Jammin Jars

[Balthazar]

I honestly think the problem here is with Push Gaming. 1.3M possible results isn't even close to enough for a game like this, especially when the animations are so long and complex (or rather, present the illusion of complexity). Unless this game gets changed, we're going to be seeing a few more of these sorts of occurrences, and every time it happens, more and more people are going to be convinced it's evidence that the games are rigged.

The comments on my videos are relentlessly negative against the streamers, a lot of folks see this is as straightforward validation for what they've clearly always suspected, which is that streamers are fake, are given 'enhanced versions' of games to play, and that these streamers hitting the same big wins on video are the smoking gun of corruption and collusion. (And let's be clear about this, at the end of the day, affiliated streamers make money when 'their' players lose, so it's not a stretch to understand why so many players feel such antipathy towards the streamers.)

I've tried to address this issue as factually as I can with the previous video ('Why Jammin' Jars isn't good enough') but the fact is that for a lot of people their minds are already made up - but if I'm honest, I'm short on sympathy for the streamers.

The thing is you can't have an opinion on streamers just from the highlights you see on Youtube and what you read from tinfoil hatters on this forum. Have you ever watched a full session from any streamer Chopley? If not how the heck can you suspect them of getting "special" wins? False allegations are unnecessary and really suck (in all spheres of life).

I've watched many, many hours of play from half a dozen of them during the last year. The truth is most of their sessions result in losses just like you and me. Do some of them play with EV+ bonuses? Probably, I don't know and I don't care. The fact that they make money with affiliate links is no different than Brian making money with affiliate links on this site. If they don't make a cut, the casino is keeping all the money. Is that any better?

Some of you appear to believe that players watch the streamers get "impossible wins" and try to replicate those wins and lose all their money in the process. The thing is, the people who actually watch them know that those streamers lose a lot more than they win. Also, a lot of people who watch videos (including yours BTW) are doing it instead of playing. That's my case. The only influence streamers have on me is positive (prevent me from playing).

 

[dunover]

 

[deaconk78]

View attachment 95995

in what sense is that ? A misleading statement by the developer?

couldn't give a rats ass about streamers myself but i am all for fairness and clarity across the board . You are a champion of more clarity in regards to t&c / self exclusion / licencing info etc . Let us not allow the BIG issue here to get lost under the raft of posts about streamers .

This developer stated the slots was playing in one way and in fact it is playing in another .

That's the only thing here that has genuine evidence - the rest is conjecture . It's not tin foil hat to ask questions though .

If @ChopleyIOM asks a few questions with regards to streamers that is proven to go one way or another but gives a definitive answer then surely that's all for the better ?

seems to be a you against us attitude which is a shame if the reasoning behind it all is just for better understanding .

 

[ChopleyIOM]

The thing is you can't have an opinion on streamers just from the highlights you see on Youtube and what you read from tinfoil hatters on this forum. Have you ever watched a full session from any streamer Chopley? If not how the heck can you suspect them of getting "special" wins? False allegations are unnecessary and really suck (in all spheres of life).

I've watched many, many hours of play from half a dozen of them during the last year. The truth is most of their sessions result in losses just like you and me. Do some of them play with EV+ bonuses? Probably, I don't know and I don't care. The fact that they make money with affiliate links is no different than Brian making money with affiliate links on this site. If they don't make a cut, the casino is keeping all the money. Is that any better?

Some of you appear to believe that players watch the streamers get "impossible wins" and try to replicate those wins and lose all their money in the process. The thing is, the people who actually watch them know that those streamers lose a lot more than they win. Also, a lot of people who watch videos (including yours BTW) are doing it instead of playing. That's my case. The only influence streamers have on me is positive (prevent me from playing).

I haven't 'suspected' anyone of anything, I don't know if you've watched all the Jammin' Jars videos I've made over the last few days but I quite specifically make a point of not levelling any accusations of collusion or corruption at anyone, and indeed the latest video on the subject goes to some lengths to explain what we're seeing on Jammin' Jars as being an artifact of Push Gaming's lazy game design. (I did make a couple of digs in the video with the lightning striking twice picture, admittedly.)

I'll be honest and say I have never watched a live casino stream, I've only ever seen clips from streams on Twitch and YouTube, but that's more than enough to convince me I'd never actually want to sit down and watch them. ('Oohhhh I'm so excited! Big win! Sign up through my affiliated links! Watch me jump up and down for joy! This reaction is entirely genuine, honestly, go on, just click on the link, sign up and start losing money, I'll be so happy when you start losing money..... 1600x stake, fantastic! You could get 1600x stake too! Just sign up using the links below! And, erm, gamble responsibly, of course. Lol.')

I see them as nothing more than casino advertising shills, provided as they are with endless EV+ bonus offers the likes of which real players will never get so much as a sniff of, which renders the justification of them playing 'the same games' as everyone else entirely moot. Add in their affiliation revenues and I'm sure they make a pretty penny out of it. After all, they're not going to do it if it isn't making any money for them one way or another. (i.e. They're not playing the same games as everyone else at all, as they have multiple safety nets to prevent them, y'know, actually losing money overall.)

This is quite different from the Casinomeister setup, whereby Bryan runs the site far more in symbiosis with the player base, and uses his own time and money to maintain the site, the forums, and associated support structures. (Unlike the streamers who effectively use YouTube as a free promotional platform to profit from, and encourage others to gamble and emulate their high-rolling exploits.)

I guess it's what you're comfortable with on a personal and moral level, and for me, affiliated streamers cross a line into behaviour that I can neither condone nor support. I'm not 'anti-gambling', but the streamers promote a worldview of gambling that is irresponsible, unrealistic, and a clear inducement to others to gamble.

Do some people find that watching streamers prevents them from playing personally because it vicariously scratches the gambling itch? That may well be the case, but let's not pretend that the streamers have set themselves up to provide some sort of worthwhile social service.

 

[deaconk78]

I haven't 'suspected' anyone of anything, I don't know if you've watched all the Jammin' Jars videos I've made over the last few days but I quite specifically make a point of not levelling any accusations of collusion or corruption at anyone, and indeed the latest video on the subject goes to some lengths to explain what we're seeing on Jammin' Jars as being an artifact of Push Gaming's lazy game design. (I did make a couple of digs in the video with the lightning striking twice picture, admittedly.)

I'll be honest and say I have never watched a live casino stream, I've only ever seen clips from streams on Twitch and YouTube, but that's more than enough to convince me I'd never actually want to sit down and watch them. ('Oohhhh I'm so excited! Big win! Sign up through my affiliated links! Watch me jump up and down for joy! This reaction is entirely genuine, honestly, go on, just click on the link, sign up and start losing money, I'll be so happy when you start losing money..... 1600x stake, fantastic! You could get 1600x stake too! Just sign up using the links below! And, erm, gamble responsibly, of course. Lol.')

