Jammin Jars

[trancemonkey]

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.

It clearly isn't fraud. Also there is no legal requirement to state the maximum prize. And if you look in the paytable it's quite clear what the maximum pay is for a large cluster of the top symbol so why would you expect it to be more than that, even if it is.

 

[trancemonkey]

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.

And what is your expectation... A full grid of top symbol at each multiplier? Should they explicitly state this is not possible if it isn't? If not, why should Push state the maximum prize.

Do you know ever possible combination of reel stops on any given slot game? What if certain multiple fruit combinationa were not possible... Should that me explicitly stated?

There are also games where theoretically you could get a full screen of wilds on every free game. Should they be forced to state the chances of that happening?

Where do you draw the line?

 

[Siohmy]

It clearly isn't fraud. Also there is no legal requirement to state the maximum prize. And if you look in the paytable it's quite clear what the maximum pay is for a large cluster of the top symbol so why would you expect it to be more than that, even if it is.

What it shows me is that it is not possible to get a cluster of 25 strawberries including two 5x jars and a 10x one. Without any indication of a maximum pay, how am I meant to know that?

 

[trancemonkey]

What it shows me is that it is not possible to get a cluster of 25 strawberries including two 5x jars and a 10x one. Without any indication of a maximum pay, how am I meant to know that?

How do you know what the maximum win on Reactoonz is? Or the maximum on Bonanza. Or Donuts. What's the maximum win on most games with open ended free games or features.

You don't know do you?

So what is the difference here?

 

[Siohmy]

And what is your expectation... A full grid of top symbol at each multiplier? Should they explicitly state this is not possible if it isn't? If not, why should Push state the maximum prize.

Do you know ever possible combination of reel stops on any given slot game? What if certain multiple fruit combinationa were not possible... Should that me explicitly stated?

There are also games where theoretically you could get a full screen of wilds on every free game. Should they be forced to state the chances of that happening?

Where do you draw the line?

Again, this comes down to at least letting the player know what is possible as amounts to the maximum win. To be honest there are a few slots out there who are not publishing known maximums. I am not an expert so correct me if I’m wrong but only BTG can really push out slots with no max pay as they do not know for sure what that is.

Microgaming have a number of slots which could in theory throw full wild screen after full wild screen but do state the maximum win possible.

 

[trancemonkey]

Most slots don't publish the maximum. Only really MG do this. Maybe Playtech too.

 

[Siohmy]

How do you know what the maximum win on Reactoonz is? Or the maximum on Bonanza. Or Donuts. What's the maximum win on most games with open ended free games or features.

You don't know do you?

So what is the difference here?

I am not saying other slots may not fall into this category. It’s unfortunate a poorly designed slot, at least from a back end standpoint, has brought everyone’s attention to it. BTG have gone on record as saying every free spin in Bonanza is independent. That being true, that can rightfully claim that the free spins can go on indefinitely. I’d suspect Donuts to be the same although the number of winning spins in general is far lower. Cannot comment on Reactoonz but that does have a finite run until the feature is forced to end. The key with that one I guess is whether it’s possible to have a full pink screen with the garantuon(sp?)

 

[dunover]

Most slots don't publish the maximum. Only really MG do this. Maybe Playtech too.

Quickspin and Play'n Go scream it on their intro screens nowadays 'WIN UP TO 5000X BET!' for example. The only problem with this is that you are left to imagine how and when that is possible, often having to read detailed rules to work out how it could be constructed, then how unlikely it is.

For example Netent's Berryburst:

"Win up to 6000x bet IF one reel of Wilds drops with 4 reels of strawbs or whatever, then IF next spin reel 2 drops in with 3 reels of strawbs, then IF next spin the 3rd. Wild reel drops...….etc. etc....."

It's pretty pointless typing reams of crap above the understanding of most players, about one single sequence which could possibly occur once each time Gibraltar wins the World Cup.

 

[Siohmy]

To be honest I quite like Jammin' Jars for as much as I've played it (not much). My main concern is, if left unchecked, how far this sort of thing can go. Are we saying as long as a slot hits %age and is proven to be fundamentally random then no other rules need apply? There was a time in Vegas where the slots could not present an event which did not reflect the true odds. Admittedly this was more in the age of mechanical slots but if we move too far away from this then who knows where the misrepresentation can go.

