounted an instance where a game was flagged for using PC screenshots on a Switch store page.

Nintendo and Xbox review all store page changes before they go live, while PlayStation performs a single check near launch. Valve reviews the store page initially but does not monitor subsequent changes, allowing developers to alter their listings post-approval.

The enforcement of accurate store information varies. Developers can often submit misleading content and only face minor consequences if caught, such as being asked to remove the content. There are no specific rules against using generative AI on console storefronts, though Steam requires developers to disclose its use.

Eshop to eslop

The prevalence of "slop" on Nintendo and Sony’s platforms is partly due to their developer-based vetting process, which allows approved developers to release multiple games more easily. In contrast, Xbox vets games on a case-by-case basis, reducing the impact of "slop." As one publisher noted, "Which is why Xbox has fewer (not no) ‘game-shaped objects’."

Nintendo’s and PlayStation’s focus on technical compliance rather than content quality allows certain companies to flood their stores with low-quality games. One developer remarked, "Nintendo is probably the easiest to scam. Once I’m in the door, I could make ‘Fart Fart Boobie Fart: The Game’ and maybe it would eventually get taken down, but it’s so odd."

Exploiting store algorithms, some developers release new bundles with slight variations to keep their games at the top of "New Releases" and "Discounts" sections, overshadowing other titles. A developer described the impact on PlayStation, "On all consoles, you get the opportunity to get featured, but you’re also on these automatic lists. If people are just pumping crap into the system, you get pushed down the list."

While generative AI is often blamed, the core issue seems to be broader, encompassing discoverability challenges. Xbox's curated store pages make it harder for users to encounter "slop," whereas PlayStation’s "Games to Wishlist" section, sorted by release date, inadvertently promotes these games. Steam, despite having the most potential "slop," benefits from robust sorting and searching options and a constantly refreshing new releases section, diluting the impact of low-quality games.

All Games Allowed

Users have urged Nintendo and Sony to enhance their storefront regulation. We reached out to both companies for comment on potential solutions but received no response. Microsoft also did not respond to our inquiries.

Developers and publishers expressed skepticism about significant improvements, particularly with Nintendo. One developer noted, "It’s logic-defying how their stores are so bad. They could check anyone else’s store and see what to do...I am optimistic it will be 10% better than the Switch store."

However, Sony has previously addressed similar issues, as seen in 2021 when it cracked down on "spam" content flooding the store. There is hope that Sony might take action again.

The debate on stricter platform regulation is contentious. Efforts like Nintendo Life’s "Better eshop" project faced backlash for mislabeling games, highlighting the risks of overly aggressive filtering. A publisher expressed concern about unintended consequences, "Personally, I fear that game platforms might accidentally target quality software."

Sympathy was also extended to platform holders, who must navigate the fine line between allowing creative freedom and preventing exploitation. As one person noted, "First-parties are trying to strike a balance between allowing bad games to be published and cynical cash grabs. And sometimes it's not easy to know where to put the foot down."