I see them as nothing more than casino advertising shills, provided as they are with endless EV+ bonus offers the likes of which real players will never get so much as a sniff of, which renders the justification of them playing 'the same games' as everyone else entirely moot. Add in their affiliation revenues and I'm sure they make a pretty penny out of it. After all, they're not going to do it if it isn't making any money for them one way or another. (i.e. They're not playing the same games as everyone else at all, as they have multiple safety nets to prevent them, y'know, actually losing money overall.)

This is quite different from the Casinomeister setup, whereby Bryan runs the site far more in symbiosis with the player base, and uses his own time and money to maintain the site, the forums, and associated support structures. (Unlike the streamers who effectively use YouTube as a free promotional platform to profit from, and encourage others to gamble and emulate their high-rolling exploits.)

I guess it's what you're comfortable with on a personal and moral level, and for me, affiliated streamers cross a line into behaviour that I can neither condone nor support. I'm not 'anti-gambling', but the streamers promote a worldview of gambling that is irresponsible, unrealistic, and a clear inducement to others to gamble.

Do some people find that watching streamers prevents them from playing personally because it vicariously scratches the gambling itch? That may well be the case, but let's not pretend that the streamers have set themselves up to provide some sort of worthwhile social service.

A streamer gets a free lunch ? for instance @dunover signs up from @goatwack affiliated link and loses £20,000 - the next month @goatwack gets paid for @dunover signing up and then a % of his losses ? then goaty goes and plays with 'his' money at say £2 a spin on bonanza whilst live streaming in an attempt to entice more people to sign up and get a big win so his video goes viral that potentially gets him more people to sign up ? Plus he gets 100% deposit matches every deposit ?

perhaps i misunderstand but that seems like a pyramid scheme of some sort ! if we all had a big win we could all become streamers ? is that the ultimate goal ?

i thought it was a screen full of diamonds on bonanza with a 10000x multiplier

i don't bother with streaming and such things so if i have totally misunderstood the role of a streamer i apologise .

 

[dunover]

A streamer gets a free lunch ? for instance @dunover signs up from @goatwack affiliated link and loses £20,000 - the next month @goatwack gets paid for @dunover signing up and then a % of his losses ? then goaty goes and plays with 'his' money at say £2 a spin on bonanza whilst live streaming in an attempt to entice more people to sign up and get a big win so his video goes viral that potentially gets him more people to sign up ? Plus he gets 100% deposit matches every deposit ?

perhaps i misunderstand but that seems like a pyramid scheme of some sort ! if we all had a big win we could all become streamers ? is that the ultimate goal ?

i thought it was a screen full of diamonds on bonanza with a 10000x multiplier

i don't bother with streaming and such things so if i have totally misunderstood the role of a streamer i apologise .

That's about the sum of it, although you can get far more than 10,000x bet on Bonanza.
Although if I'd just lost 20k and put 5k+ in Goatwack's arse pocket I doubt I'd be playing anything for £2 a spin for a long, long time..... he might though.

 

[deaconk78]

That's about the sum of it, although you can get far more than 10,000x bet on Bonanza.
Although if I'd just lost 20k and put 5k+ in Goatwack's arse pocket I doubt I'd be playing anything for £2 a spin for a long, long time..... he might though.

he'd need a new belt

it does seem a little bit off - being able to capitalise on someone else's misfortune in such a way . i was thinking that he would perhaps get a small % but 5k - wow . that is a hell of a lot of money .

I can see why there is such a fuss over it then - it's bad though even for the streamer because if the money dries up but you are now reliant upon that to feed your addiction . Ouch!

How does one go from being able to bet stupid money back down to 20p and 40p etc ?

on the subject of bonanza i was thinking more of a 10,000x multiplier rather than an overall win on the bonus game / single win on base game . Would take forever to achieve though and a screen full of diamonds with all the ways open would most likely lead to a heart attack even on a 1x

never going to become a streamer (even when my gamstop ends ) i was gutted that i lost £10 that someone gave me in the cm community thread - i'd have to give you your 5k back

 

[dunover]

in what sense is that ? A misleading statement by the developer?

couldn't give a rats ass about streamers myself but i am all for fairness and clarity across the board . You are a champion of more clarity in regards to t&c / self exclusion / licencing info etc . Let us not allow the BIG issue here to get lost under the raft of posts about streamers .

This developer stated the slots was playing in one way and in fact it is playing in another .

That's the only thing here that has genuine evidence - the rest is conjecture . It's not tin foil hat to ask questions though .

If @ChopleyIOM asks a few questions with regards to streamers that is proven to go one way or another but gives a definitive answer then surely that's all for the better ?

seems to be a you against us attitude which is a shame if the reasoning behind it all is just for better understanding .

OK, our good friend Choppers spent a considerable time there without drawing breath telling us how RTP was calculated on a slot game. 10 seconds was necessary: "The TRTP is the sum returned after all the possible RNG pool outcomes have been pulled once at a level stake, expressed as a percentage of the cost of doing so."

The term 'TRTP' should have been used as it's fixed whereas RTP is transient. Most, but not all, developers actually use the word 'theoretical' in their rules for this reason.

We know this game uses pool values as TM has already stated he's sure of it as indeed I was when seeing the OP.
We agree this does NOT affect the RTP, or randomness or outcome of the spins.
We know for complex games like this the developer uses a fixed graphical representation of the high-win results pulled from the RNG.
We know Push Gaming have already stated the above.
We know that streamers cannot influence the outcome of their play or results; to suggest otherwise is insanity.
We agree that Push Gaming need to reword one line of their rules to reflect the above, other than that no foul.

Right, that's my synopsis of where we're at so far.

Given the fact we now know the above, we are then treated to a diatribe tinged with suspicion that two players have now pulled an identical 497.5x bet spin from (what we already know to be) the fixed representation of certain wins. What a surprise. Alongside this we have the dig at the start, concealed as jest, inferring this is somehow related to streamers "but we won't go there".

Sorry, but I think the video is valid in that it demonstrated the graphics duplicating again but otherwise was intended to fan the flames here and lead the less-informed playing fraternity on a torch-and-pitchfork march.

Personally I have little time for streamers barring a handful that I respect or have met and know to be OK and it's no secret that they are self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts - they earn substantial amounts from the entertainment they provide and this funds the creation of further entertainment which means they can enjoy their hobby (or addiction) without suffering the financial consequences of the 'normal' players if they bet like that or for that length of time. I am/was never a streamer but I know how lucrative the income can be from YT or Twitch simply from posting real-play videos ex post facto.

Look, we've established some developers or more likely certain games use what TM calls 'pooling' (I'd call it 'streamlining') and most importantly that this doesn't affect the TRTP or spin outcomes at all. This could be better explained in the game rules and there's no regulation against it as it's really just a technical facet of game construction. Some may not notice it or be bothered by it (like myself) or some will take issue with it (their privilege) and not like it.

 

[lotusch]

Hello everyone.

I've been reading this thread even before I was showed the video where my win was featured.

My win wasn't actually from a stream. It was just a casual bullet I did on my own (I record all my play). I use OBS to record so that's why the overlay.

