Google Extends Content Guidelines for Quality News Writing

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 simulation titles, utilize generative AI and misleading store pages to attract unsuspecting buyers. This issue, initially prominent on the eShop, has recently spread to the PlayStation Store, particularly impacting the "Games to Wishlist" section.

The problem isn't simply the presence of bad games; it's the sheer volume of visually similar, low-effort titles overwhelming legitimate releases. These games often feature perpetually discounted prices, derivative themes and names, AI-generated art that misrepresents the actual gameplay, and significant technical flaws. A small number of companies appear responsible for this surge, making them difficult to identify and hold accountable due to limited online presence and frequent name changes.

User complaints have prompted calls for stricter storefront regulation, especially given the eShop's deteriorating performance under the weight of these numerous listings. To understand the situation, this investigation explores the game release process across major storefronts (Steam, Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo Switch), aiming to explain the disparity in "slop" prevalence.

The Certification Process

Interviews with eight game development and publishing professionals (all requesting anonymity) revealed insights into the game release process. Generally, developers must first gain access to platform-specific portals and, for consoles, devkits. This involves submitting game details and undergoing certification ("cert"), where the platform holder verifies technical compliance, legal adherence, and ESRB rating accuracy. 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 doesn't; QA is the developer's responsibility. Platforms primarily check for technical compliance with hardware specifications. Rejection often comes with limited explanation, particularly from Nintendo.

Store Page Review

All platforms require accurate game representation in screenshots, but enforcement varies. While Nintendo and Xbox review store page changes before launch, PlayStation performs a single check near launch, and Valve reviews only the initial submission. The focus is primarily on avoiding competing imagery or incorrect language, not necessarily on the accuracy of the game representation itself.

One anecdote highlights Nintendo's rejection of screenshots that showcased features impossible to render on the Switch. While some level of diligence exists, the standards for accurate representation are loosely defined, allowing misleading content to slip through. The consequences for inaccurate screenshots are typically limited to removal, with rarely any further penalty. Importantly, none of the console storefronts have specific rules regarding generative AI use in games or store assets, although Steam requests disclosure.

The "Slop" Disparity

The uneven distribution of "slop" across storefronts can be attributed to several factors. Microsoft's game-by-game vetting process, unlike the developer-based approach of Nintendo, Sony, and Valve, makes it less susceptible. Xbox's hands-on approach and high standards for store pages contribute to its relative cleanliness.

Nintendo's approval process is considered the easiest to exploit, allowing for the proliferation of low-quality games. Some developers exploit the maximum discount period (28 days) on the eShop by releasing new bundles immediately after the previous one expires, maintaining a high ranking in "New Releases" and "Discounts." Similarly, on PlayStation, the "Games to Wishlist" sorting by release date exacerbates the issue, prioritizing games with distant release dates.

While generative AI is a factor, it's not the primary cause. The games themselves are still created by humans. The discoverability issue also plays a significant role. Xbox's curated store pages hinder the visibility of low-quality games, while Steam's extensive search and sorting options dilute the impact of individual low-quality releases. Nintendo's unsorted "New Releases" section, however, contributes to the problem.

The Path Forward

Users have urged Nintendo and Sony to address the issue, but neither company has responded to requests for comment. While some developers are pessimistic about improvements, others point to Sony's past crackdown on similar issues. However, overly aggressive filtering, as demonstrated by the "Better eShop" project, can inadvertently harm legitimate games.

Concerns exist that stricter regulation could inadvertently target quality games. The challenge lies in differentiating between student projects, genuinely bad games, asset flips, and AI-generated content. Platform holders are attempting to balance allowing creative freedom with preventing cynical exploitation, a task complicated by the sheer volume of submissions.