Playboy got yanked!

[DepositSpinLose]

lol good title. anyways, does anyone know why all mg casinos got rid of the playboy slot and if it will be back?

 

[nisosbar]

Wow is that right? It's unavailable on any MG casino? Perhaps there were trademark concerns? One would think, though, that waivers/permissions to usage of the IP would have been cleared way in advance, indeed as part of the negotiation of implementing the slot itself.

Very weird, if true.

 

[mattsgame]

Which casino?

It is still at Guts and 32red

 

[dionysus]

maybe its a canadian thing - it told me tonight my country is banned lol, i couldnt play either

 

[mattsgame]

maybe its a canadian thing - it told me tonight my country is banned lol, i couldnt play either

That would be a first for an MG slot as far as I am aware, which means it would be a licensing issue.

 

[chuchu59]

Its still there at the FL group.

 

[wintingo]

MGS confirmed that Playboy is no longer available for Canadian players

 

[chayton]

That's weird...I wonder why? It's just that one game right?

 

[vinylweatherman]

MGS confirmed that Playboy is no longer available for Canadian players

This is beyond ridiculous.

This should have been sorted out before it was released. During the negotiation stage, both parties would have been fully aware of which countries Microgaming served. By doing this, BOTH brands have made themselves the proverbial "laughing stock" as to the outside it looks like the result of corporate blunderings on both sides, followed by a schoolyard "I'm taking my ball home now" response from Playboy because they were unable to get their own way with MGS, presumably as a result of Playboy wanting to change the terms AFTER they had signed the contract, and MGS standing firm on "It's a contract, you signed it, too late now".

This is the kind of corporate squabbling one gets when you resort to multi layered subcontracting, third party licensing, etc. It's not the first time MGS have had egg on their face either, look at the farce that surrounded LOTR, which by now would have been THREE slots, one progressive, if the initial press releases were followed.

Maybe Mr Heffner had his winnings confiscated by a Microgaming casino, and has found a way to vent his anger

 

[Nifty29]

This is beyond ridiculous.

This should have been sorted out before it was released. During the negotiation stage, both parties would have been fully aware of which countries Microgaming served. By doing this, BOTH brands have made themselves the proverbial "laughing stock" as to the outside it looks like the result of corporate blunderings on both sides, followed by a schoolyard "I'm taking my ball home now" response from Playboy because they were unable to get their own way with MGS, presumably as a result of Playboy wanting to change the terms AFTER they had signed the contract, and MGS standing firm on "It's a contract, you signed it, too late now".

This is the kind of corporate squabbling one gets when you resort to multi layered subcontracting, third party licensing, etc. It's not the first time MGS have had egg on their face either, look at the farce that surrounded LOTR, which by now would have been THREE slots, one progressive, if the initial press releases were followed.

Maybe Mr Heffner had his winnings confiscated by a Microgaming casino, and has found a way to vent his anger

Can you provide the source of this "information" please?

Or is this more of your make-it-up-as-you-go-along stuff?

 

[vinylweatherman]

Can you provide the source of this "information" please?

Or is this more of your make-it-up-as-you-go-along stuff?

I was being sarcastic, I have no idea WHY Mr Heffner reneged on his deal with MGS, but he has made his organisation look silly. MGS on the other hand have given in too easily, they had a contract, they should have said NO, and kept the slot as per contract, removing it when the license came up for renewal.

MGS should at least have learned from the past having been caught out over their LOTR deal, where is was obvious from a number of press releases that they didn't have a clue what would happen over the promised LOTR II and LOTR III

The oddity is why pick on Canada, as opposed to Australia for example, where the attitude towards online gambling is more hostile, even though still largely ignored by offshore providers. I have not heard of the Batman games being pulled from Canada, yet these are AMERICAN based rights.

 

[mrmark21]

Sucks for Canadians. Never paid for me, too much going in not enough coming back out. I'll happily trade for some Aristocrat games

 

[Balthazar]

MGS confirmed that Playboy is no longer available for Canadian players

One more reason to stop playing. Geez, they keep piling.

 

[Jd666]

Blimey, this is one of my favourite MG slots at the moment.
I wouldnt be happy if i couldnt suddenly play it, so i agree it sucks for people from Canada.
At least with LOTR, there was some notice and they released a slot like it not long after it was pulled.