I do agree that all these identical wins are definitely weird and the fact that we posted the videos on the same day, but I can confirm that there is no foul play going on - believe me or not

I hope Push Gaming can shed some more light on the issue. I would be interested in learning more too.

You are one of the few players out there I enjoy watching m8...Keep it up!!

 

[Lemon]

I think some people must scour every game that gets released online in the hope they can find something they don't like about it, so they can then go off on a massive crusade and fight for unrelenting transparency, borne out of the fact that their interpretation of a random game differs from that of the legislative guidelines and online slot developers.

 

[goatwack]

I think some people must scour every game that gets released online in the hope they can find something they don't like about it, so they can then go off on a massive crusade and fight for unrelenting transparency, borne out of the fact that their interpretation of a random game differs from that of the legislative guidelines and online slot developers.

Perhaps some do, but in this instance the discussion was justified I feel. The other extreme viewpoint would be to allow designers to skirt around current laws and deceive customers with their product. Trust is supposed to go both ways after all!

 

[jasonuk]

We agree that Push Gaming need to reword one line of their rules to reflect the above, other than that no foul.

I can see three (all incorrect) references to randomness in the game rules - two (duplicated) statements about the behaviour of the Jam Jars, and one about triggering the Rainbow Feature. The section on incomplete games may also be questionable, but given that is standard text for slots I'm less inclined to believe that's an issue.

Sorry, but I think the video is valid in that it demonstrated the graphics duplicating again but otherwise was intended to fan the flames here and lead the less-informed playing fraternity on a torch-and-pitchfork march.

I agree with the video being over the top, but I feel that it does (in a roundabout way) bring focus to what this discussion appears to be distilling to - when does a player have a chance to win.

Consider the following four game rounds:
* Determined in advance (e.g. compensated AWPs)
* Random, with scripted results (e.g. Jammin Jars)
* Random, with scripted user interactions (e.g. Genie Jackpots, Arctic Adventure)
* True Random (e.g. Secret Of The Stones)

From a mathematical or regulatory perspective, the bottom three are all fair games of chance.
From a player or superstition perspective, it could be argued that only the bottom one is fair - your interactions (e.g. picks) influence the game, and all game elements play to their natural odds.

Ultimately that will be for each individual player to decide!


On a silly aside... the poker streamers have had problems with spoilers for a long time, will we see casino streamers suffering the same fate in the future? "Oh I've seen this spin before... 1600x ahoy!"

 

[dunover]

I can see three (all incorrect) references to randomness in the game rules - two (duplicated) statements about the behaviour of the Jam Jars, and one about triggering the Rainbow Feature. The section on incomplete games may also be questionable, but given that is standard text for slots I'm less inclined to believe that's an issue.



I agree with the video being over the top, but I feel that it does (in a roundabout way) bring focus to what this discussion appears to be distilling to - when does a player have a chance to win.

Consider the following four game rounds:
* Determined in advance (e.g. compensated AWPs)
* Random, with scripted results (e.g. Jammin Jars)
* Random, with scripted user interactions (e.g. Genie Jackpots, Arctic Adventure)
* True Random (e.g. Secret Of The Stones)

From a mathematical or regulatory perspective, the bottom three are all fair games of chance.
From a player or superstition perspective, it could be argued that only the bottom one is fair - your interactions (e.g. picks) influence the game, and all game elements play to their natural odds.

Ultimately that will be for each individual player to decide!


On a silly aside... the poker streamers have had problems with spoilers for a long time, will we see casino streamers suffering the same fate in the future? "Oh I've seen this spin before... 1600x ahoy!"

LOL....I'm still trying to figure out which of your 4 categories to place Raging Rhino in....

 

[goatwack]

We've fought for decades to win the right to Random. The moment that goes, slotting will be very uninspiring.

Although throw me a 14,000x randomigged Bonanza bone any day

 

[ChopleyIOM]

OK, our good friend Choppers spent a considerable time there without drawing breath telling us how RTP was calculated on a slot game. 10 seconds was necessary: "The TRTP is the sum returned after all the possible RNG pool outcomes have been pulled once at a level stake, expressed as a percentage of the cost of doing so."

Not everyone understands these games like we do, multiple comments have been left on my videos, I've received PMs and emails, and other communications from folks who just don't get how they can see the pre-scripted sequences of Jammin' Jars and still be watching a fair and random game in action.

It's the habit of dismissing all these concerns with your '10 second explanation' that ferments suspicion amongst the player community. My video was an attempt to explain to 'the man on the street' how Jammin' Jars can be a fair and random game, despite lazily presenting nothing more than a bunch of pre-scripted sequences, and clearly not enough of them at that.

We all had to start with our understanding of online slots somewhere, I remember when I first started playing at MG casinos, I just picked the slots that had the biggest looking numbers on the paytable, because they'll pay out more - right?

That was when I learned about variance and volatility the hard way.

We know that streamers cannot influence the outcome of their play or results; to suggest otherwise is insanity.

We agree that Push Gaming need to reword one line of their rules to reflect the above, other than that no foul.

Right, that's my synopsis of where we're at so far.

Given the fact we now know the above, we are then treated to a diatribe tinged with suspicion that two players have now pulled an identical 497.5x bet spin from (what we already know to be) the fixed representation of certain wins. What a surprise. Alongside this we have the dig at the start, concealed as jest, inferring this is somehow related to streamers "but we won't go there".

It'd be 'insanity' if this industry had never been anything other than whiter-than-white, but as you and I both know dunover, that's far from the case. I still remember the Finsoft-Spielo and Betfred debacles that played out on these very forums. (And I earned myself a temporary ban from Casinomeister for some of my comments related to the Betfred fisaco.)

As for the affiliated streamers, I don't like them very much, I've already made that clear, and yes that will come across in my videos. If I had to choose sides in this, I wouldn't be on the streamers' side of the fence.

Sorry, but I think the video is valid in that it demonstrated the graphics duplicating again but otherwise was intended to fan the flames here and lead the less-informed playing fraternity on a torch-and-pitchfork march.

You can 'matter of fact' away this topic as much as you like, 'Oh everyone knew this anyway', but the simple truth is that a lot of people genuinely thought that what they were watching unfold in Jammin' Jars were 'true' reactions, whereby the things that looked possible to them on the screen could actually be pulled from the backend if they were lucky enough.

I went to great pains in the last video to explain why I think Jammin' Jars represents unacceptably poor game design. Does it comply with the regulations? Yes. Is it shit, lazy game design? Yes.

The 'online entertainment industry' has amply demonstrated over the years that left to its own devices, without checks and balances, it can be pretty bloody shady. As players we need to have our wits about us and understand what we're getting involved with, so whilst the video wasn't intending to get folks out on a metaphorical torch-and-pitchfork march, perhaps on some level it was intended to remind folks that torches and pitchforks exist. And with good reason.

Look, we've established some developers or more likely certain games use what TM calls 'pooling' (I'd call it 'streamlining') and most importantly that this doesn't affect the TRTP or spin outcomes at all. This could be better explained in the game rules and there's no regulation against it as it's really just a technical facet of game construction. Some may not notice it or be bothered by it (like myself) or some will take issue with it (their privilege) and not like it.

