The PlayStation Store and Nintendo eShop are grappling with an influx of low-quality games, often described as "slop," characterized by misleading marketing and generative AI-generated assets. This issue, documented by Kotaku and Aftermath, has recently spread to the PlayStation Store, particularly impacting its "Games to Wishlist" section.

These aren't simply "bad" games; the problem lies in the sheer volume of strikingly similar titles, often simulation games perpetually on sale, mimicking popular games' themes or even names. They frequently feature hyper-stylized, AI-generated art and screenshots that bear little resemblance to the actual gameplay, which is often janky and lacking in features. 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.

Growing user frustration has led to calls for stricter storefront regulation, particularly given the Nintendo eShop's declining performance as it becomes increasingly congested. To understand the situation, this investigation explores the game release process across major storefronts (Steam, Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo Switch), interviewing eight anonymous game developers and publishers.

The Certification Process

The release process generally involves pitching to platform holders (Valve, Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo), completing game description forms, and undergoing certification ("cert"). Cert verifies technical compliance with platform requirements, legal adherence, and ESRB rating accuracy. While Steam and Xbox publicly list their requirements, Nintendo and Sony do not. A common misconception is that cert constitutes a QA check; it doesn't. Developers are responsible for pre-submission QA; cert focuses on technical compliance. Rejection often comes with limited explanation, especially from Nintendo.

Store Page Review

Platform holders require accurate game representation in screenshots, but enforcement varies. While Nintendo and Xbox review store page changes before launch, PlayStation performs a single check near launch, and Valve only reviews initially, allowing subsequent modifications. While some diligence exists to ensure accuracy, standards are loosely defined, allowing misleading content to slip through. Consequences for inaccurate screenshots usually involve removal, not delisting. None of the console storefronts have specific rules regarding generative AI use. Steam, however, requires disclosure of AI usage in its content survey.

The "Slop" Problem: Why Some Storefronts Are Worse

The disparity in "slop" across storefronts stems from differing approval processes. Microsoft vets games individually, making it less susceptible. Nintendo, Sony, and Valve approve developers, allowing easier mass releases once approved. This, combined with a lack of robust store page review, enables a few companies to flood Nintendo and PlayStation storefronts with low-quality games. Steam, despite having potential for "slop," avoids significant user backlash due to its robust search and filtering options and constantly refreshing new releases section. Nintendo's unsorted new releases contribute to its problem.

Discoverability also plays a role. Xbox's curated store pages minimize user exposure to low-quality games. PlayStation's "Games to Wishlist" tab, sorted by release date, inadvertently highlights upcoming games with vague release dates, leading to the surfacing of many low-quality titles.

While generative AI is a factor, it's not the primary cause. The games themselves are created by humans, and AI cannot create a complete game capable of passing even the most lenient certification process. Xbox, despite being less affected, might be less likely to discourage AI use given its investment in the technology.

User calls for stricter regulation have been met with pessimism from developers, who anticipate limited action from Nintendo and Sony. While Sony has taken action against similar issues in the past, overly aggressive filtering, as demonstrated by Nintendo Life's "Better eShop" attempt, can inadvertently harm legitimate games. Concerns exist that stricter regulation might inadvertently target quality software. Developers also express sympathy for platform holders, who face the challenge of manually reviewing a massive influx of games with limited criteria for identifying "good" versus "bad" games.