New Casino Rep Hello from Wild.io – Join the Wild Side

[wildcasino]

Hello, Casinomeister Community!

My name is David, and I’m thrilled to introduce myself as the official representative of Wild.io here on the forum!

At Wild.io, we are all about bringing a top-tier online gaming experience to players, with a range of exciting casino games, exclusive bonuses, and a dedication to making every session a memorable one.

We’re constantly working to deliver something special for every type of player, whether you're a crypto enthusiast, a sports betting fan, or a slots lover.

Feel free to check out Wild.io and get in touch if you have any questions, suggestions, or if you'd like to explore our casino further.

Looking forward to engaging with everyone here and contributing to this great community!

Best regards,
David

 

[SCATT3R]

Pragmatic, BGaming, Nolimit etc. 94% rtp setting.

 

[armster]

Pragmatic, BGaming, Nolimit etc. 94% rtp setting.

Yup. I used to play here a ton but they lowered the RTP seemingly site wide!

 

[lockinlove]

Yup. I used to play here a ton but they lowered the RTP seemingly site wide!

Welcome to the world of slots this day and age. You got in just as the industry was changing. Slots in Canada used to be amazing. You could play every single provider, fair wagering, lots of promos. In the past year or three, they have went full retard/greed mode.

Only a handful of casinos left have high rtp. Ive played for yeaaarssssss and this is the first time in a long time I have quit playing. I didnt even lose anything for that to happen

 

[SCATT3R]

Not directly about Wild.io but since they too are infection transmitters, I might as well put it here.

Just the other day I signed up with no less than 8-10 of the new Dama/Hollycorn casinos and, much to my shock, hardly any were offering the higher rtp settings. I mean, what is happening?
NeoSpins, Winmaker, Trips, PlanGames, 24casino, you name it. I even saw Hacksaw at 88% in some. Incredible!
Out of all the newish casinos I inspected, only Wild Fortune appeared to have the better setting (on Pragmatic at least) but in return, they had a max cashout attached to the welcome offer, as well as a buggy site through and through - including when verification uploading...

It's a really, really disturbing trend

Finally, allow me to share this fresh example of play at the higher rtp setting. This screenie is Sugar Rush 1000, within my first 7.5k spins playing it on 96,53% at King Billy. Obviously, such a hit can happen at any setting - but rest assured, it'll take a whole lot longer on the lower ones so why bother?

 

[jasonuk]

It sucks because one of the big headline advantages of crypto was that their lower overheads meant they could maintain the highest RTPs (or higher in some cases, e.g. offering 97-98% versions of a 96% default).

I guess while that is still true on paper, greed knows no bounds.

 

[SlamRoyale]

It sucks because one of the big headline advantages of crypto was that their lower overheads meant they could maintain the highest RTPs (or higher in some cases, e.g. offering 97-98% versions of a 96% default).

I guess while that is still true on paper, greed knows no bounds.

Lower overheads in the past yes, but I think especially with accreditation requirements, crypto has had to pay up for the man to remain legitimate.

Overall, still lower overheads, but I suspect as long as you use the brands from operators, doesn't allow them to do much.

Crypto casinos that have their own slots still have a very high RTP. If you look at 'originals' like Bitvest slots (which is very old looking for sure tho, and with much, much lower excitement on those slots) it's still over 98% RTP. I actually trust those more personally as they use basic crypto Provably Fair mechanisms.

 

[satchnz]

Overall, still lower overheads, but I suspect as long as you use the brands from operators, doesn't allow them to do much.

Could you please explain what this actually means?

I frequently crypto casinos but won’t play at places that don’t offer max RTP across their entire catalog. It’s just not worth the risk imo. And as for playing in house slots, that’s not the reason a lot of us play for. We want to play the big name slots.

I have played at Wild previously, but upon hearing you’ve decided to take lower RTPs, I unfortunately wont be returning. There are still plenty of solid crypto casinos (in my experience) that continue to operate with max RTPs across the board.