At the end of the day, even the Vegas slots have countless jackpot wheels where the odds of hitting the jackpot are clearly not the 1 in 30/40 whatever, shown. It is however possible to actually hit it.

 

[goatwack]

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.

I agree but I saw it as an opinion-piece and fan- project (Chopley's a BIG fan ) and just a small insight into it

Some might still say it smacks to high heaven, others will have been appeased

But when companies throw out statements like 'Unlimited multiplier' and stick to it, it's easy to take PR spin with a pinch of salt

 

[ChopleyIOM]

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.

Either you haven't watched the videos, in which case you're misinformed, or you have watched the videos and you're wilfully misrepresenting what I actually said.

The final video in particular makes it crystal clear that the issue here is with Push Gaming's game design and not putting nearly enough possible results into the pool.

Yes I made a few sarcastic throwaway comments but at no point did I claim streamers were playing a different version of the game and/or in cahoots with the casinos or software provider.

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.

There's no 'arguably' about it, the rules are inaccurate and misleading, and give players every reason to believe that anything is possible when they're watching the cascades and the jam jars moving around, which we have established is 100% not the case.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

It clearly isn't fraud. Also there is no legal requirement to state the maximum prize. And if you look in the paytable it's quite clear what the maximum pay is for a large cluster of the top symbol so why would you expect it to be more than that, even if it is.

Two points here:

1) The constant assertions by some folks that this is OK because there's 'no legal requirement' or 'regulatory mandate' for games to be designed any other way is increasingly coming across as shifty and evasive. There are many things that aren't against the law or not in breach of any rules, but are still dubious and morally questionable. Simply saying, 'Well it's not against the law' as a defence is, frankly, very weak at best.

It's not against the law for me to go down the pub, impress some random lass with my awesome fruit machine playing skills, and shag the night away with her before returning in the morning and instructing Mrs Chopley to get my breakfast made whilst washing my knob in the sink. It still makes me a lowlife cheating bastard though.

2) As for the paytable point, as I note in my last video, the paytable for this game is, in essence, a complete irrelevance. For starters the whole game is predicated on reactions, cascades and multipliers, and the movement of the jam jars is specifically and inaccurately described as being 'random', as such, it is entirely reasonable for players to conclude that the sky is the limit if they get lucky enough, and certainly not constrained by the pay for the biggest cluster of the top paying symbols.

Do you know ever possible combination of reel stops on any given slot game? What if certain multiple fruit combinationa were not possible... Should that me explicitly stated?

If something looks like it should be possible, then it should be possible. If it isn't, the rules should state as much, you've said yourself many times that you wouldn't put stacked wilds on a reel where it was impossible for stacked wilds to land.

And yes, when I'm playing, for example, Arctic Adventure, I know that every single possible combination for every single reel is achievable on every single spin.

If certain winning lines were 'blocked' in certain situations, then I'd sure as hell call foul.

 

[dionysus]

Is it just me...or?
At 24 pages, everyone has been thoroughly informed and the whys thoroughly explained, the rep has responded, players have expressed and agreed what should be done going forward regarding wording/semantics, nearly everyone is in agreement, and the provider has been made fully aware.
At this point, isnt it just banging on?

 

[trancemonkey]

Two points here:

1) The constant assertions by some folks that this is OK because there's 'no legal requirement' or 'regulatory mandate' for games to be designed any other way is increasingly coming across as shifty and evasive. There are many things aren't against the law or not in breach of any rules, but are still dubious and morally questionable. Simply saying, 'Well it's not against the law' as a defence is, frankly, very weak at best.

It's not against the law for me to go down the pub, impress some random lass with my awesome fruit machine playing skills, and shag the night away with her before returning in the morning and instructing Mrs Chopley to get my breakfast made whilst washing my knob in the sink. It still makes me a lowlife cheating bastard though.

2) As for the paytable point, as I note in my last video, the paytable for this game is, in essence, a complete irrelevance. For starters the whole game is predicated on reactions, cascades and multipliers, and the movement of the jam jars is specifically and inaccurately described as being 'random', as such, it is entirely reasonable for players to conclude that the sky is the limit if they get lucky enough, and certainly not constrained by the pay for the biggest cluster of the top paying symbols.



