There's a peculiar situation brewing on the PlayStation Store and Nintendo eShop. Over the past few months, both platforms have seen an influx of games some users derisively call "slop."
Kotaku and Aftermath have documented this issue, highlighting the eShop's apparent proliferation of games employing generative AI and misleading store pages to entice purchases of cheap, low-quality titles that misrepresent their content. This problem has recently spread to the PlayStation Store, particularly flooding the "Games to Wishlist" section with questionable entries.
Critically, these aren't just run-of-the-mill bad games. Every storefront releases unremarkable games daily; that's a natural part of the process. This situation is different: a flood of visually similar games overwhelms everything else. These "slop" games are frequently simulation titles, perpetually on sale, often mimicking popular games' themes or even outright ripping off concepts and names. They frequently use hyper-stylized art and screenshots heavily suggestive of generative AI, yet rarely match the storefront promises in terms of visuals or gameplay. They're often plagued by janky controls, technical issues, and a severe lack of engaging content.Furthermore, as users have pointed out, a small number of companies churn these games out relentlessly. As YouTube creator Dead Domain discovered in their investigation, these companies are remarkably difficult to track down and hold accountable, often lacking substantial online presence or business information. Some even appear to change names frequently to further obfuscate their activities.
Recently, users of both stores have increasingly demanded better regulation to curb this "AI slop," especially given the Nintendo eShop's reported performance issues, seemingly worsening as more games clog its pages.
To understand this situation, I investigated how these games flood the storefronts, why PlayStation and Nintendo's stores are particularly affected, why Steam appears less problematic from a user perspective, and why Xbox's store is relatively unaffected.
The Certification Process
I interviewed eight game development and publishing professionals (all requesting anonymity due to concerns about platform holder reprisal). Their extensive experience releasing games on Steam, Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo Switch provided insights into the release process, offering clues to the varying levels of "slop" across platforms.
Generally, the process for all four storefronts involves pitching to the platform holder (Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, or Valve) to gain access to development portals and, for consoles, devkits. Developers then complete forms detailing their game, including single/multiplayer status, internet connection requirements, controller compatibility, and other technical aspects. This is followed by "cert" (certification, or lotcheck), where the platform holder verifies the build meets platform requirements. These are highly specific technical checks, including testing save corruption scenarios, controller disconnections, and more. Steam and Xbox publicly document many of their requirements; Nintendo and Sony do not.
Certification also ensures compliance with laws (e.g., avoiding legally problematic imagery) and accuracy with ESRB ratings. Interviewees emphasized platform holders' strictness regarding age ratings, noting that any discrepancy can significantly delay or halt a game's release.
A common misconception is that cert equates to a QA check. As one publisher stated, "A common misconception amongst The Gamers™ and even inexperienced devs is this is tantamount to a QA check. This is incorrect; that's the responsibility of the developer/publisher prior to submission. The platforms check to make sure the game's code complies with hardware specifications."
Passing cert allows release; failure necessitates resubmission after addressing the identified issues. Interviewees reported frequently receiving unhelpful feedback from platform holders, often limited to error codes. Nintendo was frequently cited for rejecting games with little to no explanation.
Store Page Presentation
Regarding store pages, all platform holders require accurate game representation in screenshots. However, the enforcement varies. Screenshot reviews primarily check for consistent branding (e.g., correct controller buttons) and language.
One interviewee recounted an instance where a review caught inaccurate screenshots: "I know of one game that had to resubmit screenshots because the developer...submitted PC screenshots that had foliage and reflections that would plainly be impossible to render on the Nintendo Switch...Nintendo's store team does not have access to game builds, and the cert team does not have access to store pages. Frequently those teams may not even be on the same continent."
While Nintendo and Xbox review all store page changes before live deployment, PlayStation performs a single check near launch. Valve reviews the page initially but reportedly doesn't subsequently monitor it. "You can quite literally submit the store page as one game, get Valve approval and then change everything and then put it live," one person stated.
Interviewees indicated that some level of diligence exists to verify product accuracy, but this varies significantly. As one put it, "Typically, checking for accurate store information is not done in advance; rather, we've found that platform holders will usually trust the developer and what information they provide. In other words, developers get to ask for forgiveness instead of permission, basically."
