Novomatic appearing on Curacao license casinos?

[waynek]

Are these the real deal ? i know of 3 cryptos that have novomatics , maybe their license has changed or another provider has some sort of permission to use them.

 

[dunover]

If the casino is a customer of the pirated games provider it's possible for it to be one that pays up AND uses pirated software. Most users of the pirate games aggregator however are indeed rogue unlicensed or 1668/JAZ sites.

I am not aware of Novomatic allowing unlicensed or grey casinos to use their software. Unless anyone knows better?

 

[Guntis]

Fake Novomatic games have always been on those casinos which essentially are simple websites loaded with all sorts of casino games, and as a rule, operating without any regulation. I reckon, for Novomatic to work with them would be like Elon Musk deciding to live in a tosser house with crackheads.

 

[waynek]

Not exactly true they appeared last week on a site a streamer is promoting, or 2 streamers not a drama post so wont say which ones just to get an answer as most people agree they are most likely fake/pirated.
I have emailed novomatic 2 times and no reply either they wont speak to peasants or they wont talk about it.

 

[Smithyy]

If the casino is a customer of the pirated games provider it's possible for it to be one that pays up AND uses pirated software. Most users of the pirate games aggregator however are indeed rogue unlicensed or 1668/JAZ sites.

I am not aware of Novomatic allowing unlicensed or grey casinos to use their software. Unless anyone knows better?

A previously unlicensed casino (now under the 365/JAZ license) has, in the last couple of weeks, started to offer Novomatic games; unsure about legitimacy, am trying to look into it now. What's odds is that even when they didn't hold a license (admitted to me from the VIP team), they were still able to offer Relax Gaming/Quickspin/NetEnt etc - I believe through SoftSwiss/BetConstruct.

 

[jasonuk]

A previously unlicensed casino (now under the 365/JAZ license) has, in the last couple of weeks, started to offer Novomatic games; unsure about legitimacy, am trying to look into it now. What's odds is that even when they didn't hold a license (admitted to me from the VIP team), they were still able to offer Relax Gaming/Quickspin/NetEnt etc - I believe through SoftSwiss/BetConstruct.

I've always wondered with this - where providers aren't available in the UK because they don't want to do our certification, but they appear on unlicensed crypto sites despite being a regulated provider elsewhere. If the games are legit (and that's obviously a big if) then there's clearly something going wrong in the pipeline - whether that is corrupt providers, negligent aggregators, dodgy casinos that manage to cheat their way through onboarding and/or regulators pretending the crypto problem doesn't exist (like the UKGC).

With the curacao gold rush of recent years, it does feel like some providers are happy to turn a blind eye because it's making them money (particularly those following the monopoly money road) and they're betting - and frustrating that they'll probably be proven right - that regulation won't catch up with them.

 

[Guntis]

Greentube (Novomatic's online game provider) and Betconstruct are partners, but i still don't believe that original Greentube slots are served on Curacao or unlicensed casino sites. I haven't seen one popular Curacao-licensed online casino offering them.

 

[justdoit]

Greentube (Novomatic's online game provider) and Betconstruct are partners, but i still don't believe that original Greentube slots are served on Curacao or unlicensed casino sites. I haven't seen one popular Curacao-licensed online casino offering them.

yep only scam casino you find novo slots

 

[Smithyy]

I've always wondered with this - where providers aren't available in the UK because they don't want to do our certification, but they appear on unlicensed crypto sites despite being a regulated provider elsewhere. If the games are legit (and that's obviously a big if) then there's clearly something going wrong in the pipeline - whether that is corrupt providers, negligent aggregators, dodgy casinos that manage to cheat their way through onboarding and/or regulators pretending the crypto problem doesn't exist (like the UKGC).

With the curacao gold rush of recent years, it does feel like some providers are happy to turn a blind eye because it's making them money (particularly those following the monopoly money road) and they're betting - and frustrating that they'll probably be proven right - that regulation won't catch up with them.

Unless I misunderstood your main point, I think a couple of things apply here. Firstly, r.e. certification; I believe the UK has stricter game requirements (for example, games not being allowed to show near-misses, when they weren't actually ((don't quote me on that, but things along those lines))) so some of the smaller/less reputable developers just don't see it as worth their time/money to go through the UK approval process as it may mean having to develop a second version of their game, essentially.

Regarding your (I think) main point, though, about games appearing on unlicensed crypto sites - this is what has also interested me. For some reason, I was under the impression that game providers were bound by treaties not to offer their games to unlicensed operations if they wanted to hold a license, say, in the UK. (The UK has a treaty with Curacao, for example, which is why the UK is one of the few "Blocked" countries Curacao sites aren't - on paper - allowed to take bets from.) I was sure I'd read something similar applying to game developers, too - but as @maxd told me earlier, that may well not be the case.

AFAIK, in theory, there's nothing preventing a game provider offering their games to an unlicensed casino provided there is no law or regulation preventing it either in the country the game developer is based out of, or in the country the casino operates from.

