Over the past few months, both the PlayStation Store and the Nintendo eShop have been inundated with what gamers are calling "slop." This term refers to a surge of low-quality, misleading games that use a combination of generative AI and deceptive store pages to lure unsuspecting buyers. Reports from Kotaku and Aftermath have detailed this issue, emphasizing how the eShop in particular is promoting more and more games that don’t deliver on their promises. This problem has also spread to the PlayStation Store, with the “Games to wishlist” section being particularly affected by these unusual entries.

Moreover, these games are being churned out relentlessly by a small handful of companies, as noted by various users. YouTube creator Dead Domain conducted an in-depth investigation, revealing that these companies are nearly untraceable, often lacking public websites or business information and sometimes changing their names to further obscure their identities.

The growing frustration among users has led to calls for tighter regulation on these storefronts to curb the influx of "AI slop." This demand is especially strong given the ongoing complaints about the deteriorating performance of Nintendo’s eShop, which seems to slow down with each new game added.

To understand the root of this issue, I delved into how these games end up on these storefronts in such high volumes, why PlayStation and Nintendo are particularly affected, why Steam seems less problematic, and why Xbox remains relatively unscathed.

The Magical World of Cert

I consulted with eight individuals in game development and publishing, all of whom requested anonymity due to fears of reprisal from platform holders. These professionals have recent and extensive experience releasing games on Steam, Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo Switch. Their insights shed light on the process of getting a game onto these major storefronts, offering clues as to why some are more susceptible to "slop" than others.

Generally, the process for all four platforms involves a developer or publisher pitching their game to gain access to development backend portals and, for consoles, devkits. They then fill out forms detailing the game's features, such as whether it's single- or multi-player, internet requirements, and controller compatibility. The next step is "cert" or certification, where the platform holder checks the game against specific technical requirements, like handling save corruption or controller disconnections. While Steam and Xbox publish their requirements, Nintendo and Sony keep theirs confidential.

Certification also ensures games comply with laws and match their ESRB ratings, with platform holders being particularly strict about age ratings. A common misconception is that certification is a QA check, but as one publisher clarified, "This is incorrect, that's the responsibility of the developer/publisher prior to submission. The platforms check to make sure the game's code complies with hardware specifications."

If a game passes certification, it's ready for release. If it fails, it's sent back for fixes and resubmission, often with little concrete feedback beyond error codes. Nintendo was noted by several as particularly opaque in its rejection explanations.

Front and Center

Regarding store pages, all platforms require developers to use accurate screenshots, but there's no rigorous process to verify this. Reviews mainly ensure there's no competing imagery or incorrect language. One developer recounted a case where a game had to resubmit screenshots because they didn't accurately represent the game on the Switch.

Nintendo and Xbox review all store page changes before they go live, while PlayStation does a single check near launch, and Valve reviews the initial store page but not subsequent changes. Developers can change their store page after initial approval, which can lead to misleading representations.

The standards for what counts as an accurate game representation are loosely defined, allowing many games to slip through. The penalty for misleading content is usually just a request to remove it, though severe cases can lead to delisting or loss of developer approval.

None of the console storefronts have rules against using generative AI in games or store assets, though Steam does require disclosure of AI use.

Eshop to eslop

Why are Sony and Nintendo's stores flooded with these low-effort sim games using AI-generated store assets? Xbox, which vets games on a per-game basis, is less affected. Nintendo, Sony, and Valve approve developers once, making it easier to flood their stores with games that pass technical checks but are of low quality.

One developer noted, "Nintendo is probably the easiest to scam. Once I’m in the door, I could make ‘Fart Fart Boobie Fart: The Game’ and maybe it would eventually get taken down, but it’s so odd."

Some developers exploit the system to keep their games at the top of sales pages by constantly releasing new bundles. This practice pushes out legitimate games that have been in development for years.

While generative AI is often blamed, the core issue might be more about discoverability. Xbox uses highly curated pages, making it harder for these games to be seen. PlayStation’s "Games to Wishlist" tab, sorted by release date, often showcases these games prominently. Steam, despite having many such games, is less criticized due to its robust search and sorting options and the constant influx of new releases.

Nintendo's approach is to throw all new releases into an unsorted pile, exacerbating the problem.

All Games Allowed

Users are demanding better regulation from Nintendo and Sony to stem the tide of similar-looking games. Neither company responded to requests for comment on potential solutions. Developers and publishers are skeptical about significant improvements, especially from Nintendo, though some hope the Nintendo Switch 2 might offer a better storefront experience.

Sony has previously addressed similar issues, such as in 2021 when it cracked down on "spam" content flooding the store. However, not everyone believes aggressive regulation is the answer. An attempt by Nintendo Life to filter out "shovelware" and AI-generated content led to backlash when it incorrectly categorized many indie games.

One publisher expressed concern about overly stringent regulation, fearing it might harm quality games: "Personally, I fear that game platforms might accidentally target quality software that doesn't rely on generative AI or similar shortcuts."

Finally, there’s a note of empathy for the platform holders, who are staffed by people trying to manage an ever-growing flood of games. As one developer put it, "First-parties are trying to strike a balance between allowing bad games to be published and cynical cash grabs. And sometimes it's not easy to know where to put the foot down."