I disagree. I think it's misleading and deceptive game design (and quite deliberately so), if game designers can't get the maths working 'properly' for games like this, then they just shouldn't shunt them out of the door at all IMO. As I said in the video, what Jammin' Jars does is create a total disconnect between the frontend and the backend, leaving players entirely in the dark about what the game they're playing actually is.

IMO all random games should have a very specific paragraph in their rules explaining exactly which model they run on, in the same way that compensated AWPs are now mandated by legislation to openly inform players that they will routinely offer the player a chance to undertake a 'gamble' that cannot possibly be won.

 

[goatwack]

 

[deaconk78]

I disagree. I think it's misleading and deceptive game design (and quite deliberately so), if game designers can't get the maths working 'properly' for games like this, then they just shouldn't shunt them out of the door at all IMO. As I said in the video, what Jammin' Jars does is create a total disconnect between the frontend and the backend, leaving players entirely in the dark about what the game they're playing actually is.

IMO all random games should have a very specific paragraph in their rules explaining exactly which model they run on, in the same way that compensated AWPs are now mandated by legislation to openly inform players that they will routinely offer the player to undertake a 'gamble' that cannot possibly be won.

I agree with you 100% here . If this was myself releasing a game having never done so before then we might expect a few ( A LOT) of glaring errors . we are talking about a vastly experienced outfit though . Reading between the lines i think there is an agreement by all parties (excluding the developer) that it's the law or rather lack of one that is the issue . In an industry that generates a heck of a lot of money there is no need for the lack of clarity (seems to be my word of the month!) but yet they still see fit to do such things .

it's feeding the suspicion - all publicity is good publicity apparently - not sure it works that way though in this industry . The figures may show that play's increased due to people believing 1600.15x is a common win

having said all that! imagine if there was a law stating people who used the classifieds and dating agencies had to use up to date pictures and 100% accurate descriptions of their lives - there would probably be a drop off in usage

 

[zap987]

How can any slot developer be proud of making a game that works like this? To me it pretty much says 'Making the game the correct way was too hard so we cheated'. Especially since it's never stated anywhere that not all outcomes are possible it deceives the players into thinking monster wins are possible when in fact they are not. Surely it would be entirely possible, and not that much harder, to make a game with random but weighted symbols dropping down, make the math work out to desired RTP and then just put a cap on max win to some number like 20,000x to keep liability reasonable? It wouldn't make a huge difference for players but it would be a fair way of achieving the same goal.

 

[aceking123]

Just to add & inform you guys push gaming isnt the only one that does this many other providers do the same thing, including some top providers.

No tin foil hat required to know something smells fishy from the servers sending out these results the programming just shows it to be worst.

Im damn sure disco slot from netent has scripted wins as well. & many many others including immortal romance.

 

[dunover]

I agree with you 100% here . If this
*******
The figures may show that play's increased due to people believing 1600.15x is a common win

having said all that! imagine if there was a law stating people who used the classifieds and dating agencies had to use up to date pictures and 100% accurate descriptions of their lives - there would probably be a drop off in usage

LOL...I had to laugh at that, especially one night me leaving through a pub toilet window in Haverhill back in the 1990's and then wheel spinning out of the car park after being done over by a inaccurate photo. 'Slim and 28' turned out to be 'Bloater, 40-odd with bad complexion'.

Back on topic I think some readers need an understanding of why developers take shortcuts and it's usually down to cost and practicality. Simplifying games speeds up results and animations etc. and how many grumbles do we hear on here regarding bandwidth issues and laggy spins' or slow graphics' or 'incomplete game results'?? Sometimes a compromise is necessary.

Secondly, the cost of developing complex games (like Bonanza) is huge, the constant auditing, checking, re-auditing so you can understand why games like that are patented and licensed to recover the costs. If you want a fresh supply of exciting slots and games and new developers to enter the market with their ideas then some flexibility is necessary, as long as it's within the rules (which it is in this case).

It sounds like you should be railing against the authorities who audit games and set the parameters rather than Push Gaming.

 

[brianmon]

Back on topic I think some readers need an understanding of why developers take shortcuts and it's usually down to cost and practicality. Simplifying games speeds up results and animations etc. and how many grumbles do we hear on here regarding bandwidth issues and laggy spins' or slow graphics' or 'incomplete game results'?? Sometimes a compromise is necessary.

Secondly, the cost of developing complex games (like Bonanza) is huge, the constant auditing, checking, re-auditing so you can understand why games like that are patented and licensed to recover the costs. If you want a fresh supply of exciting slots and games and new developers to enter the market with their ideas then some flexibility is necessary, as long as it's within the rules (which it is in this case).

It sounds like you should be railing against the authorities who audit games and set the parameters rather than Push Gaming.

Exactly the same amount of information would need to be sent from the server to the client - predetermined or not

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Back on topic I think some readers need an understanding of why developers take shortcuts and it's usually down to cost and practicality. Simplifying games speeds up results and animations etc. and how many grumbles do we hear on here regarding bandwidth issues and laggy spins' or slow graphics' or 'incomplete game results'?? Sometimes a compromise is necessary.

Secondly, the cost of developing complex games (like Bonanza) is huge, the constant auditing, checking, re-auditing so you can understand why games like that are patented and licensed to recover the costs. If you want a fresh supply of exciting slots and games and new developers to enter the market with their ideas then some flexibility is necessary, as long as it's within the rules (which it is in this case).

It sounds like you should be railing against the authorities who audit games and set the parameters rather than Push Gaming.

Let me just have a rummage around to try and find the world's smallest violin to play on Push Gaming's behalf.

If I take 'shortcuts' in my job, shit breaks, with real life consequences. Why do Push Gaming get a pass for Jammin' Jars?

Complaints about bandwidth issues, laggy spins, slow graphics, and incomplete game results have got absolutely sack-all to do with the amount of data that has to be sent from server to client (which remains trivial in all scenarios), and everything to do with multi-platform providers trying to run their whole shebang on a consolidated platform for the lowest possible capital outlay.

If a small operation like 3Dice can hammer out thousands upon thousands of spins at maximum speed, without fail, 24/7/365 then no other operator has an excuse for failing to do likewise IMO.

As for the second bit I bolded. Really? We should be railing against the people whose actual job it is to make sure the games we play online are working as intended?

Come into my parlour, said the spider to the fly.

 

[aceking123]

LOL...I had to laugh at that, especially one night me leaving through a pub toilet window in Haverhill back in the 1990's and then wheel spinning out of the car park after being done over by a inaccurate photo. 'Slim and 28' turned out to be 'Bloater, 40-odd with bad complexion'.

Back on topic I think some readers need an understanding of why developers take shortcuts and it's usually down to cost and practicality. Simplifying games speeds up results and animations etc. and how many grumbles do we hear on here regarding bandwidth issues and laggy spins' or slow graphics' or 'incomplete game results'?? Sometimes a compromise is necessary.

