In recent months, the PlayStation Store and Nintendo eShop have been inundated with what some users are calling "slop" games. Both Kotaku and Aftermath have covered this issue, with a particular focus on the eShop, which appears to be increasingly filled with games using generative AI and misleading store pages to deceive users into buying low-quality games that do not deliver on their promises. This issue has recently extended to the PlayStation Store, notably affecting the "Games to wishlist" section with an influx of weird-looking stuff.

These "slop" games are not just substandard; they represent a deluge of similar-looking titles that overshadow other content. Typically, these are sim games that are perpetually on sale, often mimicking themes or outright copying the concepts and names entirely of more popular games. They frequently feature hyper-stylized art and screenshots that stink of generative AI, yet in reality, they offer poor gameplay, janky controls, and numerous technical issues, with minimal engaging content. Users have noted that these games are churned out by a small handful of companies, which are difficult to track and hold accountable, often changing their names to avoid detection.

The growing frustration among users of both stores has led to calls for stricter regulation to curb the spread of "AI slop." This is particularly pressing given the deteriorating performance of Nintendo's eShop, which is becoming slower and more cluttered by the day.

The Magical World of Cert

To understand why these games are flooding the stores, I spoke with eight individuals in game development and publishing, all of whom requested anonymity due to concerns about platform holder reprisals. They shared their experiences with releasing games on Steam, Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo Switch, providing insight into the certification processes of these platforms.

The general process for getting a game onto any of these storefronts involves a developer or publisher pitching their game to gain access to development portals and devkits. They then fill out forms detailing the game's features and technical aspects, followed by a certification phase where the platform holder ensures the game meets specific technical standards. This includes checks for compliance with hardware specifications and adherence to legal and rating requirements. Importantly, certification is not a quality assurance check; it's the developer's responsibility to ensure the game is playable before submission.

While Steam and Xbox publish their certification requirements, Nintendo and Sony do not. If a game fails certification, it must be resubmitted with issues resolved, though developers often receive vague error codes rather than detailed feedback, especially from Nintendo.

Front and Center

Store pages must adhere to guidelines that require accurate representations of the game, but the enforcement of these rules varies. Nintendo and Xbox review changes to store pages before they go live, whereas PlayStation conducts a single review near launch, and Valve reviews the initial store page but not subsequent changes. This lax oversight allows developers to potentially mislead consumers with their store page content.

The use of generative AI in games and store assets is not regulated by Nintendo, Sony, or Xbox, though Steam asks developers to disclose such use. Misleading screenshots or content typically result in requests to remove the offending material rather than more severe penalties.

Eshop to eslop

The reasons behind the flood of "slop" games on PlayStation and Nintendo's stores are multifaceted. Microsoft's Xbox, which vets games on a per-game basis, is less affected because it has stricter standards for each game submission. In contrast, Nintendo, Sony, and Valve approve developers, allowing them to release multiple games once approved, which can lead to a flood of low-quality titles if they pass certification.

Nintendo's approval process is seen as particularly vulnerable to exploitation. Some developers exploit the system by continuously releasing new bundles to stay at the top of sales and new release lists, pushing out other games. PlayStation's automatic lists also suffer from being overwhelmed by low-effort games, which can push down higher-quality titles.

While generative AI is often blamed, the core issue might be more about discoverability and the ease with which certain developers can flood the market. Xbox mitigates this through curated store pages, while PlayStation's "Games to Wishlist" section, sorted by release date, inadvertently promotes low-quality games. Steam, despite having potentially more "slop," benefits from robust sorting and search options, and a constantly refreshing new releases section that dilutes the impact of any single low-quality game. Nintendo's approach, however, results in an unsorted mess of new releases.

All Games Allowed

Users have been urging Nintendo and Sony to address the issue of "slop" games, but neither company responded to requests for comment on potential solutions. Developers and publishers are skeptical about significant improvements, especially from Nintendo, which has historically made only minor enhancements to its storefront with each new console generation.

Sony has previously taken action against similar issues, such as the 2021 crackdown on "spam" content designed to appeal to trophy hunters. However, the effectiveness of such measures remains to be seen in the current context.

There is concern that overly aggressive regulation could harm legitimate indie games. Efforts like Nintendo Life's "Better eshop" initiative, which aimed to filter out low-quality games, faced backlash for mislabeling quality indie titles. Developers fear that platform holders might mistakenly target genuine games in their efforts to curb "slop."

Ultimately, the challenge for platform holders is to balance allowing diverse game submissions with preventing cynical cash grabs. The process is managed by individuals who must navigate the complexities of distinguishing between genuine efforts and exploitative practices, a task that is not always straightforward.