It probably wont be too long before MG come out with a clone for Playboy.

Watch out for Razzle slot hitting the casinos in 2014

 

[Balthazar]

Sucks for Canadians. Never paid for me, too much going in not enough coming back out. I'll happily trade for some Aristocrat games

It's the highest variance MGS slot, you have a fair chance to win big money on a small bet on it which is what I like.

Please excuse my language here but FUCK copyrighted themes. They are so fucking unnecessary. I don't want Batman, LOTR, South Park or Playboy themes, I just want a good slot with a good paytable.

 

[dunover]

Maybe they're afraid of the Canadians' reaction to a toxic mix of gambling and sexual stimulation prior to their 6-month winter starting...

 

[lotusch]

Well I reckon for Canadian players this must be annoying indeed.
And probably as usual they leave the players in the dark and no press communique will be given about the reasons why this had to happen.
For me personally I wouldn't be to sad about it if they dragged it out of the Irish market as Playboy is defo on the lower end of my list when it comes to MGS slots.
It was never really good to me and I played it quite heavily when it was released.

Just not my slot.

 

[skiny]

I don't really care. I only played it for the articles.

 

[Sk0t]

That would be a first for an MG slot as far as I am aware, which means it would be a licensing issue.

It might be a first for Canadians, but MG have had a lot of slots with "country restrictions"

The dark night, Santas wild ride, leagues of fortune, Isis and propl. others I care less about, are unavailable for Danish players at all MG casinos.

The finer reels of life finally showed up a few months ago, and strangely "lucky witch" (which I thought was old) also recently became available.

At Guts they seem to have given up handling this and now made all MG slots unavaialble to Danish players

 

[vinylweatherman]

It might be a first for Canadians, but MG have had a lot of slots with "country restrictions"

The dark night, Santas wild ride, leagues of fortune, Isis and propl. others I care less about, are unavailable for Danish players at all MG casinos.

The finer reels of life finally showed up a few months ago, and strangely "lucky witch" (which I thought was old) also recently became available.

At Guts they seem to have given up handling this and now made all MG slots unavaialble to Danish players

What POSSIBLE licensing or copyright issues get in the way of a generic Santa themed slot

I can understand Batman slots encountering problems, but this issue is getting really stupid when unbranded generic slots have to be put past lawyers for fear of infringing copyright. As far as I know, no one can exercise copyright control over "Santa Claus", "witchcraft", nor even the idea in general of "ancient Egypt".

We don't seem to have such problems in the UK, and until around 2007, the UK was in the same position as Canada, where online gambling was that "grey area" in law, neither specifically legal, nor illegal.

The UK could, however, face it's first taste of such issues in December 2014, probably from those sites that use the concept of "because we can get away with it" to offer service to UK players, but not cooperate with the new UK licensing and taxation laws. I expect some softwares will turn a blind eye (RTG, Rival, Top game, etc), whereas those such as Playtech and Microgaming will pull the plug on their games being offered to UK players from a non UK licensed operator. We may even have licensed games vanishing because the licensor doesn't want to get tangled up in the new UK regime, even where the operator does.

For players, it's a case of games disappearing overnight without notice, and CS not having the slightest clue when players ask why. Not only do players see a game vanish, but they end up being sent on a wild goose chase because CS have told them that is has to be a problem at their end, so they waste hours messing around with firewalls and anti virus, uninstalling and reinstalling, cache clearing etc.

 

[Jasminebed]

Playboy is probably my favourite of the 243 way slots, so I'm sorry to see it go. There are land-based Playboy slots, wonder if that's part of the issue?

 

[Sk0t]

What POSSIBLE licensing or copyright issues get in the way of a generic Santa themed slot

*SNIP*

OK, I might not have been entirely clear in my post, sorry

I do not think it has to do with IP and Copyrights, I suspect the reason specific MG slots are not available in DK is due to the Danish Gambling licensensing oganisation "Spillemyndigheden", who I think somehow has to approve every single game, or at least every underlying "engine" - This would explain why the second TFROL was ok at one casino, it showed up at the others, same with the newer Netent slots and other MGs.

