Interesting question...interesting subject in fact. The question should be really "
How responsible are software providers for the behaviour of their licencees?". Also, the level of responsibility is open to debate: "responsible" as in who they licence to? Or "responsible" as in what happens when problems occur?
On the one hand, one could argue that someone who provides garden tools shouldn't be responsible for who buys them. And are they responsible if the tools are then used to harm someone? On the other hand, in an industry which is largely just brushed under the carpet by many lawmakers, there is a necessity to protect the public, so who takes on this responsibility when the politicians fail?
Personally I think the s/ware providers do bear a responsibility. However, even if this divides opinion the fact is that those who do - MG, Wagerworks and Cryptologic spring to mind - benefit X-fold in terms of reputation. Not only that, but their licencees do to. I would guess most people here would be happy to play a new MG or a Crypto straight off, whereas with Playtech &
RTG you'd want to know a lot more about who was behind them or how they were treating players before you deposited.
Playtech &
RTG (and consequently their licencees) have major acceptance problems among the "knowledgable" community because they don't police their licencees properly and have let blatantly unsuitable people licence their software. That's why they will always get threads like Henry VIII's "Playtech Nightmare List" one cropping up to haunt them.
They only have themselves to blame, although I have some sympathy for the good operators who get tarnished as a result. But for Playtech &
RTG, it's the old adage, "You make your bed...etc"
