New Slot Announcement Extra Chilli, BTG

[dunover]

Mine starts and ends with Ja, Nein, and a few words Nightcrawler said (unglaublich)
in the X-Men comics when I was a kid.

Ein haupt auf scheissen is one you need to learn, often used in my description of new slots from certain providers 'a crock of shit'.

 

[dionysus]

For me, though I understand the WHYS of preventing reversal, my head still goes to, well, in a B and M, just because I take my money out of the slot, there's no good reason to not put it back in, even if it's just to move onto a different slot.
I wonder why there cant be a middle ground - if WD and change your mind and decide to play more, rather than wait for it to process and for some, to hit the bank 5 days later but have a function for those as readily, too easily tempted to slosh it back in, have a WD and a WD LOCK function

 

[lockinlove]

Saw someone playing this and it looks terrible and I have absolutely zero interest in playing it. It does not seem enticing at all. Leo vegas can have it

 

[theapple]

Not at all... and not entirely sure how you get the feeling i think that from anything i've said.
The industry (as a whole) AND the players themselves have a duty of care. We have some very strict guidelines we have to adhere to.
Personally, if i was buying a feature for $1000, i wouldn't be stupid enough to gamble at the risk of getting nothing.
If the initial feature costs £1000, then if you DO NOT gamble, and always take the feature, the average feature prize will be 96% of £1000.
If you choose to gamble (and the gamble will have to be true odds, and run at 100% RTP) then 50% of the time you'll lose, and 50% of the time you'll win.

Is that immoral? I'm not sure BUT i think it IS possibly encouraging people to play at a much higher relative stake than they would normally - and therefore you could argue that buy-a-feature should be outlawed - but you can't really do that and not also pass a "maximum stake" law.
On a personal level, I would like to see the buy-a-feature capped at £100.

still wondering how does all this work though?

yesterday i bought 20 features, gambled 10 away and played 10 at 8 spins. Not a single one with 8 spins paid more than 1x of my buyin while several paid under 0,1x. Out of 10 gambles i lost 6 and won 4, where i gambled them away and got twice to 16 spins. One of those features paid 3x my buyin but in general with 20 features bought my rtp was around 30% if that high.

Now, as BTG said optimal strategy is to gamble, forever, what happens if you dont use optimal strategy because obviously 8 spins is not the way to go and they made the slot that way that if you actually want to buy feature you have to be prepared to gamble it away too.

Thats my biggest gripe with this thing, its not like feature buying on its own is a new thing but the way they implemented is just vile. As it comes from a company that posted fake screenies of their own wins here i cant say im surprised though.

I just want to know how does it work and if 60% lifetime RTP could be a thing because while game theoreticaly has rtp of 96% if people keep on gambling and losing features it could go down to 50%, no?

tldr: my problem with this one isnt being able to buy features, its the way they implemented it and while some would say you are "not forced" to gamble it, you pretty much are if you want to actually win something out of it. And while doing so you could end up with rtp of 0% over $10k in matter of minutes. Thats why i think its highly unethical and thats why i mentioned ukgc at the first place.

 

[bluebirdy]

Not at all... and not entirely sure how you get the feeling i think that from anything i've said.

I get that feeling as you seem to pass the blame on to gamblers and say they should take responsibility for there action, yet thereis a bigger line of responsibility and you as a slot provider is part of it. there's only so much you can blame on others.

Is that immoral? I'm not sure BUT i think it IS possibly encouraging people to play at a much higher relative stake than they would normally - and therefore you could argue that buy-a-feature should be outlawed - but you can't really do that and not also pass a "maximum stake" law.
On a personal level, I would like to see the buy-a-feature capped at £100.

I think it is Immoral. BTG has made a game that can take some gamblers weekly Budget in seconds. and even if they do get the 24 spins how many of them going to pay you ?.
and yes again you can say no and don't play, but what about the money chaser's the problem gamblers , this slot tells then in the help file to gamble the features the paid and not paid how bad is that. how can BTG think that was a good idea? we know there features can play piss poor and we all know the true RTP can be a long time coming.

BTG have already shown they can make games that don't need buy features or gamble's, to add them shows they don't give a crap. And like others have said where will it end.

as slot providers you can make great games, with good pay tables and very good features juts look at the older games, there is no need to add gambles and buys and that has been proven time and time again

 

[bluebirdy]

keyboard froze and posted 2

 

[bluebirdy]

I would respect the role of the UKGC a lot more if they did the one thing that is really needed.
Ban bloody reversals
Cannot understand why this was not a priority when they started getting seriously involved
with the industry.All it needed was a simple directive and would do more for player protection
than all autoplay limit,loss limit,time limit crap put together.

I had a reply on this topic from the UKGC last year and they clearly said not in there power its up to the casino as long as you do get paid in the long run.

 

[GoldenGhoul]

I get that feeling as you seem to pass the blame on to gamblers and say they should take responsibility for there action, yet thereis a bigger line of responsibility and you as a slot provider is part of it. there's only so much you can blame on others.

