'I Could Make \"Fart Fart Boobie Fart: The Game\" and Maybe It Would Eventually Get Taken Down' - Devs Reveal Why the Consoles Are Drowning in 'Eslop'

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 misleading marketing materials and often bear striking similarities to popular titles, sometimes even directly copying names and concepts. This issue, initially more prevalent on the eShop, has recently spread to the PlayStation Store, particularly affecting the "Games to Wishlist" section.

The problem extends beyond simply "bad" games; it's the sheer volume of nearly identical, low-effort titles overwhelming legitimate releases. These games often feature poor controls, technical issues, and limited gameplay, despite their visually appealing (but AI-generated) marketing materials. A small number of companies appear responsible for this surge, making them difficult to track and hold accountable due to their lack of public presence and frequent name changes.

Users have voiced concerns about the impact on store functionality, particularly the declining performance of the Nintendo eShop. To investigate, this article explores the game release process across major platforms (Steam, Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo Switch), interviewing eight anonymous game developers and publishers.

The Certification Process

The game release process generally involves pitching to platform holders (Valve, Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo), completing application forms detailing game specifics, and undergoing certification ("cert") to ensure compliance with technical requirements and legal standards. Cert focuses on technical functionality, not quality assurance. While platform holders check for legal violations and age rating accuracy, the process doesn't inherently guarantee game quality. Several interviewees highlighted Nintendo's tendency towards frequent rejections with limited feedback.

Store Page Review

Platform holders require accurate game representation in store page screenshots. However, enforcement varies significantly. While Nintendo and Xbox review all store page changes, PlayStation conducts a single pre-launch check, and Valve's review is limited to the initial submission. The standards for "accurate representation" are loosely defined, allowing misleading images to slip through. Penalties for inaccurate information are typically limited to content removal, with delisting being a more severe consequence. None of the console storefronts have specific rules regarding generative AI use in games or marketing. Steam, however, requires disclosure of generative AI usage in its content survey.

Platform Differences

The disparity in "slop" prevalence across platforms is attributed to several factors. Microsoft's game-by-game approval process, unlike the developer-based approach of Nintendo, Sony, and Valve, makes it less susceptible to mass releases of low-quality titles. This allows for more stringent quality control. Interviewees suggest Nintendo's system is particularly vulnerable to exploitation, allowing a small number of developers to flood the eShop with subpar games. Tactics such as repeatedly releasing similar bundles to maintain high visibility on "New Releases" and "Discounts" sections were also highlighted.

While generative AI is a factor, it's not the sole cause. The issue is largely one of discoverability. Xbox's curated store pages mitigate the problem, whereas PlayStation's "Games to Wishlist" sorting by release date exacerbates it. Steam's extensive search and sorting options, combined with its high volume of releases, dilute the impact of low-quality games. Nintendo's unsorted "New Releases" section further contributes to the problem.

The Path Forward

Users have urged Nintendo and Sony to improve storefront regulation. However, interviewees express pessimism, citing past experiences and the potential for unintended consequences from overly aggressive filtering. The example of Nintendo Life's "Better eShop" filter, which initially miscategorized many legitimate games, highlights this risk. Concerns exist about accidentally targeting quality software through stricter regulations. The interviewees emphasize that platform holders, ultimately staffed by individuals, face the challenging task of balancing the need to address low-quality games with the desire to avoid overly restrictive policies. The article concludes by noting that Nintendo's web browser-based eShop offers a significantly better user experience, suggesting potential improvements for future iterations. The possibility of future action from Sony, given their past crackdown on similar issues, remains open.