In recent months, both the PlayStation Store and the Nintendo eShop have been inundated with what users are calling "slop" – a flood of low-quality games that often use generative AI and misleading store pages to attract buyers. Both Kotaku and Aftermath have highlighted this issue, particularly noting how the eShop has become overrun with such games. This problem has also spread to the PlayStation Store, notably affecting the “Games to wishlist” section with numerous questionable entries.
These "slop" games are not just substandard; they are often sim games that perpetually appear on sale, mimic themes from popular games, and use hyper-stylized art that suggests the use of generative AI. In reality, these games frequently suffer from poor controls, numerous technical issues, and lack engaging content. They are churned out rapidly by a small group of companies that are difficult to track and hold accountable, often changing names to further obfuscate their operations, as noted by YouTube creator Dead Domain.
The growing presence of these games has led to calls for better regulation of these storefronts. Users are increasingly vocal about their dissatisfaction, especially given the deteriorating performance of Nintendo’s eShop, which struggles with slower load times due to the sheer volume of games.
To understand this issue, I spoke with eight individuals in game development and publishing, all of whom requested anonymity due to fears of platform holder reprisal. They provided insights into the process of getting games onto the major storefronts: Steam, Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo Switch. The process generally involves pitching to the platform holder, filling out detailed forms about the game, and undergoing a certification process to ensure the game meets technical requirements. While Steam and Xbox publish some of their requirements, Nintendo and Sony do not.
Certification focuses on technical compliance rather than quality assurance, which remains the responsibility of the developer or publisher. If a game fails certification, it is returned with error codes but often without clear instructions on how to fix the issues, especially from Nintendo.
Regarding store page management, platform holders require screenshots to accurately represent the game, but the review process primarily checks for competing imagery and correct language, not the accuracy of the game representation. Nintendo and Xbox review store page changes before they go live, whereas PlayStation conducts a single check near launch, and Valve reviews the initial store page but not subsequent changes.
The lack of stringent rules around the use of generative AI in games and store assets, except for Steam’s disclosure requirement, contributes to the problem. The approval process also plays a role: while Microsoft vets games on a per-game basis, Nintendo, Sony, and Valve approve developers, allowing them to release multiple games once approved, which can lead to an influx of low-quality titles.
Nintendo and PlayStation's storefronts are particularly vulnerable due to their approval processes and sorting algorithms. Nintendo's eShop, for example, sorts new releases in a way that can be easily manipulated by developers to keep their games at the top of lists. PlayStation's "Games to Wishlist" section sorts games by release date, pushing new entries to the forefront regardless of quality.
Steam, despite having the highest number of potential "slop" games, is less criticized due to its robust sorting and discovery options, which help users navigate the vast number of games available. Xbox, with its curated store pages, is less affected by these issues, though not entirely immune.
Users have been pushing for better storefront regulation, but responses from Nintendo and Sony have been limited. Developers and publishers are skeptical about significant changes, although Sony has previously taken action against similar issues. Meanwhile, efforts like Nintendo Life's "Better eshop" initiative to filter out low-quality games have faced criticism for being overly aggressive and mislabeling quality indie games.
There is a concern that stricter regulations might inadvertently harm legitimate games. Developers emphasize that platform holders are staffed by individuals trying to balance the presence of bad games with the need to allow creative freedom. The challenge lies in distinguishing between genuinely bad games and those that are cynically produced for profit.
