The inconsistency lies in their logic, not the clarity of their classification for players.
Had they kept it simple as a slots bonus should be, this argument would not arise.
Maybe they have been fed these classifications by the provider, perhaps in the literature, in which case the provider's logic is in question.
My view is that the classification has nothing to do with the type of games themselves, but is a result of a "reverse engineering" of their desired WR weightings into a means to show the distinction to players without having to explain the logic. I DO know my Microgaming slots, especially the AWPs, and no matter what classification they are put into, it should be the SAME one for all the slots that MGS class as "Pub Slot" or AWP.
That's really just semantics in all fairness VWM. Obviously some of their RTP's make a WR ev+ so Guts classify them distinctly. Their choice, their bonus.
This would be a far better innovation in the industry if they did LESS of "what everybody else does", and focussed on what players grumble about in "the industry" in general. Charging for withdrawals even to eWallets is not a good idea, even though it is not "what everybody else does". Fast withdrawals ARE a good idea, because "everybody else" seems to think that players like long pending times. They could try making "standard" withdrawals free, but batch them as other casinos do so that they take 24/48 hours, and offer the €2.50 "premium" withdrawal service for players who want their payment processed right away, rather than being queued for the next batch run. Those players who value speedy payment over the fee will pay up, and this will also be an indicator of how much players REALLY value speedy withdrawals.
Won't really work, and some will see payment as discrimination, i.e. I can 'buy' the status of favoured customer. Think about it - any casino with very fast 24/7 w/d's will have somebody overseeing them constantly. To arrange w/d's on the basis of 'do those who've paid now, leave the rest until later' would be illogical and wasteful. If somebody is there, they just want to fire the payments out as the requests come in, not examine each one to see if the customer had paid a fee first. I'm with Ben on that one.
What I gather from this rather odd weighting is that there is clearly "something worth knowing" about ANY slot that an operator sets aside with a higher WR than the rest, or even bans altogether with bonus play. Whatever it is, it probably involves something that the providers would rather players NOT know about how the game operates, something that has been revealed in the highly controversial Spielo games incident, where the explanations involved a description of the underlying game mechanism that blew out of the water what I used to understand about how online games operated. I always believed that the virtual elements were coded to behave as they would if they were physical elements, for example that a slot would have reel stops, and each stop would be equally likely. The Spielo case showed that in fact the game in question was nothing more than a table of RNG results, most losing, and some winning, and that if a win was selected, the game simply made up the reel stop to display the relevant win. Maybe "classic" slots have something like this, rather than that they use virtual weighting as I had believed, and that this somehow makes them more favourable to the player, hence the decision by some operators to subject them to a higher WR than other slots that run under the Nevada or Aussie video slot model, which dictates that virtual reels should be modelled as though they were the real thing in physical form, with the stops unweighted.
I think you're overcomplicating things here. I differ from your view above insomuch as I ALWAYS from day one of playing slots online (as you will no doubt have seen many times in my other posts) realized that the reels were simply graphics reflecting an RNG outcome/win value. It was quite obvious, given that there is no need to have complicated software doing random stops for each virtual reel to achieve the same result as the RNG has picked first. Whether 'classic' slots do this or not is hardly relevant anyway, it's more the fact that they are adaptive so can be manipulated by the player.
It's hardly surprising the software developers want to keep this from the players, it blows away the myth that what we see in front of us is the game we are actually playing, and this is bad for business.
Not really - what is important is the player experience, and the fact he will get paid his TRTP over time with the peaks and troughs that go with it. Whether his TRTP is produced through one RNG value up front or one RNG for each reel he probably couldn't give a crap about as long as the game does what it says on the tin.
The new UKGC regime will require some of this information to be made available to players, such as the RTP, although this will no doubt be tucked away in help files that Mr Brear says "nobody reads". This should make these odd slot rules seen recently somewhat clearer.
For UK players, a big question is whether Guts intends to stick around and get a secondary license from the UKGC when the time comes, or will UK players be ditched after the first year for "regulatory reasons".