He's right though, gamblers do have to take responsibility. You could similarly advocate alcohol manufacturers to be responsible for drunkards that buy their products but it doesn't work that way. As far as I know UKGC started making some weird decisions that limit what the players can or cannot do but that's usually not good, isn't it? What you seem to be advocating is restrictions, but while personally I agree that feature buy + gamble in Extra Chilli is too much and I will mostly steer clear of that slot, how is it that more dangerous than, I don't know, making five 200 euro spins on some Netent crap and getting five dead spins - 1000 euros gone in a moment just the same. And I don't play non-slots but I imagine there are some places you could put a 1000 on a roulette wheel or something and lose it all in one spin too.

So while I agree BTG are taking things in a dangerous direction, I don't know if restrictions would be a good idea.

 

[mcgameboy]

I don't know if this has been posted in this thread, but some people might find it interesting.

Link removed as per advice given by dionysus

We bought 100 bonuses on Bonanza 2 – Extra Chilli and here are the results
No true slots enthusiast could have missed the news about Extra Chilli, the follow up to the world’s most popular online slotBonanza. There are currently no other game providers in the iGaming industry that generates such hype and interest for new game releases as Big Time Gaming. The Australian game provider has been sticking to a seemingly simple, yet effective formula; quality over quantity, superb mathematical models and not only huge, but ridiculous potential!

3 days before Extra Chilli going live we decided to spend a few hours buying 100 bonuses and collecting stats while playing the game in fun mode. Now, before you go crazy over the word “fun mode”, keep in mind that slots are required by the regulators to play exactly as they should in real mode.

For this test we have bought 100 bonuses using a €1 bet size, meaning the bonuses costs €50 each (50x). For every bonus bought we gambled the free spins until either bust or win. For those of you who don’t know what we’re talking about, here’s a quick explaination.

In Extra Chilli players can gamble their initial free spins they won to trigger the bonus. When the feature is bought, the triggering spin will be played out and can result in either the standard 8 free spins (H.O.T.) or if lucky, with extra free spins if the +4 symbol lands.

For every gamble won, players are awarded 4 extra free spins. The maximum number of free spins that can be won is 24. If the gamble is lost, players can either lose all their free spins, or if they have reached a certain level, start with fewer free spins than they initially should have.

Starting with 8 free spins:

• 1st gamble will result in either 12 starting free spins or 0.
• 2nd gamble will result in either 16 starting free spins or 0
• 3rd gamble will result in either 20 starting free spins or 8 (player is now guaranteed a number of free spins).
• 4th gamble will result in either 24 starting free spins or 12.

If the bonus is triggered with extra free spins

• If the bonus is triggered with 12 free spins (H.O.T +4), the player will start his/her gamble at the 2nd stage on the wheel.
• If the bonus is triggered with 16 free spins (H.O.T +4 +4), the player will start the gamble at the 3nd stage on the wheel.

In those cases where free spins have been lost on the gambling wheel, no bonus has been played at all.

Extra Chilli Statistics
Out of the 100 bonuses bought:

• 63 resulted in a loss of free spins on the gambling wheel and no bonuses were played.
• 88 started with 8 free spins when triggered, 9 started with 12 free spins (+4) and 3 started with 16 free spins (+4 +4).
• The lowest win was 4 times the stake (8 free spins) and the highest 821 times the stake (24 free spins).
• The average win of all 37 bonuses played was 139 times the stake.
• 11 out of 37 bonuses played resulted in a win smaller than the cost of the bonus (50x).
• The cost of buying 100 bonuses was €5000 and the total wins of all bonuses played was €4774.