Secondly, the cost of developing complex games (like Bonanza) is huge, the constant auditing, checking, re-auditing so you can understand why games like that are patented and licensed to recover the costs. If you want a fresh supply of exciting slots and games and new developers to enter the market with their ideas then some flexibility is necessary, as long as it's within the rules (which it is in this case).

It sounds like you should be railing against the authorities who audit games and set the parameters rather than Push Gaming.

But why defend now dunover, your suggesting that software companies shouldnt have to do this?? Yes they should for everything. why? pretty easy its gambling! Theres money involved & massive amounts i couldnt care about providers but all those costs are paid back when they sell these games also the audits should be done by 4th & 5th parties which have nothing to do with gambling.
New providers should learn from other companies in regards what not to do.

As for laggy games shorting there slots so they work , thats part the reason why they shifted away from old software to html stuff im surprised that many many more players are nor asking for more questions here.

You said it far better chopley

 

[brianmon]

The arguments seem to have shifted from straw men to straw clutching

 

[dunover]

Let me just have a rummage around to try and find the world's smallest violin to play on Push Gaming's behalf.

If I take 'shortcuts' in my job, shit breaks, with real life consequences. Why do Push Gaming get a pass for Jammin' Jars?

Complaints about bandwidth issues, laggy spins, slow graphics, and incomplete game results have got absolutely sack-all to do with the amount of data that has to be sent from server to client (which remains trivial in all scenarios), and everything to do with multi-platform providers trying to run their whole shebang on a consolidated platform for the lowest possible capital outlay.

If a small operation like 3Dice can hammer out thousands upon thousands of spins at maximum speed, without fail, 24/7/365 then no other operator has an excuse for failing to do likewise IMO.

As for the second bit I bolded. Really? We should be railing against the people whose actual job it is to make sure the games we play online are working as intended?

Come into my parlour, said the spider to the fly.

It IS working as they intended - exactly as intended. Even TM has told you that.

And speaking of spider and fly, you then make a complete contradiction by citing the multi-platforms and in the next breath comparing it with a unitary platform and provider, therefore answering your own point (and mine to some extent.)

Ignoring player retention reasons, forgotten the 10GB Viper packets from the old MG casinos? Forgotten why 3Dice did the same once before flash and html5 games became quicker and more reliable? Have you any idea how busy the MP servers are compared to 3Dice?

Oh, that brings me to the most colossal mess-up you've made so far and I was trying to avoid this Donald believe it or not! You're concerned about regulating the providers, transparency et al and then on the other hand you regularly deposit money at your paragon of virtue 3Dice which technically shouldn't be taking deposits from the UK or IOM as they're not licensed to. Ahem! *cough* splutter. So there's you playing money at an unregulated casino on software not regulated, licensed or audited in these islands which really doesn't set a good example to newbies here who anywhere else than 3Dice would likely be scammed doing exactly that.
But a provider doing something that's ENTIRELY under license within the rules and regulations is so terribly wrong huh? Hoisted on your own petard I'm afraid.

Perhaps instead of trying to convince people in this thread you should report this to the UKGC if you really believe it's that wrong, negligent or immoral.

 

[colinsunderland]

Out of interest, how do the software providers get paid for the games?
Do they get a fixed license fee, a fixed fee per spin or a percentage of any customer losses or something like that?

 

[zap987]

Back on topic I think some readers need an understanding of why developers take shortcuts and it's usually down to cost and practicality. Simplifying games speeds up results and animations etc. and how many grumbles do we hear on here regarding bandwidth issues and laggy spins' or slow graphics' or 'incomplete game results'?? Sometimes a compromise is necessary.

Why would you make an argument about technical details when you clearly don't know much about it? The amount of bandwith used is going to be fairly insignificant in both cases, no matter how the results are calculated, all animations will be done pretty much the same way clientside and all that will be sent is a small bunch of numbers. If graphics are slow they'd be slow either way, it's not like the game server stores movies, only a small amount of numbers. I'd imagine the vast majority of slow or laggy spins are caused by the integrations between the game provider and the casino server with the remaining issues being with the players connection. You can see this very clearly on for example Bonanza where some casinos will always have the large delay on that last non-winning dropdown, while others don't really have any noticeable delay.

Secondly, the cost of developing complex games (like Bonanza) is huge, the constant auditing, checking, re-auditing so you can understand why games like that are patented and licensed to recover the costs. If you want a fresh supply of exciting slots and games and new developers to enter the market with their ideas then some flexibility is necessary, as long as it's within the rules (which it is in this case).

Definitely true, but if you're going to invest a lot of money into building something, doesn't it make sense to go for high quality all the way through instead of trying to cut corners and hoping noone will notice? We can only hope the game providers that do it right get more play and quality wins in the end.

 

[dunover]

Out of interest, how do the software providers get paid for the games?
Do they get a fixed license fee, a fixed fee per spin or a percentage of any customer losses or something like that?

I believe it's a small percentage of turnover related to cost per spin regardless of wins and losses, i.e. usage of the game. I'm not aware of developers sharing in profits per se a game makes, but you never know. Maybe a casino rep could enlighten us?

 

[dunover]

Why would you make an argument about technical details when you clearly don't know much about it? The amount of bandwith used is going to be fairly insignificant in both cases, no matter how the results are calculated, all animations will be done pretty much the same way clientside and all that will be sent is a small bunch of numbers. If graphics are slow they'd be slow either way, it's not like the game server stores movies, only a small amount of numbers. I'd imagine the vast majority of slow or laggy spins are caused by the integrations between the game provider and the casino server with the remaining issues being with the players connection. You can see this very clearly on for example Bonanza where some casinos will always have the large delay on that last non-winning dropdown, while others don't really have any noticeable delay.



Definitely true, but if you're going to invest a lot of money into building something, doesn't it make sense to go for high quality all the way through instead of trying to cut corners and hoping noone will notice? We can only hope the game providers that do it right get more play and quality wins in the end.

Please add the context of this thread to your consideration here - the issue is that the result is sent to your PC in one instruction and plays out ONE graphical representation for multiple actions within the same spin. Some on here are saying it should be a random movement each time in the jars and tiles they affect (which yes, the rules do imply) and you are saying it would run just as quick and issue-free if the server was sending random movement 1, rendering the graphics on the player PC, movement 2, rendering the graphics again on the player PC and so-on up to 8 or 9 times? There would no pitfalls with that? No reduction in speed?

 

[zap987]

Please add the context of this thread to your consideration here - the issue is that the result is sent to your PC in one instruction and plays out ONE graphical representation for multiple actions within the same spin. Some on here are saying it should be a random movement each time in the jars and tiles they affect (which yes, the rules do imply) and you are saying it would run just as quick and issue-free if the server was sending random movement 1, rendering the graphics on the player PC, movement 2, rendering the graphics again on the player PC and so-on up to 8 or 9 times? There would no pitfalls with that? No reduction in speed?