As for Isis and The dark knight, I think it is due to the progressive jackpot (hall of gods are not available in DK as well), I believe the "spillemyndigheden" somehow requires Danish taxation on the progressive pool

Also, it seems NordicBet tried to get the WMS slots to DK but failed (I found online "play for free" versions, with NordicBet tags and all text translated to Danish, but they are still not available at any casino with an official DK license)

And BTW "Spillemyndigheden" was certainly not formed with the players in mind, but simply to ensure Danish tax revenue when the EU refused to allow the monoply held by "danske spil" to continue. And to some extend to protect the former monoply at "danske spil" since they pay part of their revenue to Youth organisations of political parties, disability organisations and local youth sports in DK.

The only official DK casino I have seen with an international progressive, is "danske spil" which also runs the official lotteries and used to be the monopoly (and I think it's fair to assume that they are VERY close with "spillemyndigheden" )

 

[kazzi]

I still dont get why MG is so slow to get new slots allowed in denmark, compare them to play'n'go/IGT they are pretty much instant added in denmark, just look at ekstrabladetcasino hell they get IGT 1-2weeks after guts add them.

As for progressive what i understand the casinos is required to have the whole amount on a closed bank account and not being shared over all casino's, thats why we cant play the big netent progressive.

And like you say sk0t i also think danske spil is too close to spillemyndigheden unfortunally.

 

[Chops24]

I just won $8000 on the Sofia bonus last week, I guess I was just in time. But I still don't like losing slots that I play I hope this isn't the start of something.

 

[dionysus]

I just won $8000 on the Sofia bonus last week, I guess I was just in time. But I still don't like losing slots that I play I hope this isn't the start of something.

definitely one of my faves
better not be the start of a trend

 

[vinylweatherman]

OK, I might not have been entirely clear in my post, sorry

I do not think it has to do with IP and Copyrights, I suspect the reason specific MG slots are not available in DK is due to the Danish Gambling licensensing oganisation "Spillemyndigheden", who I think somehow has to approve every single game, or at least every underlying "engine" - This would explain why the second TFROL was ok at one casino, it showed up at the others, same with the newer Netent slots and other MGs.

As for Isis and The dark knight, I think it is due to the progressive jackpot (hall of gods are not available in DK as well), I believe the "spillemyndigheden" somehow requires Danish taxation on the progressive pool

Also, it seems NordicBet tried to get the WMS slots to DK but failed (I found online "play for free" versions, with NordicBet tags and all text translated to Danish, but they are still not available at any casino with an official DK license)

And BTW "Spillemyndigheden" was certainly not formed with the players in mind, but simply to ensure Danish tax revenue when the EU refused to allow the monoply held by "danske spil" to continue. And to some extend to protect the former monoply at "danske spil" since they pay part of their revenue to Youth organisations of political parties, disability organisations and local youth sports in DK.

The only official DK casino I have seen with an international progressive, is "danske spil" which also runs the official lotteries and used to be the monopoly (and I think it's fair to assume that they are VERY close with "spillemyndigheden" )

What about the non progressive Isis, this shouldn't be a problem.

The UK is bringing in a similar regime, so I hope we don't start getting similar unexplained oddities.

However, from a player's point of view, a slot being yanked without notice nor explanation is far worse than it not appearing at all due to some local issue.

For months, Playboy was fine in Canada, and then suddenly it isn't, and not just suddenly, but with incredible urgency such that even the operators couldn't be told, let alone a press release prepared. That looks very much like a big corporation got completely caught out, and had to resort to panic measures. Perhaps something along the lines of it never having supposed to be available to start with, and suddenly finding out that for the past 2 months they had been making a SERIOUS mistake, and risked the wrath of Heffner descending upon them.

 

[Balthazar]

better not be the start of a trend

Doubt it (although Batman could follow). It looks like Playboy doesn't want its name associated with online gambling in places where the legality is sitting in a grey area (which is one more reason why copyrighted themed slots suck). NetEnt did the same with South Park (I've noticed that it's not available for us at some casinos).

 

[Balthazar]

I just won $8000 on the Sofia bonus last week

I really hope that MGS releases a generic clone of this slot (like they did with LOTR/Girls with guns). We don't need semi-nude girls or flashy graphics though, 7's and bars would be just fine!

 

[Chops24]

I really hope that MGS releases a generic clone of this slot (like they did with LOTR/Girls with guns). We don't need semi-nude girls or flashy graphics though, 7's and bars would be just fine!