Biggest Win Out Of The 37 Bonuses Played

The Full Spreadsheet
Free Spins Triggered
Gambling Wheel Results
Starting Free Spins in Bonus Win xBet Re-triggers
8 Lost at 1st stage
8 Lost at 3rd stage 8 125
8 Lost at 2nd stage
8 Lost at 1st stage
8 Lost at 2nd stage
8 Lost at 1st stage
8 Lost at 1st stage
8 Lost at 3rd stage 8 28
16 (+4 +4) Max free spins won 24 821
8 Lost at 3rd stage 8 186
8 Lost at 1st stage
8 Lost at 1st stage
8 Max free spins won 24 312
8 Lost at 1st stage
8 Lost at 4th stage 12 164
8 Lost at 1st stage
8 Max free spins won 24 350
8 Lost at 3rd stage 8 13
12 (+4) Max free spins won 24 122
8 Lost at 2nd stage
8 Lost at 1st stage
8 Lost at 3rd stage 8 6
8 Max free spins won 24 225
8 Lost at 1st stage
12 (+4) Max free spins won 24 209
8 Lost at 1st stage
8 Lost at 3rd stage 8 5
8 Lost at 2nd stage
8 Max free spins won 24 63
8 Lost at 1st stage
8 Lost at 1st stage
16 (+4 +4) Lost at 4th stage 12 150
8 Lost at 1st stage
8 Lost at 4th stage 12 139
8 Lost at 4th stage 12 142 1
16 (+4 +4) Lost at 4th stage 12 79
8 Lost at 2nd stage
12 (+4) Lost at 3rd stage 8 3
8 Lost at 2nd stage
8 Lost at 1st stage
8 Lost at 1st stage
12 (+4) Lost at 4th stage 12 64
8 Lost at 1st stage
12 (+4) Lost at 1st stage
8 Lost at 2nd stage
8 Lost at 1st stage
8 Lost at 2nd stage
8 Max free spins won 24 132
8 Lost at 1st stage
8 Lost at 1st stage
8 Lost at 1st stage
8 Lost at 1st stage
12 (+4) Lost at 3rd stage 8 7
8 Lost at 2nd stage
8 Lost at 2nd stage
8 Lost at 2nd stage
8 Lost at 1st stage
12 (+4) Max free spins won 24 268 1
8 Lost at 1st stage
8 Lost at 3rd stage 8 40
8 Lost at 2nd stage
8 Lost at 1st stage
8 Lost at 1st stage
8 Lost at 2nd stage
8 Lost at 2nd stage
8 Lost at 1st stage
8 Lost at 1st stage
8 Lost at 1st stage
8 Max free spins won 24 108
8 Lost at 1st stage
8 Lost at 1st stage
8 Lost at 1st stage
8 Max free spins won 24 162
8 Lost at 2nd stage
8 Lost at 4th stage 12 64
8 Lost at 1st stage
8 Lost at 3rd stage 8 8
8 Lost at 1st stage
8 Lost at 1st stage
8 Lost at 2nd stage
12 (+4) Max free spins won 24 139
8 Lost at 2nd stage
8 Lost at 1st stage
8 Lost at 1st stage
8 Max free spins won 24 156
8 Max free spins won 24 58 1
8 12/Lost
12 (+4) Max free spins won 24 115
8 12/Lost
8 Lost at 3rd stage 8 25
8 Lost at 4th stage 12 26
8 Lost at 4th stage 12 94
8 Lost at 1st stage
8 Lost at 1st stage
8 Lost at 1st stage
8 Max free spins won 24 162
8 Lost at 1st stage
8 Lost at 3rd stage 8 4
8 Lost at 1st stage
8 Lost at 1st stage

 

[dionysus]

I don't know if this has been posted in this thread, but some people might find it interesting.

xx]

might be best to kill the link as it redirects to an aff site and import the info in instead
just a suggestion

 

[nikantw]

Not a huge win but look at my fun money balance (started from 1000 as you know)

 

[dionysus]

'not a huge win'
i couldnt imagine that stake in real

 

[incrediblestuff]

Ein haupt auf scheissen is one you need to learn, often used in my description of new slots from certain providers 'a crock of shit'.

Lol! Literally translated this would be: a head on shitting
You may want to use 'ein haufen scheisse' next time instead

 

[bluebirdy]

He's right though, gamblers do have to take responsibility. You could similarly advocate alcohol manufacturers to be responsible for drunkards that buy their products I'd say. As far as I know UKGC started making some weird decisions that limit what the players can or cannot do but that's usually not good, isn't it? What you seem to be advocating is restrictions, but while personally I agree that feature buy + gamble in Extra Chilli is too much and I will mostly steer clear of that slot, how is it that more dangerous than, I don't know, making five 200 euro spins on some Netent crap and getting five dead spins - 1000 euros gone in a moment just the same. And I don't play non-slots but I imagine there are some places you could put a 1000 on a roulette wheel or something and lose it all in one spin too.

So while I agree BTG are taking things in a dangerous direction, I don't know if restrictions would be a good idea.

As i said you can't put all the blame on other people ( gamblers). Slot providers, casinos and the UKGC all need to take part as well. its not just the gambler and never will be.

Yes the UKGC are making a lot of weird decisions and will keep making more. doesn't mean slot provider's can get away with stuff that are clearly taking the piss. Slot provider's like BTG think they can do any thing they want. But one day UKGC will say NO


You say we don't need restriction, but as i said in another post slot provider can and have made really good entertaining games with out the gamble and buy features. So why do they make games like this extra chilli?. bonanza is a well made game that didn't need the buy and gamble bollocks yet they made one to say fuck it just give us your money. That is what need's to be restricted.

 

[shadow123]

I had a reply on this topic from the UKGC last year and they clearly said not in there power its up to the casino as long as you do get paid in the long run.

Sorry that is rubbish from them,If they have the power to licence a casino to operate under UK jurisdiction, they can specify the
requirements for that license to be issued.If the casino does not conform to those requirments,they dont get the licence or it
is cancelled.
There is obvously a hidden agenda.

 

[nikantw]

im sure slot developers are loving this one because effectively btg found a way around theoretical RTP while still having rtp of 96%. cant wait for this one to arrive at VS to see its true rtp in play.

Speaking of which how does this one work, does it compensate for lost rounds with 0% rtp like fobts ?? If not this slot could easily achieve lifetime rtp of 66% if people keep on gambling their features. And mind you, gambling your features until 24 spins is something btg themselves suggested upon slot release. something like optimal strategy of sorts?

seriously id expect better responses from you instead of getting odd quirky remarks like "you are not forced to gamble" or "OMG GAMBLERS ARE GAMBLING", but i cant say im surprised to see you defending this one and novelty it brought to online slots alltogether.

Me and Dunover have posted all the TRTP (all, base, feature, gamble) and any other number about this game.

