The PlayStation Store suddenly looks a little cleaner. Sony suddenly removed from the store catalog a thousand games published by one developer – he was actively selling shovel releases that only clogged the collection. Gamesindustry.biz portal speakwhy the shovel game is such a difficult problem to solve.
Low quality games are a problem as old as the industry itself; There have always been companies that want to make easy money from disgusting games that copy other people's ideas with ready-made assets. But since digital sales have removed some barriers to entry, shovelware scammers have flooded the market in unprecedented numbers.
Releases like this are very detrimental to the discoverability of real games. Nothing causes frustration in small studios more than tons of junk pushing their small, beautifully designed games off the popular store tabs. What's worse is that this garbage often comes in the form of cheap copies of other projects, poorly drawn pornography, and crafts haphazardly assembled from purchased assets.
For every rare step forward in discoverability, there are three steps backward, because the constant release of shovelware makes the problem worse. Unfortunately, the situation may get even worse in the near future. There are many different things to say about AI, but perhaps no one can argue that the artificial intelligence it can create is a junk game dealer's dream. Producing cheap games that look “professional” enough to fool a segment of buyers is easier, faster, and less expensive than ever.
In the context of this impending crisis, it is all the more surprising that until recently, platform holders were largely unwilling to acknowledge the existence of the problem, let alone combat it. Sony and Nintendo, having recently maintained a fairly high barrier to entry for their platforms, now allow third-party developers to publish absolutely absurd amounts of garbage. Sony's mass removal of games last year didn't even touch the tip of the iceberg.
The problem here is the same as in the case of social networks; Content moderation is actually a complex job that requires hiring people who can make informed decisions. But corporations don't want to hire them. Many large companies are willing to eliminate easy-to-understand technical support, no matter how much it degrades the user experience. The main thing is to save money.
Hiring experts for the moderation team is the only alternative. In essence, no algorithmic process can reliably detect shovelware, and no, AI will not get you out of this situation, as it makes it worse. Any algorithm or AI model will cast too wide a net, guaranteed to include legitimate indie games, classic re-releases, niche releases like visual novels, etc. Either that, or the algorithms will be so forgiving that they will lose all meaning.
At the same time, the shovel issue will never cease to be relevant, especially for console platform holders. The importance of precision dashboards lies in their closed, isolated ecosystem, which promises consumers intelligent product management. But in recent years, publishers have willfully ignored this responsibility, and their neat, manicured ecosystems have become overgrown with weeds. At least, Steam doesn't promise to weed out low-level trash – its users know that it's a free platform, and when looking for worthwhile games, you'll have to weed out a lot of cheap ones. Meanwhile, Sony and Nintendo quietly promised the console owner to put together a collection of excellent releases for him… But then they gave him boots, garden shears and sent him on a long journey.
The argument is not that open platforms are better than closed platforms. Both models have their place in the market, and there's nothing wrong with consumers having their preference for one or the other. It's just that closed platforms lose their appeal while their “guards” fall asleep on duty. Users do not need to spend money on a closed platform if the quality of the catalog is no different than an open platform.
Of course, shovel screening is difficult. Finding, identifying, and classifying such releases is too difficult a job for an algorithm, but that's why it needs real humans. In the case of the developer whose game was removed by Sony, there is no room for other explanations: his projects, which earned about 10 million dollars on the PS Store, did not hide their nature. But in other cases, asset flipping and other fraudulent products can be more difficult to identify. The gaming market certainly needs experienced, well-trained professionals who can review the legality of questionable games, not to mention carefully construct the criteria for evaluating them.
Otherwise, digital game stores may become unprofitable for small developers, whose projects will be thrown into the trash. The only ones who can survive in such an environment will be the large AAA publishers. And in fact, this will destroy the main feature of the digital platform.