If something looks like it should be possible, then it should be possible. If it isn't, the rules should state as much, you've said yourself many times that you wouldn't put stacked wilds on a reel where it was impossible for stacked wilds to land.

And yes, when I'm playing, for example, Arctic Adventure, I know that every single possible combination for every single reel is achievable on every single spin.

If certain winning lines were 'blocked' in certain situations, then I'd sure as hell call foul.

So should I state on my latest game that it is not possible to get a line of Five Wilds and a feature in the same spin? And if not, why not? For all you know that might be possible. It isn't... But how would you know every single stop position of every single reelband?

And also we have already agreed multiple times that their rules page is misleading and should change. We've also agreed on how the game works. So we don't need to go over that.

I do have to take umbrage with you though... The only reason you see it as shifty and evasive is because for some reason you think it's wrong. I on the other hand have no issue with how Push Gaming have made the game. I think they should have had a bigger pool and worded the rules better though.

We have a comprehensive set of rules to work with. Whether you agree or disagree with them is your decision. But I'm afraid that that has no bearing on this argument. What they did was perfectly legal and fair (except the help pages).

Everything else is just a matter of opinion.

 

[PMKFRUITPRO]

Weren’t you involved in that dreadful centurion game Trance?

They have full stacks of the top symbol. Are you saying a full screen of those is available in the base game?

 

[PMKFRUITPRO]

The trouble with our friend chop is that once he gets his teeth into something he won’t let it go. Especially if he doesn’t agree with it.

Nobody really cares how the game is coded and it’s no different to a load of others out there. As long as it’s fair and makes long term %age nobody gives a f**k.

If you don’t like it then don’t play it.

 

[trancemonkey]

Weren’t you involved in that dreadful centurion game Trance?

They have full stacks of the top symbol. Are you saying a full screen of those is available in the base game?

I wasn't no .. that was the other producer but yes it is possible. Unlikely but possible.

 

[goatwack]

This thread has actually left me with much to mull over.

That I should have stocked up on popcorn.....

The un-erasable mental image of Chopley washing his shlong in the sink after a night of Fruity-inspired carnal passion

That modern slot design is more bent than Frankie Howard in a tutu & feather boa

 

[deaconk78]

This thread has actually left me with much to mull over.

That I should have stocked up on popcorn.....

The un-erasable mental image of Chopley washing his shlong in the sink after a night of Fruity-inspired carnal passion

That modern slot design is more bent than Frankie Howard in a tutu & feather boa

i discovered a dating agency for conspiracy theorists so i am more than happy with the way the thread is going

 

[goatwack]

i discovered a dating agency for conspiracy theorists so i am more than happy with the way the thread is going

You doing anything tonight?

 

[ChopleyIOM]

The trouble with our friend chop is that once he gets his teeth into something he won’t let it go. Especially if he doesn’t agree with it.

Nobody really cares how the game is coded and it’s no different to a load of others out there. As long as it’s fair and makes long term %age nobody gives a f**k.

If you don’t like it then don’t play it.

I don't like it and I won't play it for real money, but I also won't stop debating the game and its design with others for as long as the debate is running - this stuff matters.

By all accounts everyone agrees at the very least that the rules for Jammin' Jars are (delete as appropriate) inaccurate/misleading/deceitful, so Push Gaming should change the rulesheet ASAP.

I'm interested to understand how you have concluded that 'nobody really cares how the game is coded', have you talked to everyone about it?

 

[deaconk78]

You doing anything tonight?

Playing D.O.A with elvis and tupac .

 

[dionysus]

for as long as the debate is running - this stuff matters.

By all accounts everyone agrees

?

but...if everyone agrees...there's not really a debate

 

[goatwack]

My good friend Slinky says he wishes people would stop saying 'Play something else/ don't play it' and to stop directing the argument at him. He's sore.

 

[deaconk78]

but...if everyone agrees...there's not really a debate

precisely - so the next step is for the changes to be made . correct ?

let's say i buy a pie and it's advertised as potato and meat but when i bite into it i find that it is meat and potato . now to some that might not matter because it's a pie right ? but the content is different - more meat than potato - that's not what i i saw advertised and not what i thought i was buying .

don't miss sell me pies ! (or slots !)

i really like pies .