The house always wins. Lower returns to players only enhance casino profits.

 

[SlamRoyale]

Could you please explain what this actually means?

I frequently crypto casinos but won’t play at places that don’t offer max RTP across their entire catalog. It’s just not worth the risk imo. And as for playing in house slots, that’s not the reason a lot of us play for. We want to play the big name slots.

I have played at Wild previously, but upon hearing you’ve decided to take lower RTPs, I unfortunately wont be returning. There are still plenty of solid crypto casinos (in my experience) that continue to operate with max RTPs across the board.

The house always wins. Lower returns to players only enhance casino profits.

Sorry about my wording. What I meant was non-in-house brands. There is a max RTP for sure and depending on the deal the casino has, it probably can't go beyond the max set by the developers of the slot title.

You are right oc about majority of people, they are here online to play the big name slots, not the in-house ones. But I guess my experience comes from crypto-only casinos who only made in-house slots (but these days are now offering big brands also). A lot of old players still play the in-house ones solely for the RTPs you won't find anywhere else, like 98++ % I mentioned still exists now.

 

[jasonuk]

Lower overheads in the past yes, but I think especially with accreditation requirements, crypto has had to pay up for the man to remain legitimate.

Overall, still lower overheads, but I suspect as long as you use the brands from operators, doesn't allow them to do much.

I guess part of the problem here is the steps the providers went for - 96%, 95% and 94% gives you a lot more flexibility than 96%, 94%, 92%... Netent went a bit crazy here with their nine maths models, although as expected the increased RTP models barely saw the light of day.

Even in the UK market, the "we need to lower to 94%" often rings hollow - even though there is an increase in cost (particularly on gross gaming yield - i.e. gaming profits rather than gaming revenue), does that justify gutting promotions and lopping 2% RTP off? Not really... 95% might have been a better middle ground, but most providers don't offer 1% steps.

The ones, like William Hill, that have already dropped to 92%, 90% and 88% are straight up fleecing their customers at this point.

So if that argument doesn't really stand up in highly regulated markets, I don't see how it stands up in the crypto markets either where overheads are demonstrably lower - if you were referring to 98% to 96-97% I might understand, but plenty of crypto sites - including your own - are already offering 94%.

 

[slot_zombie]

I am seeing a number of cryptos dropping to lowered RTP and I don't buy the costs argument when Stake can run everything on max, also offer selection of Pragmatics on enhanced 98% RTP, a generous affiliate program and great weekly/monthly cashback for players...

Some "houses" are too keen to "always win" as fast as possible...

 

[jasonuk]

I am seeing a number of cryptos dropping to lowered RTP and I don't buy the costs argument when Stake can run everything on max, also offer selection of Pragmatics on enhanced 98% RTP, a generous affiliate program and great weekly/monthly cashback for players...

Some "houses" are too keen to "always win" as fast as possible...

Economy of scale will come into that - same as how the bookies have a much easier time than the smaller operators in the UK market.

That also assumes we're taking Stake and Pragmatic's statements at face value, which given the history and reputation of both would be somewhat suspect...

 

[armster]

Lots of crypto sites still offer the highest RTP. Gamdom and Bitstarz are two of the biggest players in this market and seem to understand that to keep people loyal they have to offer them max playtime with their funds along with decent bonuses and/or VIP programs. Those sites offering lowered RTP on popular providers are very short-sighted in my opinion.

 

[SlamRoyale]

^ The bonuses and VIP programs are a good point to add, most crypto casinos are offering very decent promos for slots that only add value to the already 'higher than most' RTPs. Pretty sure scale comes into play too, as pointed out also, but I also ask myself if its about the demand. Must be that a ton of new people just play slots without looking at RTPs so that's a big demand just getting fed.

 

[justdoit]

whats the point adding lower RTP casinos? playing on 94% RTP after fees on deposit and Withdraw is like playing on 90% RTP

 

[jasonuk]

Must be that a ton of new people just play slots without looking at RTPs so that's a big demand just getting fed.