I believe the real problem comes with payment processing; without a valid online gambling license, it's near impossible, I believe, for casinos to process any payments other than crypto - hence why so many sites get licensed in Curacao. And, while we can look at endless examples of where Curacao have failed to act on breaches of their regulations, they DO mandate that any casino games on Curacao-licensed sites must be certified - and the game developer themselves licensed.

A recent example I was looking into was Crashino; they now appear to have a Curacao license, but for the last couple of years they were operating without a license (openly, at that), and yet offered a full suite of mainstream games - Quickspin, NetEnt, Relax Gaming, Thunderkick, etc. I believe, although again, don't quote me on this, they were using BetConstruct's aggregator - as their customer support facility redirected to BetConstruct's portal.

The few casinos I'm aware of operating in jusridictions like Anjouan (Win A Day) do NOT appear to offer any games from many well known providers, bar Pragmatic Play, and a couple of others, and while some sites in Costa Rice (powered by SoftSwiss, like BitcoinPenguin) also offer Pragmatic Play games, I don't see any from major names.

Ultimately, I think it all comes down to your last paragraph - "turning a blind eye because it's making them money." - "business is business" we were told after asking one major provider about it a while back.

 

[jasonuk]

Unless I misunderstood your main point, I think a couple of things apply here. Firstly, r.e. certification; I believe the UK has stricter game requirements (for example, games not being allowed to show near-misses, when they weren't actually ((don't quote me on that, but things along those lines))) so some of the smaller/less reputable developers just don't see it as worth their time/money to go through the UK approval process as it may mean having to develop a second version of their game, essentially.

Indeed, and those goalposts continue to move (spin speed, reel behaviour, micro-win behaviour etc). A lot of providers seem to have cottoned on to designing or retrofitting their engines to make this more of a configuration going forward to avoid further headaches - but naturally that increases development and test effort and smaller providers may not see the point. It's a shame because there are both older games and newer providers I'd love to see in the UK that are no longer available - but continue to be elsewhere.

Regarding your (I think) main point, though, about games appearing on unlicensed crypto sites - this is what has also interested me. For some reason, I was under the impression that game providers were bound by treaties not to offer their games to unlicensed operations if they wanted to hold a license, say, in the UK. (The UK has a treaty with Curacao, for example, which is why the UK is one of the few "Blocked" countries Curacao sites aren't - on paper - allowed to take bets from.) I was sure I'd read something similar applying to game developers, too - but as @maxd told me earlier, that may well not be the case.

AFAIK, in theory, there's nothing preventing a game provider offering their games to an unlicensed casino provided there is no law or regulation preventing it either in the country the game developer is based out of, or in the country the casino operates from.

I think that's what surprised me - and I was similarly under that impression too. I'm waiting for the inevitable scandal where a poorly regulated jurisdiction has the "same" games as a highly regulated jurisdiction, but the provider is the one providing "fakes" (horrendous RTP etc) of their own games.

Ultimately, I think it all comes down to your last paragraph - "turning a blind eye because it's making them money." - "business is business" we were told after asking one major provider about it a while back.

And that's the stark reality - I think we're already seeing lines being crossed in terms of misrepresentation of the monopoly money streamers (e.g. game providers willing to vouch for the validity of a "win", when what they really mean is the game round happened and they have no control over the other variables), and clearly they're happy to take the bag today and worry about any potential PR issues later on.

In terms of the industry at large, violating the trust in that way is a serious problem... but I suspect these providers aren't thinking about the long term anymore.

 

[Smithyy]

I think that's what surprised me - and I was similarly under that impression too. I'm waiting for the inevitable scandal where a poorly regulated jurisdiction has the "same" games as a highly regulated jurisdiction, but the provider is the one providing "fakes" (horrendous RTP etc) of their own games.

The more I've been thinking about this, the more I fail to believe there aren't some kind of rules in place, given the huge reach the UKGC has - and so with a bit of digging I turned up this:

"In June, the UK Gambling Commission launched a website hub to enforce operator compliance among those operators who work with third parties, such as white-label casino providers. According to the commission, casinos were falling foul of the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP) by working with third party providers who turned out to be unlicensed. The most common argument when banned or fined was that they were not responsible for the actions of these content suppliers.

The new hub clearly outlines all licensee responsibilities, which include:

Licensees are responsible for the third parties that they contract with.
Licensees must ensure contracted third parties act in accordance with licence conditions and the same codes of practice as the licensee.
Licensees must conduct adequate due diligence on the third party to ensure they are competent and reliable.
Licensees using a third party must ensure it has sufficient oversight and controls to ensure all activities are carried out in accordance with the LCCP, including social responsibility and anti-money laundering requirements.
Licensees must only partner with suppliers who are themselves licensed to provide gambling services in the United Kingdom.

I guess it would take some legal experts to read through the actual wording of the Gambling Act to see if this means what I presume it does - but I read this as saying "we'll give you a license, but one of the conditions is that you don't offer your games to unlicensed casinos". Now, of course, game developers will simply say that any unlicensed casinos they're providing their games to aren't allowed to accept UK players - but where is the line drawn?