 

[dunover]

Lol! Literally translated this would be: a head on shitting
You may want to use 'ein haufen scheisse' next time instead

Yes, the tenses and literal translation skills have somewhat diminished since I last learned German. I was actually trying to say 'a heap of shit' lol.
In answer to the Extra Chilli gamble, all you are doing by consistently gambling 8 spins for 12 is changing your volatility for the game. You'll get better results on average by a factor of 2 if you begin with 12 spins as opposed to 8, so increasing your average return form 50-ish x stake to 100-ish similar to Bonanza. So in effect you'll lose at least 50% of the initial 50-50 8-12 gambles, possibly more.
The feature average is 230 spins as opposed to 460 for Bonanza, so using the gamble you will still get your 96% RTP long term but all you are doing by gambling 8 spins each time is changing the game back to Bonanza.

 

[trancemonkey]

still wondering how does all this work though?

yesterday i bought 20 features, gambled 10 away and played 10 at 8 spins. Not a single one with 8 spins paid more than 1x of my buyin while several paid under 0,1x. Out of 10 gambles i lost 6 and won 4, where i gambled them away and got twice to 16 spins. One of those features paid 3x my buyin but in general with 20 features bought my rtp was around 30% if that high.

Now, as BTG said optimal strategy is to gamble, forever, what happens if you dont use optimal strategy because obviously 8 spins is not the way to go and they made the slot that way that if you actually want to buy feature you have to be prepared to gamble it away too.

Thats my biggest gripe with this thing, its not like feature buying on its own is a new thing but the way they implemented is just vile. As it comes from a company that posted fake screenies of their own wins here i cant say im surprised though.

I just want to know how does it work and if 60% lifetime RTP could be a thing because while game theoreticaly has rtp of 96% if people keep on gambling and losing features it could go down to 50%, no?

tldr: my problem with this one isnt being able to buy features, its the way they implemented it and while some would say you are "not forced" to gamble it, you pretty much are if you want to actually win something out of it. And while doing so you could end up with rtp of 0% over $10k in matter of minutes. Thats why i think its highly unethical and thats why i mentioned ukgc at the first place.

Should car manufacturers be to blame if someone drives like an idiot and wipes out a whole family.
Should breweries be to blame if someone becomes an alcoholic?
Should pharmaceutical companies be responsible if people get addicted to painkillers?

You can only have so much control... the rest is up to people. This whole snowflake generation that wont take responsibility for their own actions is a huge problem in society in general. Same as they get offended by anything...

You have responsibility for your own actions... first an foremost. End of.

 

[GoldenGhoul]

As i said you can't put all the blame on other people ( gamblers). Slot providers, casinos and the UKGC all need to take part as well. its not just the gambler and never will be.

Yes the UKGC are making a lot of weird decisions and will keep making more. doesn't mean slot provider's can get away with stuff that are clearly taking the piss. Slot provider's like BTG think they can do any thing they want. But one day UKGC will say NO


You say we don't need restriction, but as i said in another post slot provider can and have made really good entertaining games with out the gamble and buy features. So why do they make games like this extra chilli?. bonanza is a well made game that didn't need the buy and gamble bollocks yet they made one to say fuck it just give us your money. That is what need's to be restricted.

I definitely agree in many ways, I myself am guilty of buying several White Rabbit features even though if you told me a few years ago I'd be doing that I'd probably just laugh. This is a dangerous thing and not at all a feature I would like to start seeing in slots. And yet, I'd still say gamblers should be 100% responsible for their actions and I do not agree that "blame" should be split in any way. I'm sorry but if you lose everything on slots then you have a big problem, and believe me that no restrictions would prevent such person from blowing it all away SOMEHOW. And I'm not talking about not helping problem gamblers - that should definitely not be the case and I can only hope there are some good options to help such people but trying to restrict slot design is not the way, regardless of what is our opinion on that particular slot.

And, to finish off on a slightly more gambler-friendly way - yes, the Feature Buy in Extra Chilli is evil.

 

[shadow123]

like I said yesterday, 8 spins is a waste of space, Actually the returns on 8 spins are very close to the features on white rabbit.

 

[bluebirdy]

You have responsibility for your own actions... first an foremost. End of.

O thxs for pointing that out. and you also have a responsibility but you don't seem to care.

 

[trancemonkey]

like I said yesterday, 8 spins is a waste of space, Actually the returns on 8 spins are very close to the features on white rabbit.

8 spins will just return the feature average of 48x eventually. 12 spins will be 96x, etc...

 

[bluebirdy]

Should car manufacturers be to blame if someone drives like an idiot and wipes out a whole family.
Should breweries be to blame if someone becomes an alcoholic?
Should pharmaceutical companies be responsible if people get addicted to painkillers?

You can only have so much control... the rest is up to people. This whole snowflake generation that wont take responsibility for their own actions is a huge problem in society in general. Same as they get offended by anything...

You have responsibility for your own actions... first an foremost. End of.

Surprised you missed out druggie's and gun crime

 

[mcgameboy]

I get that feeling as you seem to pass the blame on to gamblers and say they should take responsibility for there action, yet thereis a bigger line of responsibility and you as a slot provider is part of it. there's only so much you can blame on others.