The one thing that sucks if they were to do that is I have to unlock all the features again, which usually is a costly mission for me.

 

[Jasminebed]

The one thing that sucks if they were to do that is I have to unlock all the features again, which usually is a costly mission for me.

I recently changed a couple of accounts that were US over to CAD. I hadn't unlocked all the free spin options at at least one of them.

 

[67Mustang]

Copyright etc

Just my 2c:

Copyright and TM law is very complex. The rights to a brand like Playboy as an online slot does not even always belong to the obvious party (in this case it does though), these things gets sold, licensed, sub-licensed and who knows what else, and then also per territory, country state and any other arbitrary location you care to come up with. I bet this one has something to do with "Outside the US" vs "North America". I know of at least one (totally unrelated) case where only static images where allowed of a well known brand licensed to a party on the web, as animations would infringe online movie rights (yes, lawyers will go that far).

And as for slots like Isis in Denmark: when operators have to pay for every single game they want to release to be certified, I am sure they will go with what they think will work best in that specific market and slowly build up their portfolio.

 

[Balthazar]

The one thing that sucks if they were to do that is I have to unlock all the features again, which usually is a costly mission for me.

Minor problem at minimum bet, especially since the "good" feature in the 2nd one.

 

[dionysus]

Minor problem at minimum bet, especially since the "good" feature in the 2nd one.

it hasnt been good to ME lol (4th has though)

 

[kazzi]

Just my 2c:

Copyright and TM law is very complex. The rights to a brand like Playboy as an online slot does not even always belong to the obvious party (in this case it does though), these things gets sold, licensed, sub-licensed and who knows what else, and then also per territory, country state and any other arbitrary location you care to come up with. I bet this one has something to do with "Outside the US" vs "North America". I know of at least one (totally unrelated) case where only static images where allowed of a well known brand licensed to a party on the web, as animations would infringe online movie rights (yes, lawyers will go that far).

And as for slots like Isis in Denmark: when operators have to pay for every single game they want to release to be certified, I am sure they will go with what they think will work best in that specific market and slowly build up their portfolio.

Still dosent make up for why all netent/igt/playngo/skillonnet slots always get released in denmark, only MG thats strange it even took 2½years for the first "new" Jason and the golden fleece/Karate Pig MG slots to appear on danish casino's, but the worst is still playtech think there is around 20slots and none been added in the almost 3years now.

Still waiting on WMS also if you read the statement when betsson got there licens, it even says in denmark is licensed but spillemyndigheden gotta allow it first, i cant imagine its about money to pay for each slot.

 

[Chops24]

Minor problem at minimum bet, especially since the "good" feature in the 2nd one.

Ya but I have a thing where I can't/don't bet lower then a certain amount which is usually $1.80 so on the 243 ways slots it's 3 coins on 2 cents. I have Been like that since Break the Bank Again came out started betting max on 2 cents and now no matter what I play I have to at least bet 90 coins. Also I can't play on pennies it has to be at least 2 cent denom at online or BaM casino's.

 

[funnymunny]

Just my 2c:

Copyright and TM law is very complex. The rights to a brand like Playboy as an online slot does not even always belong to the obvious party (in this case it does though), these things gets sold, licensed, sub-licensed and who knows what else, and then also per territory, country state and any other arbitrary location you care to come up with. I bet this one has something to do with "Outside the US" vs "North America". I know of at least one (totally unrelated) case where only static images where allowed of a well known brand licensed to a party on the web, as animations would infringe online movie rights (yes, lawyers will go that far).

Only recently became aware of this thread... I find myself agreeing with what Mustang has said above &

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

pretty-much echo's what's stated re licensing per territory (IMO).

 

[vinylweatherman]

Only recently became aware of this thread... I find myself agreeing with what Mustang has said above &

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

pretty-much echo's what's stated re licensing per territory (IMO).

There is no need to make it so complicated. The rights industry only has itself to blame when at best people treat it as a bad joke, and usually don't give a toss and just use the simplicity of torrents rather than navigate the maze that is the legal alternative.

For the internet at least, they need to create a separate legal entity called "the web", and treat it like one country, region, territory, etc, and licence a right to the territory of "the web" completely separately to any real world licencing agreements. Anything licenced to "the web" can be distributed to anywhere that can connect to "the web".