 

[dunover]

It's not against the law for me to go down the pub, impress some random lass with my awesome fruit machine playing skills, and shag the night away with her before returning in the morning and instructing Mrs Chopley to get my breakfast made whilst washing my knob in the sink. It still makes me a lowlife cheating bastard though.

1. For fuck's sake don't tell her you fancy sausages.
2. You're either really tall or have a very low kitchen sink. I'm 6'5" and only just managed that standing on tiptoes. (not in your house I hasten to add)

 

[SpinUk]

“I on the other hand have no issue with how Push Gaming have made the game. I think they should have had a bigger pool and worded the rules better though.“

I think no one is against the game concept. The implementation is lacking though yes. Woefully.

 

[theapple]

I dont really have a problem with spins being predetermined (but random) because thats how most slots work nowadays.

What i, and i assume other people have problems with is the fact that game developer, knowingly uses false advertising. Its really not rocket science - if it doesnt advertise maximum possible win, whilist having one...

If i were to create a scratchcard with 90 reels but with max possible win of 30x, without actually mentioning that little, somewhat relevant piece of info my gov agencies wouldnt be too happy about it. All it takes is ukgc to issue a hefty fine to one of companies doing it to stop it becoming a norm imo.

I just triple checked rules and paytable on LV and couldnt find any info about max possible win. Some people say its not illegal to make a slot with billion reels/rows/whatevers, have a max pay of xx, and not mention it anywhere in the rules, but i suspect that might not be true.

All it takes is a few reports to ukgc to find out if false advertising is allowed or not, so lets see how that pans out.

 

[goatwack]

I'd imagine companies have circumvented those rules expertly, but I'd imagine are infringing on a couple of others indirectly. There's no doubt a lot of grey areas

 

[Lemon]

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.

Is it bollocks. The game got through testing and licensing and Push Gaming met every requirement for that to happen. Anyone who's got a problem with that should be moaning to the relevant gambling authority that the test procedures and scripts, in their opinion, are not stringent enough, as Dunover said a few pages back.

And all this talk of 'sloppy' or 'lazy' coding does a disservice to developers and designers and smacks of people not being able to articulate their grievances properly and understand how and why the game may have been designed and executed in that way.

By all accounts everyone agrees at the very least that the rules for Jammin' Jars are (delete as appropriate) inaccurate/misleading/deceitful, so Push Gaming should change the rulesheet ASAP.

Push Gaming don't answer to you, they answer to the Gambling Commission. They'll probably amend the info anyway, but that won't be the end of the matter because as far as you're concerned you've 'lifted the lid' on a huge widespread miscarriage of justice with these tile games, and you'll keep banging on about it until you've got your way, which will be to ensure that every game has to explained to the nth degree the way you think it should. You were trying this angle in the Pragmatic thread as well. Online slots will then cease to be gambling games because all the mystery and excitement will be stripped away, and the element of risk and the fact that the player stands to lose in the long-run will be laid bare with such tedious verbosity that most people won't bother any more. Once you've accomplished that mission, what will be next? Blackjack? How about a disclaimer printed on every table that says 'If there are no aces left in the shoe, you cannot get dealt a Blackjack'?

And yes, when I'm playing, for example, Arctic Adventure, I know that every single possible combination for every single reel is achievable on every single spin.

And so do the other million slots. Do you have shares in 3Dice?

 

[PMKFRUITPRO]

I don't like it and I won't play it for real money, but I also won't stop debating the game and its design with others for as long as the debate is running - this stuff matters.

By all accounts everyone agrees at the very least that the rules for Jammin' Jars are (delete as appropriate) inaccurate/misleading/deceitful, so Push Gaming should change the rulesheet ASAP.

I'm interested to understand how you have concluded that 'nobody really cares how the game is coded', have you talked to everyone about it?

No I haven’t spoken to everyone about it obviously.

The problem is that you continuously beat the same drum on the subject.

As usual a 2 minute explanation of what everybody already knows means a 40 minute video from you.

