Bookmarked

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=187089&page=1

This problem isn't unique to the eShop. If you pore through the depths of XBLA or PSN you will find some really awful games at just $1 or so.

Nonetheless, a steady stream of games, regardless of their quality, is important in keeping the perception of the platform at all time high.

The curious difference is that the eShop allows us to really celebrate the awful games for being horrible. And I don't think that's so bad. Reading the Miiverse posts on The Letter is absolutely hilarious.

Ultimately, if you make it known that even really bad games can be successful on the platform, you'll get better content in the pipeline.

You should work to incentivizing and supporting good games, not punishing bad games...

One game is bad......oh well. I find 90% of all digital cheap games bad anyway sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo?

This isnt unique to Nintendo, definitely. It's sadly the downside to being open and welcome to indie development.

Look at Steam Greenlight. Rock SImulator 2014. That's the tip of the iceberg. It's filled with other crap too.

Now Nintendo has it's "rock simulator" in The Letter.

Only a matter of time before people realise Sony's online store is likely filled with cheap crap too, and it gets its own "rock simulator."

At least Microsoft wont have to worry about this.

Heh.. The WiiU's eShop is nowhere as bad as say the XBLA's indie section.. That section is just pinnacle of CRAP..

You make some fair points but at the same time it would kinda stink if it wasn't open. I think something as bad as The Letter should actually not make it--Nintendo pretty much accepts anything that technically functions but this leads to it being TOO open--but I wouldn't have pulled off Internal Invasion even though it's sort of at the bottom of the list.

As far as showing people games go, there are ratings and reviews and miiverse posts and you can find information nonline--ultimately it's up to them to judge the games. Isolating things even more doesn't sound good, it's not like these games are selling tons or getting tons of exposure.

In short, you make good points but aside from slightly increased quality control, I think it's kinda better this way. Sure, accessibility has its flaws, but consumers certainly need to deal with that or else we get a more Wii-esque situation or one that doesn't lend itself well to developers that *actually have potential*, which stinks.