Heck, it would the the UKGC all but five minutes to set up an account at one of the big crypto sites and begin playing games from pretty much every software provider who's licensed in the UK. I'd be curious on getting to the bottom of the exact rules surrounding this.

And that's the stark reality - I think we're already seeing lines being crossed in terms of misrepresentation of the monopoly money streamers (e.g. game providers willing to vouch for the validity of a "win", when what they really mean is the game round happened and they have no control over the other variables), and clearly they're happy to take the bag today and worry about any potential PR issues later on.

This was one of the fascinating things I saw at Stake over the past two years. I myself played there from Jan 2020-2021, without any problems. But it was evident they were backing fake streamers - £100,000 bonus buys lol - and, without mentioning any names, I believe the software provider in question even validated the wins - although I suppose the game rounds themselves may have been real, but Stake was simply giving streamers a dummy account with fake cash.

Then, Stake exploded ($2.2 billion in revenue last year) and seem to have cleaned up their act; requiring KYC docs upon sign-up was certainly the first crypto Curacao site I'd seen implementing such a policy. I would guess they were worried about the UK/US coming after them, especially as they're sponsoring major football teams!

On a final note, things get confusing when games are pushed out via aggregates - Quickfire, SilverBullet, EveryMatrix etc - and parent companies. Even NetEnt, from what I can see, no longer hold a UKGC license - they surrendered it back in March 2023 - as they now just operate under their parent company, Evolution. Ultimately, I just can't see the UKGC putting up with their licensees offering their games to unlicensed casinos, in the same way that they have swayed regulators like Curacao to enforce UK bans, I am SURE they would do the same with game developers - I'll have to do some more digging on this.

 

[Smithyy]

A bit more digging, and I stumbled across this, seemingly confirming some of the thoughts echoed so far:

From

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

:

"For those licensed under the British regime, the Commission has recently imposed, as part of the licensing criteria, an obligation that licensees demonstrate on objective grounds (presumably, at least, a legal opinion from a specialist lawyer) that their operations are legal in all the states in which they do significant business."
However, getting into the nitty gritty, it seems like this is really a grey area. For example, the UK Gov's Gambling Act states:

"In a case within subsection (3)(b), the person providing the facilities commits an offence under section 33 only if the person knows or should know that the facilities are being used, or are likely to be used, in Great Britain.”

So, I suppose the game developers would simply say that it's not their responsibility if casinos are accepting UK players and offering their games to them, especially if the UK player is using a VPN.

 

[jasonuk]

Then, Stake exploded ($2.2 billion in revenue last year) and seem to have cleaned up their act; requiring KYC docs upon sign-up was certainly the first crypto Curacao site I'd seen implementing such a policy. I would guess they were worried about the UK/US coming after them, especially as they're sponsoring major football teams!

I perhaps wouldn't go that far - more "feeling the heat" rather than "cleaned up their act". The monopoly money streamers are still in full flow - now on their own streaming platform rather than dealing with the headaches of YouTube and Twitch.

The UKGC reminds me of the Iraqi Information Minister (Baghdad Bob if you're in the US) in this regard - stating "there is no crypto problem" as crypto sponsorships flood into the marketplace, in some cases from operators that have no active UKGC license, or not for the site they are promoting (e.g. a related white label)

So, I suppose the game developers would simply say that it's not their responsibility if casinos are accepting UK players and offering their games to them, especially if the UK player is using a VPN.

I suspect that'll be where we end up, as all parts of the pipeline shun their responsibility and point to someone else... the provider blames the casino, the casino claims it's legal where they operate and so on.

If such a low-oversight jurisdiction comes along to replace Curacao (similar to how Curacao has been viewed historically), then it's possible that no offense has been committed anyway - a remote casino isn't bound by UK law, a provider can only do so much to detect where a player is from (look at the media industry playing cat and mouse with VPN providers for years, and struggling), so "should know" suddenly has to do a lot of heavy lifting...

Only have to look at the KSA (Netherlands) situation historically - repeatedly overstepped their jurisdiction and repeatedly shot down in EU courts. The balance of power has shifted now they offer open licensing, but that doesn't stop them issuing penalties to anyone and everyone - that they'll struggle to collect on because they have little to no jurisdiction.

And much like operators have used corporate hierarchy to separate and shield parts of the business for regulatory purposes (and getting away with it), I can imagine providers may revert to doing the same... should SlotProvider (UK) be liable for the behaviour of SlotProvider (Offshore), when both are customers of SlotProvider (Software) company? The lawyers will have a field day on that one...

 

[L&L-Jan]

I just spoke to another veteran in the industry and the novo's that are appearing on curacao licensed casinos are indeed the real novo games. It's not a direct integration, it all goes through one aggregator that has been setup for this.

 

[Smithyy]

I just spoke to another veteran in the industry and the novo's that are appearing on curacao licensed casinos are indeed the real novo games. It's not a direct integration, it all goes through one aggregator that has been setup for this.

Very interesting to know, thanks! Certainly the first I've heard of Novomatic games appearing (legitimately) at Curacao sites.

 

[Webzcas]

Same here. Thanks Jan for the info