Why Game Consoles Are Flooded with "Eslop": Devs Speak Out

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 store page assets and often mimic popular titles. This issue, documented by Kotaku and Aftermath, has recently spread to the PlayStation Store, particularly impacting the "Games to Wishlist" section.

The problem isn't simply the presence of bad games, but the sheer volume of similar, low-effort titles overshadowing higher-quality releases. These games, often simulation titles perpetually on sale, frequently borrow themes and even names from established games, employing AI-generated art that misrepresents the actual gameplay experience. They are typically plagued by poor controls, technical issues, and a lack of engaging content.

A small number of companies appear responsible for this surge, exhibiting evasive practices like frequent name changes to hinder accountability, as highlighted by YouTube creator Dead Domain. Users are demanding stricter storefront regulation to address this "AI slop," particularly given the performance issues affecting the Nintendo eShop.

To understand the situation, this investigation explores the game release processes across Steam, Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo Switch.

The Certification Process

Interviews with eight game development and publishing professionals (all requesting anonymity) revealed insights into the certification process (cert, lotcheck) for each platform. Generally, developers pitch their games to platform holders (Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, or Valve), gaining access to development portals and devkits (for consoles). They complete forms detailing game specifications and undergo certification, where platform holders verify compliance with technical requirements (e.g., handling corrupted saves, controller disconnections). Steam and Xbox publicly document these requirements, unlike Nintendo and Sony. Certification also ensures legal compliance and accuracy of ESRB ratings.

A common misconception is that certification equates to quality assurance. It's the developer's responsibility to ensure quality before submission; platforms primarily check for technical compliance. Rejection often comes with limited explanations, with Nintendo cited as particularly opaque.

Store Page Representation

Platform holders require accurate game representation on store pages, but enforcement varies. While screenshots are reviewed for consistency (e.g., correct button prompts), detailed accuracy checks are lacking. One anecdote involved Nintendo rejecting screenshots that showcased PC-level graphical fidelity impossible on the Switch. Nintendo and Xbox review page changes before launch, while PlayStation performs a single check near launch, and Valve only reviews initially, allowing subsequent alterations.

While some diligence exists in verifying product descriptions, the standards are flexible, allowing misleading representations to slip through. The consequences for inaccurate information are typically limited to content removal, though delisting or developer removal remains a possibility. Importantly, none of the console storefronts have specific rules regarding generative AI usage in games or store assets, unlike Steam, which requests disclosure but doesn't restrict its use.

The "Slop" Disparity

The disparity in "slop" across platforms stems from several factors. Microsoft vets games individually, unlike Nintendo, Sony, and Valve, which vet developers. This makes Microsoft's store less susceptible to mass uploads of low-quality games. Xbox's hands-on approach and high standards contribute to its relative cleanliness.

Nintendo's developer-based approval process, coupled with a focus on technical violations rather than content quality, allows a few companies to saturate its store with similar, low-effort games. A common tactic involves repeatedly releasing bundles with minimal changes to maintain top placement in "New Releases" and "Discounts." PlayStation faces a similar issue due to its "Games to Wishlist" sorting by release date, prioritizing games with distant release windows.

While generative AI is a factor, it's not the primary cause. Many games use generic art rather than AI-generated assets. The games themselves, regardless of quality, are still human-made. Xbox, despite being relatively unaffected, might be less likely to discourage AI use in the future due to its investment in the technology.

Discoverability and Curation

Discoverability issues also contribute to the problem. Xbox's curated store pages limit user exposure to low-quality games. PlayStation's "Games to Wishlist" sorting exacerbates the issue. Steam, while having its own discoverability challenges, has a vast library and constantly refreshing new releases, diluting the impact of individual low-quality games. Nintendo's unfiltered "New Releases" section contributes to the perceived problem.

Calls for Action and Concerns

Users are urging Nintendo and Sony to improve storefront regulation. While Sony has previously acted against similar issues, the developers interviewed expressed pessimism about immediate change. Nintendo's browser-based eShop is comparatively better, suggesting potential for improvement in future consoles.

Concerns exist about overly aggressive filtering. Nintendo Life's "Better eShop" filter, while well-intentioned, faced criticism for miscategorizing games, highlighting the risk of inadvertently targeting quality software. Developers emphasize the need for nuanced approaches, acknowledging the difficulties platform holders face in evaluating the vast number of submissions. The focus should be on fair practices and preventing deceptive marketing, rather than subjective judgments of game quality.