Your ball bag explanation is how all ‘random’ slots work. Some have predetermined bonuses and some don’t.

I don’t see what the issue is here tbh. It’s a big fuss about nothing.

I do agree that the wording on the help screen should be different.

But the fact that a random outcome is determined on the press of a button and then displayed in a certain way really is no big deal.

Obviously that’s just my opinion.

We as end users are often kept in the dark about how games work and/or are programmed. It’s just part of the business. Rightly or wrongly.

 

[SpinUk]

Everyones talking from a self interested perspective - developers, affiliates, players.

In pure laymans terms, put in a contest of what the average person would REASONABLY expect from this game, as not predetermined maximum winnings - when it is precisely that, i wouldn’t like to bet which way it would go in court. Passing testing or not, licensed by the UKGC or not.

 

[goatwack]

It is split between what most player's expectations are, set against the backdrop and cold light of day realization of what the games are.

There does need to be an element of 'mystery' and, ahem, 'wonderment' when slotting, yet that goes flying out of the window when being lavished with scripted cutscenes

 

[brianmon]

And what is your expectation... A full grid of top symbol at each multiplier? Should they explicitly state this is not possible if it isn't? If not, why should Push state the maximum prize.

Do you know ever possible combination of reel stops on any given slot game? What if certain multiple fruit combinationa were not possible... Should that me explicitly stated?

There are also games where theoretically you could get a full screen of wilds on every free game. Should they be forced to state the chances of that happening?

Where do you draw the line?

Most decent providers who DO state a maximum win, base it on ONE spin, whether that's during a feature or the base game, not on what you can theoretically get during a feature, from multiple spins.

If a maximum amount has already been predetermined. Then that amount should be displayed.

The feature IS triggered from ONE spin from one call to an RNG, and then plays through it's predetermined script.
It's not multiple calls which could give your example of a screenfull of wilds on every spin, no one would expect the probability of that happening to be shown or explained.

But it's ONE spin which triggers a script

Most providers would be making a big thing about a maximum win of 20,000x stake. Wouldn't you be, if it was a game you'd designed?

Probably the only reason that Push Gaming don't, is because they want to give the impression that wins are, to some degree, unlimited.

It might be more of a case for the ASA, in conjunction with the UKGC, rather than just the UKGC

 

[Playford7]

You do have many options though of multiple x wins in the thousands. Happened yesterday I believe and that was 10000x
It’s just different ways it’s served to you for example when I spin.
Don’t believe it cheating one bit... I have zero faith in slots I’d Off left them long before the goatwack left camel

 

[Siohmy]

Is it bollocks. The game got through testing and licensing and Push Gaming met every requirement for that to happen. Anyone who's got a problem with that should be moaning to the relevant gambling authority that the test procedures and scripts, in their opinion, are not stringent enough, as Dunover said a few pages back.

And all this talk of 'sloppy' or 'lazy' coding does a disservice to developers and designers and smacks of people not being able to articulate their grievances properly and understand how and why the game may have been designed and executed in that way.



Push Gaming don't answer to you, they answer to the Gambling Commission. They'll probably amend the info anyway

Ok fraud is strong and a bit inflammatory but bearing in mind that fraud is “a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities”, I’d suggest not entirely bollocks. Whether by design or accident this surely falls under this.

The game passed whatever rules are in place whether we agree with them or not which is fair enough but I suspect the wording in the rules were missed. As for this being brushed under the carpet as a minor mistake, I call bollocks on this and it surprised me that this was not a key area which should be tested in a slot. You’re saying each move of the jar is random? Can you demonstrate or show the code please. If it was as presented no one would have any issues with this. It would also mean the slot was not limited to 20,000x max win.

As for the criticism levelled at the game design. Sorry if programmers should be above criticism. I understand how daunting creating and programming a slot these days must be with ever increasing demands for something new. However, if something is not really within the realms of possible without taking significant shortcuts which lead to everything that has happened in respect of this slot, I’d question whether it should have been given the green light in the first place.

 

[Siohmy]

I will also add that this is as much to do with how the current rules are enacted. I am not niaive enough to think the predetermined route is not widely used. Pretty sure Moon Princess and the likes used pre-determined sequences (put that wild star on yet another Moon Princess symbol why don’t you). However it is noticeable that the rules to this do not state random elements within the displayed gameplay itself and states a maximum win of 5000x.