Even when checked, the definition of "accurate representation" is loose, allowing many games to slip through. As another interviewee explained, "This can be as simple as 'Street Survival: Homeless Simulator' explaining [on its store page] that you start from having nothing to getting harder as you progress, and their screenshots not displaying anything at this moment that breaks [Technical Requirements Checklist]."
The penalty for misleading screenshots is typically removal of the offending content. While developers have an incentive to comply to avoid delisting, inaccurate screenshots often receive minimal repercussions.
Importantly, none of the three console storefronts have specific rules regarding generative AI use in games or store page assets. Steam includes a section in its content survey requesting disclosure of generative AI use, but it doesn't restrict its application.
The EShop and Beyond
The question remains: why are Sony and Nintendo's stores flooded with these games? Why is Xbox less affected? Why is Steam's situation less controversial?
Interviewees explained that while Nintendo, Sony, and Valve vet developers/publishers, Microsoft vets games individually. This means that for the former three, once approved, it's easier to release multiple games, provided they pass cert. Xbox's game-by-game approval makes it less susceptible. "Which is why Xbox has fewer (not no) ‘game-shaped objects’," one publisher noted.
Another person stated, "I think [Xbox] really puts a lot of effort into their service...They will truly bend over backwards for you, even if you don’t see eye to eye."
Nintendo and PlayStation's developer-based approval, focusing primarily on technical violations, allows a few companies to overwhelm their stores with low-quality, AI-laden games.
"Nintendo is probably the easiest to scam," one developer said. "Once I’m in the door, I could make ‘Fart Fart Boobie Fart: The Game’ and maybe it would eventually get taken down, but it’s so odd."
A publisher described a tactic used to maintain high visibility on the Nintendo eShop: "So many games will release a bundle and set their discount for 28 days long, the maximum amount of time you can be on discount...This causes it to constantly be near the top of ‘New Releases’ and always be in Discounts, at the expense of dozens and hundreds of real games that people worked very hard on."
A similar issue was described for PlayStation: "On all consoles, you get the opportunity to get featured, but you’re also on these automatic lists...If people are just pumping crap into the system, you get pushed down the list. Any list. The systems are being overwhelmed and you’re going to get pushed out of there."
While generative AI is often blamed, it's not the primary issue. Many games use generic art, not AI-generated assets. The games themselves are still human-made, and generative AI is far from capable of creating games that easily pass even lax certification processes. Interestingly, while Xbox appears least affected, interviewees suggested it might be least likely to discourage future generative AI use given its investment in the technology.
Steam, while potentially having the most "slop," receives less criticism due to its robust search and sorting options and its constantly refreshing new releases section, which quickly buries new low-quality releases. Nintendo, in contrast, presents new releases in an unsorted manner.
The Path Forward
Users have urged Nintendo and Sony to address this issue. We contacted both companies, along with Microsoft, but received no response.
Interviewees expressed pessimism, with several believing Nintendo wouldn't address the eShop's issues, even with the upcoming Nintendo Switch 2. One noted that Nintendo's store improvements have been incremental across generations. "It’s logic-defying how their stores are so bad," they said. "They could check anyone else’s store and see what to do...I am optimistic it will be 10% better than the Switch store.”
However, it was pointed out that Nintendo's web browser eShop is functional and less affected by this problem. The Switch 2's eShop might potentially mirror the web version.
However, aggressive platform regulation isn't a guaranteed solution. Nintendo Life's "Better eShop" filter, attempting to remove low-quality games, faced criticism for incorrectly flagging legitimate titles. This highlights the risk of overly aggressive filtering harming deserving games.
One publisher expressed concerns about stringent regulation: "Personally, I fear that game platforms like Nintendo, if they decide to actually take action, might accidentally target quality software that doesn't rely on generative AI or similar shortcuts."
Another interviewee expressed sympathy for platform holders, noting the human element involved in reviewing a massive influx of games. "First-parties are trying to strike a balance between allowing bad games to be published and cynical cash grabs. And sometimes it's not easy to know where to put the foot down.”
