'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 utilize generative AI for misleading marketing materials and often bear striking similarities, crowding out higher-quality titles. This issue, initially prominent on the eShop, has recently spread to the PlayStation Store, particularly affecting the "Games to Wishlist" section.

The problem transcends simple "bad" games; it's a deluge of near-identical titles, mostly simulation games, perpetually discounted, and often mimicking popular games' themes or names. Their marketing materials, heavily reliant on AI-generated art and screenshots, misrepresent the actual game quality, which is typically characterized by poor controls, technical issues, and limited features. A small number of companies appear responsible for this mass production, making them difficult to identify and hold accountable due to limited online presence and frequent name changes.

Users have voiced concerns, particularly given the eShop's declining performance due to the sheer volume of games. To understand the situation, this investigation explores the game release process across different storefronts: Steam, Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo Switch.

The Certification Process

Interviews with eight game development and publishing professionals (all anonymous due to fear of platform holder repercussions) revealed insights into the game release process. Generally, developers/publishers 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 a certification ("cert") process. Cert checks for compliance with platform requirements (technical specifications, legal compliance, ESRB ratings, etc.). While Steam and Xbox publicly list their requirements, Nintendo and Sony do not.

A common misconception is that cert equates to quality assurance (QA). It doesn't; QA is the developer's responsibility. Cert primarily focuses on technical compliance. Developers often receive limited feedback on submission failures, 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 conducts a single check near launch, and Valve reviews only the initial submission. The level of diligence in verifying the accuracy of store page information is inconsistent, with developers often operating under an "ask for forgiveness, not permission" approach. Consequences for misleading screenshots typically involve removal of the content, not necessarily developer penalties. No console storefront has specific rules against generative AI use in games or marketing materials, although Steam requests disclosure.

Why the Discrepancy?

The disparity in "slop" across storefronts stems from differences in their developer approval processes. Microsoft vets games individually, making it less susceptible to the problem. Nintendo, Sony, and Valve approve developers, allowing easier mass releases once approved. This, combined with a lack of stringent store page review, enables a few companies to flood the Nintendo and PlayStation stores with low-quality games. The ease of publishing on Steam, coupled with its robust search and filtering options, dilutes the impact of "slop" games. Nintendo's eShop, however, presents all new releases in an unsorted manner, exacerbating the issue. The problem is further complicated by discoverability issues; Xbox's curated store pages minimize user exposure to low-quality games. PlayStation's "Games to Wishlist" tab, sorted by release date, highlights upcoming games, including many low-quality titles.

The Role of Generative AI

While generative AI is used in some "slop" games' marketing, it's not the primary cause. The games themselves are still created by humans. The issue is more about lax oversight and developer approval processes.

Calls for Action and Concerns

Users demand stricter storefront regulation, but developers express concerns about potential unintended consequences. Overly aggressive filtering, as seen in a "Better eShop" project, can mistakenly penalize legitimate games. The fear is that stricter regulations might inadvertently target quality software. Platform holders, while aiming to balance allowing games while preventing exploitation, face the challenge of manually reviewing a massive influx of submissions.

While Sony has taken action against similar issues in the past, the long-term solution remains uncertain. The challenge lies in balancing the need to prevent the proliferation of low-quality games with the risk of inadvertently harming legitimate developers and their projects.