Whether this genuinely deserved 25 pages of discussion and counting, maybe not, but it connect simply be dismissed as, it’s all good, it passed, I don’t expect certain things or don’t really care. On the face of it this could be looked at as fairly minor but actually has potentially far reaching consequences.

 

[trancemonkey]

Everyones talking from a self interested perspective - developers, affiliates, players.

In pure laymans terms, put in a contest of what the average person would REASONABLY expect from this game, as not predetermined maximum winnings - when it is precisely that, i wouldn’t like to bet which way it would go in court. Passing testing or not, licensed by the UKGC or not.

It would go the way of the law. Which permits this approach. Assuming they change the help pages that is

 

[trancemonkey]

TL;DR - The rules pages are misleading but other than that everything else is fine

 

[TheresNoDInBonanza]

TL;DR - The rules pages are misleading but other than that everything else is fine

... So long as you are ok with pre-scripted features, which it seems many people (myself included) in this thread are not.
@trancemonkey I have a lot of respect for you due to your efforts in other threads debunking nonsense and I've always 100% agreed with you, however what you are doing here is ignoring a significant portion of your customer base that are saying "I am not ok with this" by handwaving away their concerns with "if it's legal it's all good" and the always pointless "if you don't like it don't play it" - which would be great advice if "it" (pre-arranged features) was alluded to at all in the game rules, but how is the average Joe supposed to know he has zero chance of that jar bouncing the right way?

 

[goatwack]

 

[SpinUk]

“Im not OK. Pretty fucking far from it“ best line of the film.

 

[trancemonkey]

... So long as you are ok with pre-scripted features, which it seems many people (myself included) in this thread are not.
@trancemonkey I have a lot of respect for you due to your efforts in other threads debunking nonsense and I've always 100% agreed with you, however what you are doing here is ignoring a significant portion of your customer base that are saying "I am not ok with this" by handwaving away their concerns with "if it's legal it's all good" and the always pointless "if you don't like it don't play it" - which would be great advice if "it" (pre-arranged features) was alluded to at all in the game rules, but how is the average Joe supposed to know he has zero chance of that jar bouncing the right way?

I think are arguing about something we actually agree on... I think that in the help pages it should state something like "Not all possible outcomes are available" as well as removing the word random. It shouldn't insinuate everything's possible if it isn't.

As far as I'm aware that's most people's greviance.

Here's an example from a game I've done... If you're at G2E you'll see it .. There is a feature that can happen during a spin where the player is offered a choice of three bubbles. They pick one and it reveals an outcome. The pick has no effect on the outcome and in the rules it states "This feature is just for entertainment purposes only". So as you can see I'm all for fairness and openness.

What I am saying is perfectly legal is the way they have created the game. What is definitely a gray area and where there is room for improvement is what they have put in the help screens as you could argue it misrepresents the truth.

 

[TheresNoDInBonanza]

I think are arguing about something we actually agree on... I think that in the help pages it should state something like "Not all possible outcomes are available" as well as removing the word random. It shouldn't insinuate everything's possible if it isn't.

As far as I'm aware that's most people's greviance.

Here's an example from a game I've done... If you're at G2E you'll see it .. There is a feature that can happen during a spin where the player is offered a choice of three bubbles. They pick one and it reveals an outcome. The pick has no effect on the outcome and in the rules it states "This feature is just for entertainment purposes only". So as you can see I'm all for fairness and openness.

What I am saying is perfectly legal is the way they have created the game. What is definitely a gray area and where there is room for improvement is what they have put in the help screens as you could argue it misrepresents the truth.

Although we do indeed both agree upon that it is not what I was saying- to be clear: the idea of pre-recorded features, to me, is incredibly unappealing. Especially in a game like this where it could very easily be used to limit liability.

 

[SpinUk]

Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations protects consumers from unfair or misleading trading practices and ban misleading omissions.

Who can be prosecuted?
Both corporate bodies (eg a company) and individuals can be prosecuted for criminal offences under CPUTR 2008.