I think it is Immoral. BTG has made a game that can take some gamblers weekly Budget in seconds. and even if they do get the 24 spins how many of them going to pay you ?.
and yes again you can say no and don't play, but what about the money chaser's the problem gamblers , this slot tells then in the help file to gamble the features the paid and not paid how bad is that. how can BTG think that was a good idea? we know there features can play piss poor and we all know the true RTP can be a long time coming.

BTG have already shown they can make games that don't need buy features or gamble's, to add them shows they don't give a crap. And like others have said where will it end.

as slot providers you can make great games, with good pay tables and very good features juts look at the older games, there is no need to add gambles and buys and that has been proven time and time again

BTG are pushing the envelope, I'll say that much. But at the same time, getting a feature does not guarantee getting a payout. So you could choose to buy a feature, not gamble it and still come away with diddly squat. You could also gamble it, get the additional spins and STILL get a shitty return that is less than the feature buy price.
It's gambling, you pays your money, you takes your choice.

And let's not forget that there are providers that have games where you are allowed to gamble virtually ALL your wins, Novomatic being a prime example of this.
IIRC, you can get a win of 400x on a Novo slot and still be allowed to gamble it. Given that Novo slots have a well-known reputation for going AGES without dishing out a feature, I think an argument could be made that what Novo are doing is actually WORSE than what BTG are doing.

So BTG may be giving players to option to gamble their paid-for features, but they have at least drawn the line by NOT allowing them to gamble their WINS.

 

[trancemonkey]

Surprised you missed out druggie's and gun crime

If that's the only answer you have then I think we can safely say you don't really have a very good argument here do you...

 

[trancemonkey]

O thxs for pointing that out. and you also have a responsibility but you don't seem to care.

And you can try and bait me all you want, but problem gamblers are a huge problem - i should know, i've been there, done that, got the t-shirt and come out the other side - however that does not mean that we can't provide entertaining games and features for people who CAN look after themselves. And yes, i do care
So enlighten me - what is my responsibility over and above a) what the law states and b) what we already do? Give me an example that is a) something you can legislate against and b) doesn't discriminate against the vast majority of responsible players.

 

[bluebirdy]

BTG are pushing the envelope, I'll say that much. But at the same time, getting a feature does not guarantee getting a payout. So you could choose to buy a feature, not gamble it and still come away with diddly squat. You could also gamble it, get the additional spins and STILL get a shitty return that is less than the feature buy price.
It's gambling, you pays your money, you takes your choice.

We all know that getting a feature on any slot does not mean it's going to pay, but do you agree that it is possible to get a few features while playing the X amount out.
so if i had £50 buy a feature or play x amount of spins and have a chance of 1,2 ,3 features and maybe a big win or no feature.

And let's not forget that there are providers that have games where you are allowed to gamble virtually ALL your wins, Novomatic being a prime example of this.
IIRC, you can get a win of 400x on a Novo slot and still be allowed to gamble it. Given that Novo slots have a well-known reputation for going AGES without dishing out a feature, I think an argument could be made that what Novo are doing is actually WORSE than what BTG are doing.

The difference there is you know the final amount before you gamble plus there not telling you to gamble like the BTG extra chilli game

 

[brianmon]

@trancemonkey Can the gamble be weighted, or does the wheel have to show the actual odds?
IIRC the standard red/black gamble has to be 50/50.
So does the first gamble on chilli have to be 50/50 and the following gambles 60/40, since that's what the wheel shows? or is this particular gamble not covered by the same rules, or they've found a loophole?

 

[bluebirdy]

And you can try and bait me all you want, but problem gamblers are a huge problem - i should know, i've been there, done that, got the t-shirt and come out the other side - however that does not mean that we can't provide entertaining games and features for people who CAN look after themselves. And yes, i do care
So enlighten me - what is my responsibility over and above a) what the law states and b) what we already do? Give me an example that is a) something you can legislate against and b) doesn't discriminate against the vast majority of responsible players.

You care, Not going by your post you don't. and with that last post seem like you think its a joke aswell. Addiction ain't a thing to joke about

the difference is you can and you do have the power not to implement things in games, and you should be thinking more about what you do put in. you keep saying we make games for entertainment, then do just that don't put in bollocks like Gamble and buy option that just makes provider's look like they don't give a shit.

Providers like BTG are now just putting in any old bollocks now and calling it entertainment, the new Word of the slot providers.

 

[bluebirdy]

If that's the only answer you have then I think we can safely say you don't really have a very good argument here do you...

looks like your post is mocking addiction

 

[trancemonkey]

@trancemonkey Can the gamble be weighted, or does the wheel have to show the actual odds?
IIRC the standard red/black gamble has to be 50/50.
So does the first gamble on chilli have to be 50/50 and the following gambles 60/40, since that's what the wheel shows? or is this particular gamble not covered by the same rules, or they've found a loophole?

According to the UKGC technical standards, all gambles must be true odds and must run at 100% RTP.

 

[trancemonkey]

looks like your post is mocking addiction

How is it mocking addiction exactly? It's merely pointing out that the users of a product are responsible for how they use it. If you disagree with that then I'm sorry but in my opinion you are wrong.

