'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," characterized by misleading marketing and generative AI-generated assets. This issue, detailed by Kotaku and Aftermath, has spread to PlayStation, particularly impacting the "Games to Wishlist" section. These aren't simply "bad" games; they're a deluge of similar titles, often simulation games perpetually on sale, mimicking popular games' themes or names, and featuring AI-generated art that misrepresents the actual gameplay. These games often suffer from poor controls, technical issues, and lackluster content, and are frequently produced by a small number of difficult-to-trace companies, some even changing names to avoid accountability, as highlighted by YouTube creator Dead Domain.

This has led to user complaints about both stores' lack of regulation, especially given the Nintendo eShop's declining performance. To understand this phenomenon, the article investigates the game release process across Steam, Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo Switch.

The Certification Process:

The process generally involves developer/publisher pitches, form completion detailing the game, and certification ("cert") where platform holders check for technical compliance, legal issues, and ESRB rating accuracy. While "cert" isn't a QA check, it ensures the game meets platform specifications. The article emphasizes that platform holders, particularly Nintendo, are often stringent about age ratings and provide limited feedback on submission failures.

Store Page Approval:

Platform holders require accurate game representation in screenshots, but enforcement varies. While Nintendo and Xbox review store page changes, PlayStation performs a single check near launch, and Valve reviews only the initial submission. The article notes that the standards for accurate representation are loosely defined, allowing many games to slip through. Consequences for misleading screenshots typically involve removal of the offending content, not necessarily delisting. Crucially, none of the three console storefronts have specific rules against generative AI use in games or store pages, although Steam requests disclosure.

Why the Discrepancy?

The article suggests several reasons for the disparity in "slop" across platforms:

• Microsoft's game-by-game vetting: Unlike Nintendo, Sony, and Valve, which vet developers, Microsoft vets each game individually, making it less susceptible to the influx of low-quality titles.
• Developer-based approval: Nintendo and PlayStation's developer-based approval system allows approved developers to easily release multiple games, leading to the current issue.
• Exploiting sales and release systems: Developers exploit the systems by continuously releasing bundles and cycling discounts to maintain high visibility on the new releases and sales lists.

While generative AI is a factor, it's not the sole cause. The article highlights the role of discoverability issues. Xbox's curated store pages mitigate the problem, while PlayStation's "Games to Wishlist" sorting by release date exacerbates it. Steam, despite its own discoverability issues, has a vast library and frequent updates, diluting the impact of individual low-quality games. Nintendo's unorganized "New Releases" section contributes significantly to the problem.

Potential Solutions and Concerns:

Users are demanding stricter regulation, but developers express concerns about potential unintended consequences. While Sony has taken action in the past, there's no guarantee of future intervention. The article references Nintendo Life's "Better eShop" attempt, which faced criticism for wrongly categorizing games. The article concludes by emphasizing that platform holders, despite appearing as monoliths, are ultimately staffed by individuals tasked with reviewing an ever-increasing number of games, and their role isn't to judge game quality but rather technical compliance and legal adherence. The challenge lies in balancing the allowance of less successful games with the prevention of deliberate, misleading practices.