Console Releases: Devs Speak Out Against 'Eslop' Influx

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 impacting the "Games to Wishlist" section.

The problem extends beyond simply "bad" games; it's the sheer volume of nearly identical titles, often simulation games perpetually on sale, mimicking popular game themes or even names. Their marketing materials, frequently featuring hyper-stylized, AI-generated art, drastically 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 prolific output, making them difficult to identify and hold accountable due to limited public information and frequent name changes.

User complaints regarding both stores' performance, particularly the increasingly sluggish Nintendo eShop, have intensified the issue. To understand the situation, this investigation explores the game release process across different platforms, focusing on why some stores are more affected than others.

The Certification Process: A Key Difference

Interviews with eight game development and publishing professionals (all requesting anonymity) revealed insights into the game release process across Steam, Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo Switch. Generally, developers must first gain access to platform-specific portals and, for consoles, devkits. This involves submitting game details and undergoing certification ("cert," "lotcheck") to ensure compliance with technical requirements, legal standards, and age ratings. While Steam and Xbox publicly list their requirements, Nintendo and Sony do not.

A common misconception is that certification equates to quality assurance (QA). It does not; QA is the developer's responsibility. Certification primarily focuses on technical compliance and legal adherence. Several sources highlighted Nintendo's tendency to reject games with minimal explanation.

Store Page Review: A Variable Process

All platforms have requirements for accurate store page imagery, but enforcement varies. While Nintendo and Xbox review all page changes, PlayStation performs a single check near launch, and Valve only reviews the initial submission. Although some diligence exists to ensure the game description matches the product, the standards are loosely defined, allowing many games to slip through. The consequences for inaccurate representations are typically limited to content removal, although delisting or developer removal remains a possibility. None of the console storefronts have specific rules regarding generative AI use. Steam, however, requests disclosure of AI usage in its content survey.

Why the Discrepancy?

The difference in the volume of "slop" games across platforms stems from several factors:

• Developer vs. Game-Based Vetting: Microsoft vets games individually, while Nintendo, Sony, and Valve vet developers. This makes it easier for approved developers to release numerous games on Nintendo and PlayStation, contributing to the "slop" problem. Xbox's game-by-game approach makes it less susceptible.

• Nintendo's Vulnerability: One developer described Nintendo as the "easiest to scam," suggesting that once approved, almost any game could be released, even those with highly inappropriate titles.

• Exploiting Sales Mechanisms: Developers exploit the maximum discount duration (28 days) on Nintendo's eShop by releasing new bundles immediately after the previous one's sale expires, keeping them near the top of "New Releases" and "Discounts." Similar issues exist on PlayStation due to automatic listing mechanisms that prioritize release date, surfacing many low-quality games.

• Discoverability Issues: While generative AI is a factor, discoverability plays a significant role. Xbox's curated store pages make it harder for low-quality games to be easily found. PlayStation's "Games to Wishlist" tab, sorted by release date, exacerbates the problem. Steam's vast library and constant updates mitigate the issue, although it still has its own discoverability challenges. Nintendo's approach of presenting all new releases in an unsorted manner contributes to the problem.

The Path Forward: Challenges and Concerns

Users have urged Nintendo and Sony to address this issue, but neither company has responded to requests for comment. Developers are pessimistic about significant improvements, particularly regarding Nintendo, although some hope the Switch 2 eShop might improve. Sony has taken action in the past, suggesting future intervention is possible.

However, overly aggressive filtering, as demonstrated by Nintendo Life's "Better eShop" project, can inadvertently harm legitimate games. Concerns exist that stricter regulation might unintentionally target quality software. The challenge lies in balancing the need to curb low-quality games with avoiding the suppression of legitimate titles. Ultimately, the human element in reviewing submissions plays a crucial role, and differentiating between various types of low-quality games remains a complex task.