Why doesn't Microgaming allow players to play new games

[footdr]

I guess I can sort of understand them banning us from Progressives as if we win perhaps they though it would be difficult to pay us. But what would their reason be to not allow us access to new regular games.

As far as I am concerned nothing has changed since the law passed. In fact, it has made it easier to deposit via credit/debit card. Yet they take our deposits and continue to block play of new games.

Anyone have some insight on this subject.

Perhaps an Micrograming affiliate can reply.

[Simmo!]

I can only speculate based on logic and hearsay, but I think this might be close to the real reason.

When the UIGEA was passed in, the DoJ cracked down and made some arrests. As it turned out they were all sports/processor/fraud related, but for some time it wasn't clear. Plus of course, it was scare tactics a lot of the time designed to do exactly what it did: Playtech, Wagerworks and MG almost immediately pulled out of the USA.

Some called this an overreaction, especially with the benefit of hindsight, but it sounded like a "better safe than sorry" approach. There is also an additional thing to consider: when (if) the USA finally regulate, it has been suggested that casino operators who have taken US players up until that point will either a) find it difficult to get a licence or b) be required to pay back-taxes on all US funds received during that time.

I don't think it's related to payment processors per se, but obviously that must have some impact bearing in mind all the issues there have been. It's possible things could get worse before they get better too. But it's not all doom and gloom bearing in mind the undercurrent of political movement in the USA right now.

[vinylweatherman]

I can only speculate based on logic and hearsay, but I think this might be close to the real reason.

When the UIGEA was passed in, the DoJ cracked down and made some arrests. As it turned out they were all sports/processor/fraud related, but for some time it wasn't clear. Plus of course, it was scare tactics a lot of the time designed to do exactly what it did: Playtech, Wagerworks and MG almost immediately pulled out of the USA.

Some called this an overreaction, especially with the benefit of hindsight, but it sounded like a "better safe than sorry" approach. There is also an additional thing to consider: when (if) the USA finally regulate, it has been suggested that casino operators who have taken US players up until that point will either a) find it difficult to get a licence or b) be required to pay back-taxes on all US funds received during that time.

I don't think it's related to payment processors per se, but obviously that must have some impact bearing in mind all the issues there have been. It's possible things could get worse before they get better too. But it's not all doom and gloom bearing in mind the undercurrent of political movement in the USA right now.

This is a "load of bollocks" from the MGS CEO, and it was fed to CM a while back when they met. If MGS were concerned about the UIGEA, and the US not being "commercially viable", they would NOT "faff around" by blocking new games, certain states, etc. and doing U-turns. They would have pulled out COMPLETELY, just as Playtech and Crypto did, and waited for proper regulation. Currently, they are in a position no different than they would be in were they to have NOT blocked the new games. MGS have actually SPENT MORE MONEY investing in messing about with the new games only block for US players than they would have done had they decided to leave things alone on a "wait & see" basis.

If regulation does come, will the US authorities be at all impressed by MGS saying "well, at least we only let them gamble illegally on the OLD games, not the NEW ones"

[Simmo!]

If MGS were concerned about the UIGEA, and the US not being "commercially viable", they would NOT "faff around" by blocking new games, certain states, etc. and doing U-turns. They would have pulled out COMPLETELY

So what's the reasoning in your opinion then VWM?

[vinylweatherman]

So what's the reasoning in your opinion then VWM?

The reasoning is simple. The DoJ does NOT differentiate between "old" games and "new" ones. In it's view, ALL gambling is illegal, no matter WHAT the game.
The emphasis on sports is because they have a better chance of conviction if they have to argue the "wire act" applies.

Where they are going after processors, it only matters that they processed the transactions, NOT what games were played.

The CEO of MGS said that the US market was no longer worth the effort commercially, so WHY have they gone to all this extra trouble to block certain NEW games only, yet STILL allow operators to provide "illegal" gambling on the "old" games. In terms of processing payouts, other than big progressive wins, it does NOT matter which non-progressive game generated the winnings, the position of the processors remains the same.

MGS are quite simply giving us a load of "spin", they are NOT telling the TRUTH about WTF is going on with this blocking ONLY of new games for EXISTING US players (they are no longer accepting NEW ones).

There are also operators letting in NEW US players "through the back door", so that they can run them as though they were existing players. MGS don't seem to care about putting a stop to this, yet they have really gone overboard when it comes to stopping LEGITIMATE pre-existing US players from trying the new games.

IF the US market makes no commercial sense, WHY are MGS still SPENDING MONEY on "crippleware" versions of it's casino product to support the US player base?


An approach making more sense would have been to leave things alone, but have in mind an exit strategy, that they would apply to ALL players on a given date of withdrawal from the US market. Legally, June 1st would make sense, since this is the date upon which it becomes FORMALLY illegal to transact for gambling purposes, and the date from which prosecutions are likely to follow for those processors who continue to offer such transaction services.

[Simmo!]

Reasonable points but perhaps my question was worded badly. Why would MG block new games and stop taking new players, and allow existing plaers to play on? Would it not simply be a compromise to operators based on the fact that MG would ideally ban all US from all games, but would be in breach of existing contracts with their licencees if they did?