Under CPUTR 2008 where an offence has been committed by a company and with the 'consent or connivance' or 'neglect' on the part of a director, manager, secretary or officer of the company, or any person who was purporting to act in such a capacity, they will be personally liable in addition to the company.




Oh right...

 

[trancemonkey]

Although we do indeed both agree upon that it is not what I was saying- to be clear: the idea of pre-recorded features, to me, is incredibly unappealing. Especially in a game like this where it could very easily be used to limit liability.

Of course it can be used to limit liability... Casinos always want to know max liability on games. They need to know what kind of wins they may have to pay out.

 

[theapple]

Of course it can be used to limit liability... Casinos always want to know max liability on games. They need to know what kind of wins they may have to pay out.

so do their players

i figured most of us have agreed how help page needs changing. What we apparently dont agree on, is how slot developers should be allowed to knowingly use misleading and false advertising but apparently, its a grey area so its all good.

Creating a slot with seemingly endless potential, and potential outcomes, whilist having a set amount of winning combinations AND maximum possible win, shouldnt and very likely is not allowed by laws.

tldr: saying "but it was tested! and its all good, because gambling comissions allow it!", is really pushing it, because its false advertising at its best and company in question (and all others) should be fined because of it. Even if it was allowed and perfectly fine with whoever does those testing, neither ukgc or testing companies are above state laws and false advertising is kinda a no go since 1462.

 

[trancemonkey]

so do their players

i figured most of us have agreed how help page needs changing. What we apparently dont agree on, is how slot developers should be allowed to knowingly use misleading and false advertising but apparently, its a grey area so its all good.

Creating a slot with seemingly endless potential, and potential outcomes, whilist having a set amount of winning combinations AND maximum possible win, shouldnt and very likely is not allowed by laws.

tldr: saying "but it was tested! and its all good, because gambling comissions allow it!", is really pushing it, because its false advertising at its best and company in question (and all others) should be fined because of it. Even if it was allowed and perfectly fine with whoever does those testing, neither ukgc or testing companies are above state laws and false advertising is kinda a no go since 1462.

Actually I don't think I've ever said that they should be allowed to mislead anyone. I said the way they have made the game is perfectly fine .. the issue is with what is / isn't in the help pages.

I would most certainly be happy with a game stating it's maximum win (if it is indeed known) in the help pages. On games where the maximum win is unknown (like Bonanza) I would also be happy with the help pages stating the maximum win achieved in a 100m (or some number of games) simulation - which is in effect the max liability the casinos would want to know anyway.

And for clarity this is not just an issue with Push Gaming... It is just that they are the ones caught up in this thread... I would argue the same should go for any game by any provider.

 

[dunover]

Actually I don't think I've ever said that they should be allowed to mislead anyone. I said the way they have made the game is perfectly fine .. the issue is with what is / isn't in the help pages.

I would most certainly be happy with a game stating it's maximum win (if it is indeed known) in the help pages. On games where the maximum win is unknown (like Bonanza) I would also be happy with the help pages stating the maximum win achieved in a 100m (or some number of games) simulation - which is in effect the max liability the casinos would want to know anyway.

And for clarity this is not just an issue with Push Gaming... It is just that they are the ones caught up in this thread... I would argue the same should go for any game by any provider.

Just give it up, let 'em all call the UKGC, Trading Standards, ASA, FSA, RSPCA, FBI, MI6, EMI or whomever else and wish 'em all good luck with their barrack room law. All this guff for essentially changing a line of rules in a slot game. Let me know when the trials and hangings start.

 

[dunover]

Most decent providers who DO state a maximum win, base it on ONE spin, whether that's during a feature or the base game, not on what you can theoretically get during a feature, from multiple spins.
******
It might be more of a case for the ASA, in conjunction with the UKGC, rather than just the UKGC

That's utter tripe. Sorry.
Load some games and check out the intro screens.
Let's look at Netent and Berryburst "Win Up to 6000x !" which relies on a series of spins to do so. (unless Netent aren't a 'decent' provider?)
Go and check out most of the recent Play'n Go releases, especially (funnily enough) their cascade tile games.
Check out recent Yggdrasil games.
Check out Quickspin.
There are numerous examples in just those, I see them every day when indexing the data from them which I've done for over 8,000 slots to date.