 

[trancemonkey]

You care, Not going by your post you don't. and with that last post seem like you think its a joke aswell. Addiction ain't a thing to joke about

the difference is you can and you do have the power not to implement things in games, and you should be thinking more about what you do put in. you keep saying we make games for entertainment, then do just that don't put in bollocks like Gamble and buy option that just makes provider's look like they don't give a shit.

Providers like BTG are now just putting in any old bollocks now and calling it entertainment, the new Word of the slot providers.

And who/what decides what is entertaining/bollocks? The easy solution is to limit the maximum stake - but if they do that online then I 100% guarantee the first thing that will happen is the RTP will drop to a max of 94% because the casinos will need recoup the money lost from the lack of high rollers, who account for the vast majority of the casinos revenue.

So be careful what you wish for....

And I repeat... players have responsibility for their actions. We have a responsibility to protect players from themselves wherever possible.

And I will state again... I don't think that the buy-a-feature on the BTG games is a positive step for problem gamblers. I think it is more likely to increase harm for those people struggling to control their spend. But it's perfectly legal. And there is a fine line between what do to increase entertainment for normal players and what can negatively affect problem gamblers.

 

[bluebirdy]

The easy solution is to limit the maximum stake - but if they do that online then I 100% guarantee the first thing that will happen is the RTP will drop to a max of 94% because the casinos will need recoup the money lost from the lack of high rollers, who account for the vast majority of the casinos revenue.

or get rid of the gamble and buy feature. Stop you the slot providers from bringing stuff out on slots that can wipe you balance in 10 secs with out
any gameplay.

 

[bluebirdy]

How is it mocking addiction exactly? It's merely pointing out that the users of a product are responsible for how they use it. If you disagree with that then I'm sorry but in my opinion you are wrong.

Should car manufacturers be to blame if someone drives like an idiot and wipes out a whole family.
Should breweries be to blame if someone becomes an alcoholic?
Should pharmaceutical companies be responsible if people get addicted to painkillers?

You can only have so much control... the rest is up to people. This whole snowflake generation that wont take responsibility for their own actions is a huge problem in society in general. Same as they get offended by anything...

You have responsibility for your own actions... first an foremost. End of.

Missed out stuff will re-post again

 

[Chipkin9]

And who/what decides what is entertaining/bollocks? The easy solution is to limit the maximum stake - but if they do that online then I 100% guarantee the first thing that will happen is the RTP will drop to a max of 94% because the casinos will need recoup the money lost from the lack of high rollers, who account for the vast majority of the casinos revenue.

So be careful what you wish for....

And I repeat... players have responsibility for their actions. We have a responsibility to protect players from themselves wherever possible.

And I will state again... I don't think that the buy-a-feature on the BTG games is a positive step for problem gamblers. I think it is more likely to increase harm for those people struggling to control their spend. But it's perfectly legal. And there is a fine line between what do to increase entertainment for normal players and what can negatively affect problem gamblers.

Why exactly would the RTP need to drop because of a lack of high rollers?

1) I thought once games are rolled out the RTP can't be changed unless it comes with different RTP options (PnG for example)
2) Even if the RTP is set at 96% the casino will still be making £4 for every £100 wagered and still has a 4% edge, so again why would the RTP need to be reduced because of a lack of high rollers?

You always make the point that Casino's/Providers can't change the RTP and they will make their money from the default house edge.

So I don't fully understand, and to me it sounds like greed.

Not trying to be argumentative in anyway btw, just curious as it makes no sense to me.

 

[trancemonkey]

BTG say in the help file Gamble features

So can i play your game off Should

As we can both play this game

Best strategy for highest return would be to gamble the features yes.... no idea what the rest of your comment means.

 

[bluebirdy]

Best strategy for highest return would be to gamble the features yes.... no idea what the rest of your comment means.

Looks like i missed a few things out of my post will have to re-post when i found what i wrote down

but will ask one thing

You think its ok for a slot provider to say you should gamble. a paid or not paid one

 

[Gaz237]

You care, Not going by your post you don't. and with that last post seem like you think its a joke aswell. Addiction ain't a thing to joke about

the difference is you can and you do have the power not to implement things in games, and you should be thinking more about what you do put in. you keep saying we make games for entertainment, then do just that don't put in bollocks like Gamble and buy option that just makes provider's look like they don't give a shit.

Providers like BTG are now just putting in any old bollocks now and calling it entertainment, the new Word of the slot providers.

Simple fact is, Trance Monkey is an employee and his job is to design games that people want to play.

His employer would not be happy if he was to not implement options on a game or never try to push the envelope on innovation, just because of personal moral dilemmas.

Pretty sure he would be looking for a new job if he did.

 

[trancemonkey]

Why exactly would the RTP need to drop because of a lack of high rollers?

1) I thought once games are rolled out the RTP can't be changed unless it comes with different RTP options (PnG for example)
2) Even if the RTP is set at 96% the casino will still be making £4 for every £100 wagered and still has a 4% edge, so again why would the RTP need to be reduced because of a lack of high rollers?

You always make the point that Casino's/Providers can't change the RTP and they will make their money from the default house edge.

So I don't fully understand, and to me it sounds like greed.

Not trying to be argumentative in anyway btw, just curious as it makes no sense to me.

It's simple economics...