Now, if I move my monitor, am I infringing the online movie rights if it's displaying a static image of said well known brand?

 

[funnymunny]

There is no need to make it so complicated...

I don't disagree - I'm not the one who makes the rules, I'm simply highlighting something that may be the reason that a game from one supplier may not be available to players in certain countries.

For the internet at least, they need to create a separate legal entity called "the web", and treat it like one country, region, territory, etc, and licence a right to the territory of "the web" completely separately to any real world licencing agreements. Anything licenced to "the web" can be distributed to anywhere that can connect to "the web".

Perhaps, but if the brand owners can make more money by slicing & dicing, then commercially it may make sense to introduce the complexity.

It may well be those who signed the rights for licensed brands on one platform (e.g. offline) may not have considered what they wanted to do on another platform (online), and vice-versa. It may also be that when brand rights are signed, they are offered on limited duration agreements. If this is the case, a supplier may not wish to pay for the rights to distribute something on a platform they're not going to use during the life of aforementioned agreement.

Over the last few years we've seen slot providers launching their content onto platforms they're not traditionally associated with. On the up side, this introduces more variety into what can be played & (typically) more competition in a marketplace works out in the favour of the consumer / player. A down-side to this is potentially what we're seeing here.

Now, if I move my monitor, am I infringing the online movie rights if it's displaying a static image of said well known brand?

In this case, it would appear that if you're moving it (e.g.) from the UK to Canada then the answer is yes.

As players, we may not like it & moving forward, we may see branded slot releases following the preferred platform license you've stated (i.e. "separate legal entity called "the web", and treat it like one country, region, territory, etc"). Bear in mind however, there could be a player cost associated with this approach (e.g. lower RTP to cover the financial costs of signing brands to cover all territories).

 

[vinylweatherman]

I don't disagree - I'm not the one who makes the rules, I'm simply highlighting something that may be the reason that a game from one supplier may not be available to players in certain countries.




Perhaps, but if the brand owners can make more money by slicing & dicing, then commercially it may make sense to introduce the complexity.

It may well be those who signed the rights for licensed brands on one platform (e.g. offline) may not have considered what they wanted to do on another platform (online), and vice-versa. It may also be that when brand rights are signed, they are offered on limited duration agreements. If this is the case, a supplier may not wish to pay for the rights to distribute something on a platform they're not going to use during the life of aforementioned agreement.

Over the last few years we've seen slot providers launching their content onto platforms they're not traditionally associated with. On the up side, this introduces more variety into what can be played & (typically) more competition in a marketplace works out in the favour of the consumer / player. A down-side to this is potentially what we're seeing here.



In this case, it would appear that if you're moving it (e.g.) from the UK to Canada then the answer is yes.

As players, we may not like it & moving forward, we may see branded slot releases following the preferred platform license you've stated (i.e. "separate legal entity called "the web", and treat it like one country, region, territory, etc"). Bear in mind however, there could be a player cost associated with this approach (e.g. lower RTP to cover the financial costs of signing brands to cover all territories).

In this case, the online rights have not been signed away, so this shouldn't create problems. If an entity wants full exclusivity, they need to pay for ALL the rights, even if they don't intend using them.

Whilst slicing and dicing might appear to make more money, the confusion it creates makes enforcement harder, so "leakage" is likely to be higher. To ordinary people, the sheer nit picking involved makes it look like the big producers are having a "toddler tantrum", so it's a case of "well, sod you, I'll just use the Pirate Bay rather than indulge such behaviour". In this case, it would be using a casino that offers "pirate" versions of branded games because that is the only version available. Since the legal alternative to the playboy slot is unavailable in Canada, it's going to be hard for a Canadian player to spot that the only version they can find is actually a pirated copy, so they could end up playing it at Jackpots Heaven and thinking this must be a legitimate casino as it's the only one offering a Playboy themed slot.

This whole thing has torpedoed the original concept of the multi provider platform, as such platforms make all this nonsense so very obvious to the player who finds slot after slot produces the error "not available in your country". We are well on the way to having the multi platform multiple provider casino as there needs to be a different configuration for each territory so that ONLY slots that are available to a player are shown to him. They then have to split the marketing so that players don't get told all about a great new game they are never actually going to get.