Pretty sure it was confirmed some time ago that's how Bonanza does it, each drop down it asks for new tiles from the server and it doesn't slow it down. It only slows down when the spin is done and the game server needs to communicate with the casino server to finish the spin. There is also plenty of time for the server to send the next result while the graphics are showing. That being said, there is no requirement for that to happen, the game server could easily generate the full sequence before sending it with random tiles and movements and then send the whole, freshly generated sequence as one packet. The difficulty in making a game like this is 0% in the technical part, it's a non-argument. The difference is still in the fact that every result would be possible instead of a pick out of a hat of predetermined results which makes the math model a lot harder to design. The rendering of the graphics takes as long as it takes because of the amount of animations and timings they choose to put in to make it look nice, it would be no problem at all for them to speed that up to faster than you can see, just pick any Thunderkick game and quickspin? It's not like slot games have superadvanced graphics

 

[dionysus]

I'm wondering/guessing whether Tiki fruits (Red Tiger) uses set pre-scripted/ a limited set of results...the game is similar in fashion.
My last bonus, my balance refreshed to the new total before I'd even hit the start free spins button. ...now that could be because it totalled the bundled free spins or because it's a scripted result. I'm just more curious than anything and whether we'll see any similar results from this game as well.

 

[dionysus]

By the way, to the above, I really don't care either way - I view it all as eye candy - I'm well awarer a result is determined from the point of spin, and regarding Jammi' Jars, I dont give a toss - twas curiosity

always a bummer though, knowing the result of a bonus/fs before its even played out (or this case, even begun) - takes the fun out of it.

 

[dunover]

Exactly the same amount of information would need to be sent from the server to the client - predetermined or not

So say you have 8 or 9 separate random move server-client instructions each with their own graphic representation in a non-predetermined bonus spin, this is the same amount of information as one single instruction played out on a fixed graphic sequence?

 

[dunover]

I'm wondering/guessing whether Tiki fruits (Red Tiger) uses set pre-scripted/ a limited set of results...the game is similar in fashion.
My last bonus, my balance refreshed to the new total before I'd even hit the start free spins button. ...now that could be because it totalled the bundled free spins or because it's a scripted result. I'm just more curious than anything and whether we'll see any similar results from this game as well.

Having played it quite a bit in demo when reviewing it I would say your guess is correct. It cannot be just Push that employ this method.

 

[zap987]

Pretty much all Red Tiger games seems to be done this way or something similar which is why I also never play them.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

always a bummer though, knowing the result of a bonus/fs before its even played out (or this case, even begun) - takes the fun out of it.

It isn't though, if you watch the last video I posted to my channel, I demonstrate with two real money free spins rounds on 3Dice's slots how each and every spin in a free spins round is a random and independent event, with no pre-determination at all.

When you're on 5 out of 10 free spins in a bonus round, the 3Dice server doesn't know how the last 5 spins will play out anymore than you do.

 

[zap987]

So say you have 8 or 9 separate random move server-client instructions each with their own graphic representation in a non-predetermined bonus spin, this is the same amount of information as one single instruction played out on a fixed graphic sequence?

Essentially, yes. Anything to do with graphics is already in your browser, all the symbol graphics and animations you will ever see are downloaded before you even start the game. All that is sent on any spin is a sequence of numbers and then the game client in your browser will handle everything to display the game. I did a spin in fun mode to get the actual data sent, this is what a spin looks like for the game server with 1 win and dropdown:

{"stats":{"b":499844,"fm":100000,"currency":"EUR","tokens":0,"realityCheck":{"result":0,"sessionMinutes":1,"lossLimit":null,"winSum":0,"resetedResult":0,"hardErrors":false,"totalSessionMinutes":1,"sessionLimitSeconds":null,"betSum":0,"status":"ok"}},"generations":[{"runningTotal":0,"movedSymbols":[[{"x":1,"y":0},{"x":1,"y":0},{"x":1,"y":0},{"x":1,"y":0},{"x":1,"y":0},{"x":1,"y":0},{"x":1,"y":0},{"x":1,"y":0}],[{"x":2,"y":0},{"x":2,"y":0},{"x":2,"y":0},{"x":2,"y":0},{"x":2,"y":0},{"x":2,"y":0},{"x":2,"y":0},{"x":2,"y":0}],[{"x":3,"y":0},{"x":3,"y":0},{"x":3,"y":0},{"x":3,"y":0},{"x":3,"y":0},{"x":3,"y":0},{"x":3,"y":0},{"x":3,"y":0}],[{"x":4,"y":0},{"x":4,"y":0},{"x":4,"y":0},{"x":4,"y":0},{"x":4,"y":0},{"x":4,"y":0},{"x":4,"y":0},{"x":4,"y":0}],[{"x":5,"y":0},{"x":5,"y":0},{"x":5,"y":0},{"x":5,"y":0},{"x":5,"y":0},{"x":5,"y":0},{"x":5,"y":0},{"x":5,"y":0}],[{"x":6,"y":0},{"x":6,"y":0},{"x":6,"y":0},{"x":6,"y":0},{"x":6,"y":0},{"x":6,"y":0},{"x":6,"y":0},{"x":6,"y":0}],[{"x":7,"y":0},{"x":7,"y":0},{"x":7,"y":0},{"x":7,"y":0},{"x":7,"y":0},{"x":7,"y":0},{"x":7,"y":0},{"x":7,"y":0}],[{"x":8,"y":0},{"x":8,"y":0},{"x":8,"y":0},{"x":8,"y":0},{"x":8,"y":0},{"x":8,"y":0},{"x":8,"y":0},{"x":8,"y":0}]],"removedSymbols":[],"multipliers":[[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0]],"winnings":[["normal",0,4,[{"x":2,"y":4},{"x":3,"y":4},{"x":3,"y":5},{"x":4,"y":5},{"x":4,"y":6}],"L3",1]],"symbols":[["M2","M1","H","L2","L3","L3","L3","L1"],["M2","L2","H","L3","M1","H","L2","H"],["L1","H","H","L3","L3","L1","L3","L2"],["M2","L1","L1","H","L3","L3","M2","L3"],["M1","H","L3","L2","M1","H","L1","M2"],["M2","L2","M2","M2","L2","L1","M2","H"],["M2","L2","L1","L3","L3","M1","L2","L3"],["H","M1","L2","M2","M1","M1","L2","L3"]]},{"runningTotal":4,"movedSymbols":[[{},{},{},{},{},{},{},{}],[{"x":2,"y":0},{"x":2,"y":1},{"x":2,"y":2},{"x":2,"y":3},{},{},{},{}],[{"x":3,"y":0},{"x":3,"y":0},{"x":3,"y":1},{"x":3,"y":2},{"x":3,"y":3},{},{},{}],[{"x":4,"y":0},{"x":4,"y":0},{"x":4,"y":1},{"x":4,"y":2},{"x":4,"y":3},{"x":4,"y":4},{},{}],[{},{},{},{},{},{},{},{}],[{},{},{},{},{},{},{},{}],[{},{},{},{},{},{},{},{}],[{},{},{},{},{},{},{},{}]],"removedSymbols":[{"x":2,"y":4},{"x":3,"y":4},{"x":3,"y":5},{"x":4,"y":5},{"x":4,"y":6}],"multipliers":[[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0]],"winnings":[],"symbols":[["M2","M1","H","L2","L3","L3","L3","L1"],["M2","M2","L2","H","M1","H","L2","H"],["L1","L1","L1","H","H","L1","L3","L2"],["L2","H","M2","L1","L1","H","M2","L3"],["M1","H","L3","L2","M1","H","L1","M2"],["M2","L2","M2","M2","L2","L1","M2","H"],["M2","L2","L1","L3","L3","M1","L2","L3"],["H","M1","L2","M2","M1","M1","L2","L3"]]}],"ended":true,"roundType":"demo","win":4,"ba":40}