This is one part player education, and one part industry dishonesty.

Historically, the vast majority of slots had a single maths model - so there was no need to check, and in many jurisdictions there was no option to check either. Even where available (e.g. UKGC), many players don't check and assume the slot is the slot... so think they're playing 96% Bonanza when they're actually playing 94% and wondering why it's playing so badly without joining the dots.

The second is operator dishonesty - I've lost track of the sites that have announced (because they have to) a change in maths models... but then inferred it's the "same great slot" or "the same game" when it clearly isn't. In some cases, they've announced the game has changed but not how, and from the William Hill thread we saw some slots nerfed 5-6% without any indication in the announcement that had happened (except for perhaps a stray reference in a email tracking tag).

A perfect example of this is vanilla single zero roulette - how many games out there are compensated and/or otherwise bent and not running at 97.3%? I suspect the answer is a lot higher than anybody would feel comfortable with...

Review sites should be helping here, but when many of those are advertising "safe" sites from Costa Rica and Anjouan (i.e. business license with no oversight, thus dangerous) it's clear they want the money rather than to provide a meaningful service.

 

[SlamRoyale]

This is one part player education, and one part industry dishonesty.

Historically, the vast majority of slots had a single maths model - so there was no need to check, and in many jurisdictions there was no option to check either. Even where available (e.g. UKGC), many players don't check and assume the slot is the slot... so think they're playing 96% Bonanza when they're actually playing 94% and wondering why it's playing so badly without joining the dots.

The second is operator dishonesty - I've lost track of the sites that have announced (because they have to) a change in maths models... but then inferred it's the "same great slot" or "the same game" when it clearly isn't. In some cases, they've announced the game has changed but not how, and from the William Hill thread we saw some slots nerfed 5-6% without any indication in the announcement that had happened (except for perhaps a stray reference in a email tracking tag).

A perfect example of this is vanilla single zero roulette - how many games out there are compensated and/or otherwise bent and not running at 97.3%? I suspect the answer is a lot higher than anybody would feel comfortable with...

Review sites should be helping here, but when many of those are advertising "safe" sites from Costa Rica and Anjouan (i.e. business license with no oversight, thus dangerous) it's clear they want the money rather than to provide a meaningful service.

Great points.

Even down to the model. Players generally have to trust, and have little option to self-verify. I know I shouldn't harp on why Provably Fair should be the next step in casino development (crypto models solved it but was still too complicated for even computer-literate people to self verify and has not seen adoption in big brand slots. I can only think of Bgaming here). For sure RNG certifications/verifications are a good part of the industry. But seeing a valid RNG certificate that itself simply means you have to trust the industry (the 3rd party verifiers), and for the most, can't verify yourself at the time you're playing, for the spin you've just completed.

Reviews could definitely focus on that area. Not just statistical analysis, but actual checking that the RNG mechanism works as is, and not just during the certification check.

 

[lockinlove]

Great points.

Even down to the model. Players generally have to trust, and have little option to self-verify. I know I shouldn't harp on why Provably Fair should be the next step in casino development (crypto models solved it but was still too complicated for even computer-literate people to self verify and has not seen adoption in big brand slots. I can only think of Bgaming here). For sure RNG certifications/verifications are a good part of the industry. But seeing a valid RNG certificate that itself simply means you have to trust the industry (the 3rd party verifiers), and for the most, can't verify yourself at the time you're playing, for the spin you've just completed.

Reviews could definitely focus on that area. Not just statistical analysis, but actual checking that the RNG mechanism works as is, and not just during the certification check.

People can try and explain math and costs all they want. Bottom line is players are getting wise to it and playing elsewhere. So do they actually earn more money lowering rtp? Or do they lose money because players leave? I am not sure.

I have been a longtime player. I quit slots about a month ago. It no longer became fun having to check every slot rtp, check their reputation, double verfications. The industry is total garbage now imo