@LV BET
Why have the helpfiles for MG games disappeared?
That's the '?' in the top left-hand corner of the game, which declares the RTP of each game?
Don't the UKGC regulations state that the RTP for each game should be available to view?
Your message to customers also says...
"Please note that the newly adjusted RTP can be viewed within the game’s menu,
as the game's description will also be adjusted accordingly."
Even more RTP changes - including DOA
View attachment 145996
And obviously, VideoSlots have followed..
View attachment 145997
Unibet is 96,82% for Dead or Alive
Surely not much noticeable difference in gameplay from 94% and 96%?
If you flattened the variance completely, to simulate a 'long-term' periodSurely not much noticeable difference in gameplay from 94% and 96%?
If you flattened the variance completely, to simulate a 'long-term' period
96.82% RTP
starting with £100, playing £1 spins at 96.82% you would lose 3.18p per spin, giving you 3116 spins for your £100
94.03% RTP
starting with £100, playing £1 spins at 94.03% you would lose 5.97p per spin, giving you 1660 spins for your £100
As far as game-play goes. It all depends on where they've taken that (almost) 3% from.
Is it from the base-game wins?
Is the feature less frequent?
Does the feature pay less (on average)?
Is there less chance of a huge win in the feature?
Surely not much noticeable difference in gameplay from 94% and 96%?
Unless the casino you're playing at has crazy good rewards/bonuses/perks etc, you're properly shooting yourself in the wallet to voluntarily play lower RTP versions of games that exist at the full fat RTP elsewhere.
The lower the rtp the less fun, and so in a way you're relying more on the hardcore addicts who'll take a punt at 94% and below, rather than the more sensible gamblers.
Then on lower rtp people lose quicker and get more frustrated. I felt like I was being stitched up playing the low rtp versions of pimped and royal masquerade compared to the 96% versions, hardly any wins and much harder to bonus [took longer].
And what is going on with this 3 second rules for spins, the games at william hill were unplayable the other day, extremely laggy, they weren't like that before for me, the slot makers or integrators have done a really bad job if will hill's slots are anything to go by. Again it will probably only be the hardcore gambler who will put up with that much bad functioning of the physical graphics in a game, I'm not quite in that category, but even so you end up not caring what happens with each spin, so unenjoyable and dysfunctional it was.
Lets not forget the numerous uninformed virgins to slots lured in by the bright lights and big wins. They also play a large part in the success of PNG and Pragmatic at lower RTP's. Those providers tend to be pushed on the front page of each and every casino. Tournaments aplenty on those providers also.
When i started i played PnG and Netent because those were the slots on the front pages. The thought that one Reactoonz could be a lower paying version to another never even crossed my innocent mind.
In a way though i think they're shooting themselves in the foot a bit. If slots had been as crap as they are now and burnt money as they do on lower rtp's I probably wouldnt have stuck at it.
I wonder how PlaynGo are viewed now in comparison to before the big drops. I wonder if they are laughing and sitting pretty or starting to wonder if letting their slots become 'cheap' was a good idea.
Some regulators see it bit complicated issue if it's ok to promote higher RTP:s for some reason or their reasoning is that some people would get picture that they have decent chance of winning and would deposit because it looks like some special chance/offer, even your chance to win is still negative (your theoretic chance of winning increase so tiny bit that promoting it is bit questionable but some could think their chance increase a lot). Showing it and mentioning it of course is ok, but sending newsletters etc.. about higher RTP:s to make people deposit might be not ok for some regulators but nobody yet haven't been really clear about it.
Lottery games in many places can't be promoted with better chance of winning even it would be true like you only have to pick 7 right number from 59 instead of 60 (somebody can make a math but chance of winning with same amount of correct numbers got much bigger and will again if you get another number away).
Not sure if it would be very catchy to phrase "lose bit slower, play with us"
I dont think anyone is asking for newsletters mate. All we are asking is that the "Theoretical return is XX%" is clearly displayed to players when they open a game. It's not rocket science to make this happen and Blueprint already do so. It should be compulsory. Your average new player could sign up to someone like Aspire who promote all these 91.25% games on their main page naturally...the player could then assume it's the same game as the version on Bet365....they will probably be in for a shock and not understand why their balance is bleeding. It's just not fair mate!
Sure, didn't mean anyone meant about newsletter, just mentioned that some regulator have been giving thoughts if it's ok for casinos to promote higher RTP:s or is it not cool for RG pov.
Of course it would be good to demand operators to show it once game is loading (like some casinos do).
Yeah I think we understand and agree here. Actually cannot believe the likes of PlayNGo can hide RTP behind help files that only maybe 1 out of 50 players will access. It's actually getting to a point of misinforming players