Sure there is a little bit of overhead that gets added to each spin result, but the amount of data sent is still tiny. I also did a spin on Bonanza and sure enough, it does a new request for each dropdown and while they use a slightly different format, the amount of data is similar:
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><GDMRESPONSE><OGS_RC>0</OGS_RC><SUCCESS>true</SUCCESS><PAYLOAD><![CDATA[&MSGID=BET&B=100750&VER=2.6.27-2.6.12-2.6.3-2.5.2526-2545-4&RID=6&NRID=0&BPR=25&RB=6&RS=140|36|117|85|1|137|&TW=1750&WC=10|0|0|&WS=0;200;2;1;0;2;-1;-1;|1;200;2;6;0;2;-1;-1;|2;200;2;1;0;3;-1;-1;|3;200;2;6;0;3;-1;-1;|4;200;2;1;0;4;-1;-1;|5;200;2;6;0;4;-1;-1;|6;200;2;1;0;6;-1;-1;|7;200;2;6;0;6;-1;-1;|8;75;0;6;1;-1;-1;-1;|9;75;0;6;6;-1;-1;-1;|&WM=1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|&CW=1750&NFG=1&FGT=1&TFG=1&CFGG=0&FGTW=0&IFG=0&FID=1|&MUL=1&SUB=1&GSD=RSID~1#RTW~1750#CS~0;9;6;7#SF~3;4;3;5;4;3&GA=0&AB=99000&FRBAL=0&SID=Free:gq1ko9nkq5nbscdbjurc0phvlfo&]]></PAYLOAD></GDMRESPONSE>

Small win, dropdown happens:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><GDMRESPONSE><OGS_RC>0</OGS_RC><SUCCESS>true</SUCCESS><PAYLOAD><![CDATA[&MSGID=FREE_GAME&B=100750&VER=2.6.27-2.6.12-2.6.3-2.5.2526-2545-4&RID=6&NRID=0&BPR=25&RB=6&RS=47|169|141|22|70|83|&TW=1750&WC=0|0|0|&IFG=1&MUL=1&SUB=0&GSD=RSID~1#RTW~1750#CS~7;7;9;8#SF~3;4;3;5;4;3&GA=1&AB=100750&FRBAL=0&SID=Free:gq1ko9nkq5nbscdbjurc0phvlfo&]]></PAYLOAD></GDMRESPONSE>

 

[dunover]

Essentially, yes.
":[[{"x":1,"y":0},{"x":1,"y":0},{"x":1,"y":0},{"x":1,"y":0},{"x":1,"y":0},{"x":1,"y":0},{"x":1,"y":0},{"x":1,"y":0}],[{"x":2,"y":0},{"x":2,"y":0},{"x":2,"y":0},{"x":2,"y":0},{"x":2,"y":0},{"x":2,"y":0},{"x":2,"y":0},{"x":2,"y":0}],[{"x":3,"y":0},{"x":3,"y":0},{"x":3,"y":0},{"x":3,"y":0},{"x":3,"y":0},{"x":3,"y":0},{"x":3,"y":0},{"x":3,"y":0}],[{"x":4,"y":0},{"x":4,"y":0},{"x":4,"y":0},{"x":4,"y":0},{"x":4,"y":0},{"x":4,"y":0},{"x":4,"y":0},{"x":4,"y":0}],[{"x":5,"y":0},{"x":5,"y":0},{"x":5,"y":0},{"x":5,"y":0},{"x":5,"y":0},{"x":5,"y":0},{"x":5,"y":0},{"x":5,"y":0}],[{"x":6,"y":0},{"x":6,"y":0},{"x":6,"y":0},{"x":6,"y":0},{"x":6,"y":0},{"x":6,"y":0},{"x":6,"y":0},{"x":6,"y":0}],[{"x":7,"y":0},{"x":7,"y":0},{"x":7,"y":0},{"x":7,"y":0},{"x":7,"y":0},{"x":7,"y":0},{"x":7,"y":0},{"x":7,"y":0}],[{"x":8,"y":0},{"x":8,"y":0},{"x":8,"y":0},{"x":8,"y":0},{"x":8,"y":0},{"x":8,"y":0},{"x":8,"y":0},{"x":8,"y":0}]],"removedSymbols":[],"multipliers":[[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0]],"winnings":[["normal",0,4,[{"x":2,"y":4},{"x":3,"y":4},{"x":3,"y":5},{"x":4,"y":5},{"x":4,"y":6}],"L3",1]],"symbols":[["M2","M1","H","L2","L3","L3","L3","L1"],["M2","L2","H","L3","M1","H","L2","H"],["L1","H","H","L3","L3","L1","L3","L2"],["M2","L1","L1","H","L3","L3","M2","L3"],["M1","H","L3","L2","M1","H","L1","M2"],["M2","L2","M2","M2","L2","L1","M2","H"],["M2","L2","L1","L3","L3","M1","L2","L3"],["H","M1","L2","M2","M1","M1","L2","L3"]]},{"runningTotal":4,"movedSymbols":[[{},{},{},{},{},{},{},{}],[{"x":2,"y":0},{"x":2,"y":1},{"x":2,"y":2},{"x":2,"y":3},{},{},{},{}],[{"x":3,"y":0},{"x":3,"y":0},{"x":3,"y":1},{"x":3,"y":2},{"x":3,"y":3},{},{},{}],[{"x":4,"y":0},{"x":4,"y":0},{"x":4,"y":1},{"x":4,"y":2},{"x":4,"y":3},{"x":4,"y":4},{},{}],[{},{},{},{},{},{},{},{}],[{},{},{},{},{},{},{},{}],[{},{},{},{},{},{},{},{}],[{},{},{},{},{},{},{},{}]],"removedSymbols":[{"x":2,"y":4},{"x":3,"y":4},{"x":3,"y":5},{"x":4,"y":5},{"x":4,"y":6}],"multipliers":[[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
>

Bloody hell, looks like me nan's old wallpaper!

 

[dionysus]

It isn't though, if you watch the last video I posted to my channel, I demonstrate with two real money free spins rounds on 3Dice's slots how each and every spin in a free spins round is a random and independent event, with no pre-determination at all.

