Developers Discuss Console Overload, Suggesting Satirical Game

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 and misleading store pages to attract unsuspecting buyers. This issue, initially more prominent on the eShop, has recently spread to the PlayStation Store, particularly impacting the "Games to Wishlist" section.

The problem transcends simple "bad" games; it's a deluge of visually similar titles, often featuring themes and names lifted from popular games, and employing AI-generated assets that misrepresent the actual gameplay. These games typically suffer from poor controls, technical issues, and limited features. A small number of companies appear responsible for this prolific output, often operating with minimal online presence and frequently changing names.

Users have voiced their frustration, particularly citing the eShop's deteriorating performance due to the sheer volume of these games. To understand the situation, this investigation explores the game release process across major storefronts (Steam, Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo Switch), examining why some platforms are more affected than others.

The Certification Process

Interviews with eight game development and publishing professionals (all requesting anonymity) revealed insights into the game release process. Generally, developers pitch their games to platform holders (Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, or Valve), gaining access to development portals and devkits (for consoles). They then complete forms detailing game specifications and undergo certification ("cert"), where the platform checks for compliance with technical requirements, legal issues, and ESRB rating accuracy. While Steam and Xbox publicly list their requirements, Nintendo and Sony do not.

A common misconception is that certification equates to a quality assurance (QA) check. It does not; QA is the developer's responsibility. Platforms primarily verify code compliance with hardware specifications. 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 all store page changes, PlayStation performs a single check near launch, and Valve reviews only the initial submission. Diligence in verifying the accuracy of game descriptions also differs significantly, with some platforms prioritizing developer self-regulation. Consequences for misleading screenshots typically involve removal of the offending content, not necessarily delisting the game or penalizing the developer. None of the console storefronts have specific rules regarding generative AI use in games or store assets, although Steam requests disclosure.

Why the Discrepancy?

The disparity in "slop" across platforms stems from differences in the approval process. Microsoft vets games individually, while Nintendo, Sony, and Valve vet developers. This makes the latter three more susceptible to the problem, as approved developers can easily release multiple games without rigorous individual scrutiny. Xbox's game-by-game approach significantly reduces this issue. Nintendo's developer-based approval process, coupled with its less stringent store page review, makes it particularly vulnerable to exploitation. Developers have identified strategies to maintain visibility on the eShop, such as continuously cycling short-term sales. Similar issues affect PlayStation's "Games to Wishlist" section, which prioritizes unreleased games alphabetically, leading to low-quality titles appearing prominently.

Steam, despite having a high volume of potentially low-quality games, is less criticized due to its robust search and filtering options and the constant influx of new releases that dilute the impact of individual low-quality games. Nintendo's eShop, on the other hand, presents new releases in an unsorted manner, exacerbating the problem. The browser-based eShop, however, is generally considered superior to the console app.

The Path Forward?

Users have urged Nintendo and Sony to address the issue, but neither company responded to requests for comment. While Sony has previously taken action against similar problems, the long-term solution remains uncertain. Attempts at automated filtering, as seen with "Better eShop," highlight the risk of inadvertently targeting legitimate games. Concerns exist that stricter regulations could negatively impact deserving indie developers. Ultimately, the challenge lies in balancing the need to curb low-quality games with the avoidance of unfairly penalizing developers. The human element in reviewing submissions is also a significant factor, making it difficult to consistently identify and filter out undesirable content.