[vinylweatherman]

Reasonable points but perhaps my question was worded badly. Why would MG block new games and stop taking new players, and allow existing plaers to play on? Would it not simply be a compromise to operators based on the fact that MG would ideally ban all US from all games, but would be in breach of existing contracts with their licencees if they did?

Maybe, but WHY go to the trouble of blocking the new games, and quite clearly piss off the EXISTING players that this compromise has allowed.

Why not let the compromise run WITHOUT introducing, at extra code writing expense, the blocking of new games. It has lead to MGS having TWO different products to support, one for US players that blocks new games, and one for the rest of us, that blocks nothing.

This can only be a TEMPORARY arrangement in any case, so MGS are investing in a "dead end" US variant of the product. Once they have decided commercial exposure to the US is small enough, they are bound to pull out altogether, and if there is regulation in future, they will NOT need the "crippleware" version anyway, since US players could have the LATEST version that the rest of us have.

It almost seems MGS have just blocked new games "for the hell of it", and not for any specific reason. They were "held to ransom" by operators threatening to change software if there was a total pull-out, and the new games block is just there for MGS to "make a point" to operators that such "blackmail" did not go down too well, and they would NOT cave in to EVERY one of the demands. Operators, it seems, settled for this.

PLAYERS on the other hand were not really considered at all during this "in fighting", and US players rightly suspect that operators and MGS do not care about THEM, but DO care about their MONEY, especially the extra year or two's worth that can be squeezed from those players granted these "grandfather rights" to continue playing on accounts opened before the cut off date.

In terms of US law, this is complete nonsense. The gambling is equally "illegal" whether on Spring Break, or Thunderstruck II - it is also just as "illegal" if an old account is used, or a new one.

Neteller found this out, when they were charged with making gambling transactions BEFORE the UIGEA was even considered, let alone passed & signed. It didn't help those founders that they had already left the company, and that there was no UIGEA in force when THEY were in charge, and making these transactions.

In the same vein, it will NOT help MGS one bit that they ONLY allowed EXISTING customers to break the law, and only on SOME of their games.
MGS are SUPPOSED to be doing this after taking legal advice - well, I don't want these lawyers working for ME if this has been their advice on how to approach the UIGEA.

RTG have taken a clearer approach, "it ain't illegal, so we are changing NOTHING". It may be wrong, but it is at least CONSISTENT. The MGS approach is to say, "it IS illegal, so we have taken certain steps, but we will STILL break the law where & when it is profitable for us to do so". The problem is that by recognising the issue, they CANNOT then claim in defence that they believed they were doing nothing wrong. Since MGS are dictating to operators what they can and cannot do with regard to US players, they are exposing themselves to greater danger of legal action than would be the case if they took the stance "we only supplied the software, it was the OPERATOR that chose to use it to take bets from US players".


So, what is being covered up here, and what does the future hold for US players.

My considered prediction was that June 1st would see another diktat from MGS, and that it would probably be a full withdrawal from the US market, and pretty quickly, perhaps even one of those dreaded "overnight closures" that the likes of Neteller and Cryptologic inflicted upon US players.

[footdr]

my point exactly. Makes no sence to allow me to play "old" games and not "new games". They also send me emails announcing the new games. Pretty deceptive when you login and can't play.

It's stupid. Just as vinylweatherman and I say.

And today I get an email from Vegas Partners Lounge that I have been awarded 50 free spins on X game. Login no free spins, CS says "you opted out on deposit bonuses" so thats why. What? does that have anything to do with their email?

I opted out because I didn't want a 10% bonus with playthrough attached to my deposits. That is not an equal risk. Do ya think? Deposit 25.00 and they automatically give me 2.50 and I have a playthrough of 500.00. Bull I say!.
So I unsubscribed to their emails and deleted their casino.

[Simmo!]

I agree. I think it's inevitable that MG will put out of the USA entirely but probably only when they have met legal obligations on exisiting contracts. Could be next year, could be tomorrow. One thing you can guarantee is that they won't pre-announce it. It will just happen.

[Mousey]

I agree. I think it's inevitable that MG will put out of the USA entirely but probably only when they have met legal obligations on existing contracts. Could be next year, could be tomorrow. One thing you can guarantee is that they won't pre-announce it. It will just happen.

My thoughts exactly. The Neteller and Crypto fiascos were enough to make me fear leaving more than a few bucks anywhere online.

I think the idea of blocking US from playing the new games may have something to do with the licensing of the games. Remember how US players were cut off from the software that has IGT games like Cleopatra, etc.? The thinking never made much sense to me, but it had to do with US companies that develop the games, and because online gambling is supposedly a no-no all the way 'round for us, a US game maker can't have US players spinning their reels.

Now. As to whether this is indeed MG's reason... who the heck knows. They don't tell any of us anything. Personally, I still see no logic in allowing existing players to continue playing (whether new OR old games -- gambling is gambling) and disallowing new US sign ups.

I do think they are only biding their time till June 1. And if there is no 'hail mary' last minute reprieve from the UIGEA, I fully expect to be locked out of all MG casinos immediately, or very soon thereafter. (Which may be one of the many reasons GP jumped ship.)