When you're on 5 out of 10 free spins in a bonus round, the 3Dice server doesn't know how the last 5 spins will play out anymore than you do.

well, sorry, but this one did - it added the bonus to the total - others commented on it how it did the same for them

 

[Playford7]

We've fought for decades to win the right to Random. The moment that goes, slotting will be very uninspiring.

Although throw me a 14,000x randomigged Bonanza bone any day

Stream at Leo and bang!... you will be hooked up my learned friend ;-)

 

[PMKFRUITPRO]

Pretty sure it was confirmed some time ago that's how Bonanza does it, each drop down it asks for new tiles from the server and it doesn't slow it down. It only slows down when the spin is done and the game server needs to communicate with the casino server to finish the spin. There is also plenty of time for the server to send the next result while the graphics are showing. That being said, there is no requirement for that to happen, the game server could easily generate the full sequence before sending it with random tiles and movements and then send the whole, freshly generated sequence as one packet. The difficulty in making a game like this is 0% in the technical part, it's a non-argument. The difference is still in the fact that every result would be possible instead of a pick out of a hat of predetermined results which makes the math model a lot harder to design. The rendering of the graphics takes as long as it takes because of the amount of animations and timings they choose to put in to make it look nice, it would be no problem at all for them to speed that up to faster than you can see, just pick any Thunderkick game and quickspin? It's not like slot games have superadvanced graphics

Mmmmmmmm

If you make a deposit whilst bonanza is cascading, the balance is updated to the end result of that cascade before it’s even finished. Thus suggesting that each cascade isn’t a random request. If that makes sense!!

Certainly on sky Vegas anyway.

Not tried it on the bonus yet tho.

 

[goatwack]

LOL...I had to laugh at that, especially one night me leaving through a pub toilet window in Haverhill back in the 1990's and then wheel spinning out of the car park after being done over by a inaccurate photo. 'Slim and 28' turned out to be 'Bloater, 40-odd with bad complexion'.

Back on topic I think some readers need an understanding of why developers take shortcuts and it's usually down to cost and practicality. Simplifying games speeds up results and animations etc. and how many grumbles do we hear on here regarding bandwidth issues and laggy spins' or slow graphics' or 'incomplete game results'?? Sometimes a compromise is necessary.

Secondly, the cost of developing complex games (like Bonanza) is huge, the constant auditing, checking, re-auditing so you can understand why games like that are patented and licensed to recover the costs. If you want a fresh supply of exciting slots and games and new developers to enter the market with their ideas then some flexibility is necessary, as long as it's within the rules (which it is in this case).

It sounds like you should be railing against the authorities who audit games and set the parameters rather than Push Gaming.

She told me she was working late that night. Gonna have to have a chat with her about this

 

[deaconk78]

She told me she was working late that night. Gonna have to have a chat with her about this

not sure if this is allowed but if you search for 'aw*ke dating' you might find the dating site for this thread - Aw*ke Dating is the place to meet someone who shares your ‘socially inconvenient’ understandings and truth seeking ethos. Aw*ke Dating was founded by the ***** family- to provide those with ‘socially inconvenient’ understandings and awareness the opportunity to meet at a platform just for them.

dating for the online slotting community

 

[trancemonkey]

Perhaps some do, but in this instance the discussion was justified I feel. The other extreme viewpoint would be to allow designers to skirt around current laws and deceive customers with their product. Trust is supposed to go both ways after all!

The discussion was indeed justified... But now we know the reasons behind the issue at hand, posting more videos proving it and then using those to claim something different is counter-productive.

 

[trancemonkey]

How can any slot developer be proud of making a game that works like this? To me it pretty much says 'Making the game the correct way was too hard so we cheated'. Especially since it's never stated anywhere that not all outcomes are possible it deceives the players into thinking monster wins are possible when in fact they are not. Surely it would be entirely possible, and not that much harder, to make a game with random but weighted symbols dropping down, make the math work out to desired RTP and then just put a cap on max win to some number like 20,000x to keep liability reasonable? It wouldn't make a huge difference for players but it would be a fair way of achieving the same goal.

Feel free to try and do it .. and remember you don't want too many losing spins. You need to worry about win frequency, payloading (i.e how often you get wins of certain sizes, etc.) so that the game feels good to play.

It's not "lazy" - it's only lazy if you don't understand the constraints.

Can it be done randomly... Probably yes. Can it be done that way and made to feel like a good game to play? Probably not.

Did Push massively underestimate their pool of results? Maybe...

But as I've said what I think Push are guilty of (and the ONLY thing they are guilty of) is misrepresentation of the game in the rules.

 

[Balthazar]

Did Push massively underestimate their pool of results? Maybe...

TBH this is true only in a context where some players are recording their whole sessions and others are comparing the results. Just 2 years ago no one would have never noticed.

 

[kretz1]

remove yourselfs push gaming

 

[trancemonkey]

TBH this is true only in a context where some players are recording their whole sessions and others are comparing the results. Just 2 years ago no one would have never noticed.

Exactly... That's why I said a maybe. I could go in to detail about how old Barcrest games did maths which would fry people's brains... Totally legal but was not the way most people would do them.

There is NOTHING wrong with how Push Gaming have done the game. Without streamers no one would likely be any the wiser...

As I've said all along the only thing they could arguably be truly guilty of is misrepresentation in the help screens. And honestly I still think that's minor.

99.9% of players don't read forums or watch streamers. We are a vocal minority and we should call our wrongdoings do in the grand scheme of things this is a non-story once you know the truth.

I bet if people looked hard enough they could find the same outcomes of Tiki Fruits and Reactoonz if they work the same way which i would be surprised if they didn't.

 

[Siohmy]

But as I've said what I think Push are guilty of (and the ONLY thing they are guilty of) is misrepresentation of the game in the rules.

Hi, have been a long time member of the site but I think this may be my first post.

I’d argue that their misrepresentation of the slot, whilst the primary thing, is a barely legal offence. Obviously the key piece of information is the quite clearly incorrect use of the word random when describing the Jar mechanics. I’d argue this is fraud I might add.

What seems to have been less discussed and from my perspective, an equally valid issue is the lack of any acknowledgement on screen that 20,000x is the max pay. Just how are we meant to know that?

They have done everything to make the player believe that all is random and that, however unlikely, anything can happen. All dressed up in a nice RTP hitting, RNG venerating bow.

It is no good arguing how likely a life changing win is going to happen if you are given the perception it can that is unacceptable.

Put it this way, if you enetered the Lotto knowing millions put £2 in and believing you could win millions, how likely are you to play if it was revealed that the jackpot was £40,000? It ok though as we’ll still pay out 50% of what we take in to meet RTP.

The machanics are one thing and to be honest I don’t really care too much how they are derived. Putting slots like this out where events clearly implied cannot happen coupled with false wording which backs this up is, once again, pretty much fraud.

 

[Siohmy]

Incidentally, quite why they couldn’t have gone down the line similar to Moon Princess where the cascade ends when a jar hits 20x or something similar which would help managing players expectations I do not know. Well I have an idea but I’ve ranted enough.