Let's say a casino makes 100k a day.
If 80k of that is from people betting over £20 a spin, and the max prize is limited to £20 a spin, then the casino stands to lose 80k a day. Now of course some of those people will just bet at £20 a spin more often and they won't lose 80k, but they will lose a fair chunk of money. If you take the RTP from 96% to 94% then you are making 50% more revenue per spin than you were. And this is how they could cover some of that loss.

So they would ask the games providers to give them a 94% version (Blueprint already have some 92% games on SkyVegas) or lower.

The only way casinos make more money when they can't increase player numbers or spend per player is to reduce the RTP.

 

[trancemonkey]

Looks like i missed a few things out of my post will have to re-post when i found what i wrote down

but will ask one thing

You think its ok for a slot provider to say you should gamble. a paid or not paid one

It is a legal obligation to state best strategy - this is in the technical standards that we all have to adhere to. My guess is the more FG you have the better the RTP from the feature (although it will be a minimal change).

As to the rights and wrongs of that... I wouldn't like to create a game where the best strategy is to risk everything. Because as a player I wouldn't do it...

 

[Chipkin9]

It's simple economics...

Let's say a casino makes 100k a day.
If 80k of that is from people betting over £20 a spin, and the max prize is limited to £20 a spin, then the casino stands to lose 80k a day. Now of course some of those people will just bet at £20 a spin more often and they won't lose 80k, but they will lose a fair chunk of money. If you take the RTP from 96% to 94% then you are making 50% more revenue per spin than you were. And this is how they could cover some of that loss.

So they would ask the games providers to give them a 94% version (Blueprint already have some 92% games on SkyVegas) or lower.

The only way casinos make more money when they can't increase player numbers or spend per player is to reduce the RTP.

Yea, I understand the economics of it and how the casino are going to "lose revenue" if the £10-£20 spinners were to not spin...my gripe is with reducing the RTP, I took it as fact that Providers could not reduce the RTP after it's been through testing and rolled out to casino's.

So now it's possible for casino's to request from the providers to lower the RTP of games if they are not making enough money from it?

Ridiciulous if you ask me, as if the 4-5% wasn't enough for them; so I was right about the greed.

To make a counter argument statment about those £10-£20 per spin gamblers and the reduction of RTP (Or the request thereof); If a player decided not to spin this amount on Extra Chilli (For example) won't they just make these bets sizes on another game and lose anyway...therefore the casino are actually not losing out on any revenue; so again requesting to a provider to have a lower RTP version of game is a decision based on greed alone and nothing else.

So really all your post has done was enlightened me to the fact that casino's are more greedy than we thought and have more power over a games RTP than they should.

Would it be true to say people are possibly playing NotEnt with an RTP of say 90% for a 96% slot on certain casinos?

It would be impossible to know any better since NotEnt do not display an RTP in their games menu.

EDI: Also this really should have been posted in your AMA about slots thread, so I apologize for derailing the thread slightly.

 

[theapple]

Should car manufacturers be to blame if someone drives like an idiot and wipes out a whole family.
Should breweries be to blame if someone becomes an alcoholic?
Should pharmaceutical companies be responsible if people get addicted to painkillers?

You can only have so much control... the rest is up to people. This whole snowflake generation that wont take responsibility for their own actions is a huge problem in society in general. Same as they get offended by anything...

You have responsibility for your own actions... first an foremost. End of.

that answered most, if not all of my questions so thank you for your reply.

 

[bluebirdy]

How is it mocking addiction exactly? It's merely pointing out that the users of a product are responsible for how they use it. If you disagree with that then I'm sorry but in my opinion you are wrong.

Should car manufacturers be to blame if someone drives like an idiot and wipes out a whole family.
Should breweries be to blame if someone becomes an alcoholic?
Should pharmaceutical companies be responsible if people get addicted to painkillers?

You can only have so much control... the rest is up to people. This whole snowflake generation that wont take responsibility for their own actions is a huge problem in society in general. Same as they get offended by anything...

You have responsibility for your own actions... first an foremost. End of.

Should breweries be to blame if someone becomes an alcoholic?
No. But aint there loads of rules on how alcohol can be sold, advertised and so on (with big fines attached)

Should pharmaceutical companies be responsible if people get addicted to painkillers?
No. again aint there loads of rules on how pain killers can be sold, advertised and so on (with big fines attached)
I know you cant buy more that 2 packets of tablets while online shopping at one store

I will put Money on those 2 above have alot more laws and and stuff attached to them and they know where the boundries are.

You keep useing the words responsibility for your own actions. Yet You clearly dont understand addiction.
Yes A person can and has the right not to play, drink, eat , take drugs and so on. but as a lot of people Know it comes a time for intervention or prevention. And you as slot provider should take in to account things like this with out constanly useing the words responsibility for your own actions.

 

[bluebirdy]

Simple fact is, Trance Monkey is an employee and his job is to design games that people want to play.

His employer would not be happy if he was to not implement options on a game or never try to push the envelope on innovation, just because of personal moral dilemmas.

Pretty sure he would be looking for a new job if he did.