 

[funnymunny]

In this case, the online rights have not been signed away, so this shouldn't create problems.

To quote Nifty in response to one of your earlier posts in this thread, "Can you provide the source of this "information" please?"... I don't recall this being confirmed by any official sources, so I would be interested & thanks in advance for the info. If however you are stating your assumptions as fact, may I respectfully suggest that you refrain from doing so. (There are a number of other instances where you've tripped yourself up by doing this, so perhaps best to avoid it in future(?)).

If an entity wants full exclusivity, they need to pay for ALL the rights, even if they don't intend using them.

Agreed, but who stated either of the two companies in this example wanted full exclusivity?

Whilst slicing and dicing might appear to make more money, the confusion it creates makes enforcement harder, so "leakage" is likely to be higher. To ordinary people, the sheer nit picking involved makes it look like the big producers are having a "toddler tantrum", so it's a case of "well, sod you, I'll just use the Pirate Bay rather than indulge such behaviour". In this case, it would be using a casino that offers "pirate" versions of branded games because that is the only version available. Since the legal alternative to the playboy slot is unavailable in Canada, it's going to be hard for a Canadian player to spot that the only version they can find is actually a pirated copy, so they could end up playing it at Jackpots Heaven and thinking this must be a legitimate casino as it's the only one offering a Playboy themed slot.

Potentially, but I haven't seen any "pirate" versions of the slot to date, so not sure how big of a problem this would be. (From a commercial perspective, I'm pretty sure no developers would go to the time and dev expense to produce it, only to then face the wrath of lawyers chasing for copyright and/or trademark infringements etc. If this wasn't the case, how come there isn't a plethora of 'pirate' games themed on household names?).

We are well on the way to having the multi platform multiple provider casino as there needs to be a different configuration for each territory so that ONLY slots that are available to a player are shown to him. They then have to split the marketing so that players don't get told all about a great new game they are never actually going to get.

Most of the big sportsbook websites have been doing this for almost a decade now, using IP geolocation and/or device default locale information to configure site language, promotions, game availability, etc for their customers. Country localisations have also been further enhanced by the dot country domain suffix now being applied to many site addresses. I guess this is where the 'casino-only' sites have to play catch-up with other sectors of the online gaming market.

 

[vinylweatherman]

If the online rights had been taken, Microgaming wouldn't have been able to get them. This is evidence that this is a case of a company claiming that although it has the offline rights, it should not suffer competition from Microgaming who has the offline rights in the same territories.

Jackpots Heaven pirated a whole load of games from a number of providers, including Microgaming, Playtech, and RTG. They were not the first rogue software house to do this, and they won't be the last. Pirated slots are more common than you would think, and the pirates are outside the reach of the law. They were named and shamed, but the best lawyers could do was intimidate them or their registrars in the hope the site got shut down. There is no real time and expense, the pirated versions were just cheap copies of the slot games, but the point was that they were a copy of a respected brand. It's when one played them that it became obvious how crap a job they had made of pirating the games.

Microgaming initially released this slot everywhere, it was then pulled from Canada. Microgaming would only do this if they were made to by the licensor.

The initial idea of the platform was that it could offer the best games of a number of providers through a single site. Having to have configurations based on the players' country that wipes away large number of the best games rather defeats the object. In effect, some players end up with a cut down single provider browser based casino, and it's the games from the provider that lets them play the entire suite in download or true single provider browser platform that are the only ones available. This turns the idea on it's head, and makes the single provider option far better than the "best of many" platform.

This is likely to happen in the UK as the new rules also govern which providers may be used in the UK market as a source of games. It may mean providers like RTG, Rival, and TopGame would not be able to be used by licenced UK facing casinos because they are unlikely to apply for a software supplier licence since they supply so many "black market" operators facing the US.

 

[GrandMaster]

This is likely to happen in the UK as the new rules also govern which providers may be used in the UK market as a source of games. It may mean providers like RTG, Rival, and TopGame would not be able to be used by licenced UK facing casinos because they are unlikely to apply for a software supplier licence since they supply so many "black market" operators facing the US.

I am sure they will find a way around it if they want to, by setting up separate companies.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I am sure they will find a way around it if they want to, by setting up separate companies.

They are going to need separate OWNERS too. The personal licencing rules will see to that.