So he works for a company that has no moral dilemmas then?. a s he said all providers work for the good of the players

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Speaking of which how does this one work, does it compensate for lost rounds with 0% rtp like fobts ?? If not this slot could easily achieve lifetime rtp of 66% if people keep on gambling their features. And mind you, gambling your features until 24 spins is something btg themselves suggested upon slot release. something like optimal strategy of sorts?

As I understand it, buying and then gambling features as far as possible is the optimal player strategy from an RTP point of view (albeit not by much), but you're massively increasing the variance of the game, so risking busting out long before you get any sort of decent return, let alone see the slight increase in RTP reflected in your results.

From my experiments yesterday, once you get to the 24 free spins round you're pretty much guaranteed 200x stake or better, and often a chunk more than that.

The fact remains that however you play the slot, once the sample size gets large enough any playing strategy will result in an RTP of 96.15% to 96.82%. (Conceptually very similar to roulette strategies, where all you're doing is changing the variance, the long term RTP of the game remains identical.)

If you just take the features as they come on the normal game and never gamble (i.e. 8 free spins), you're going to have a very boring, low variance version of Bonanza (which I already think is a very boring slot), but it will make RTP. If you just buy features and gamble everything, you've got an insane high variance verison of Bonanza, but ultimately it will settle down to its (slightly higher) RTP.

The slot could indeed achieve a long-term RTP of 60% or 40% or anything else for players unable to keep up with the costs of buying and gambling features, but fundamentally that's no different to any other bust-out where a player runs out of money before RTP is achieved.

Buying features on a £1 base stake costs £50 per feature, I lost £3000 of demo money in fairly short order buying features and gambling all out.

Personally I am not happy with addition of the 'buy a feature' option at all, (I appreciate this is not the first slot to implement it), it's a clear enticement to players to bet more than they're comfortable with, and kind of breaks the 'deal' we all agree to with online slots. We all know that there's often a lot of grinding to do in the base game to trigger features, but that also extends playtime and keeps a player's balance afloat, making play sessions longer.

By deliberately short-circuiting that process BTG know exactly what they're doing, and I think it's a pretty damn crummy thing to do.

For my money the slot should have been refused certification.

 

[trancemonkey]

Should breweries be to blame if someone becomes an alcoholic?
No. But aint there loads of rules on how alcohol can be sold, advertised and so on (with big fines attached)

Should pharmaceutical companies be responsible if people get addicted to painkillers?
No. again aint there loads of rules on how pain killers can be sold, advertised and so on (with big fines attached)
I know you cant buy more that 2 packets of tablets while online shopping at one store

I will put Money on those 2 above have alot more laws and and stuff attached to them and they know where the boundries are.

You keep useing the words responsibility for your own actions. Yet You clearly dont understand addiction.
Yes A person can and has the right not to play, drink, eat , take drugs and so on. but as a lot of people Know it comes a time for intervention or prevention. And you as slot provider should take in to account things like this with out constanly useing the words responsibility for your own actions.

With all due respect I'm bored of this argument... I've already said that I agree we have a responsibility. Never said we didn't.

I said we have to balance that with giving responsible people a game they want to play. That's a fine line we have to tread.

And to be fair I could see the UKGC possibly banning the buy a feature if it was shown to cause additional harm to players.

I notice how you didnt comment on the car point I made... Because you can't make any point relevant to your argument.

And we are very heavily regulated... arguably far more than alcohol is.

 

[trancemonkey]

So he works for a company that has no moral dilemmas then?. a s he said all providers work for the good of the players

No moral dilemmas? What rubbish you speak... we have a very strict responsible gaming policy. We have to do training in it and we have an entire department dedicated to it.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

we have a very strict responsible gaming policy. We have to do training in it and we have an entire department dedicated to it.

BTG less so, perhaps.

 

[trancemonkey]

Yea, I understand the economics of it and how the casino are going to "lose revenue" if the £10-£20 spinners were to not spin...my gripe is with reducing the RTP, I took it as fact that Providers could not reduce the RTP after it's been through testing and rolled out to casino's.

So now it's possible for casino's to request from the providers to lower the RTP of games if they are not making enough money from it?

Ridiciulous if you ask me, as if the 4-5% wasn't enough for them; so I was right about the greed.

To make a counter argument statment about those £10-£20 per spin gamblers and the reduction of RTP (Or the request thereof); If a player decided not to spin this amount on Extra Chilli (For example) won't they just make these bets sizes on another game and lose anyway...therefore the casino are actually not losing out on any revenue; so again requesting to a provider to have a lower RTP version of game is a decision based on greed alone and nothing else.

So really all your post has done was enlightened me to the fact that casino's are more greedy than we thought and have more power over a games RTP than they should.

Would it be true to say people are possibly playing NotEnt with an RTP of say 90% for a 96% slot on certain casinos?

It would be impossible to know any better since NotEnt do not display an RTP in their games menu.

EDI: Also this really should have been posted in your AMA about slots thread, so I apologize for derailing the thread slightly.

I think you're misunderstanding things here....

The RTP of all games released to players under MGA and UKGC has to be made available to the players. And they are. Microgaming is the hardest to find but they exist on the casino.

And of course we games providers want the highest RTP possible.... we resist moves to lower RTP. It is normally never a good thing to do... but a lot of games providers do multiple RTP variants. This isn't news....