Poll: Should software providers be more involved after issuing licences?

[Seventh777]

I speak for a huge majority of us that are sick to the teeth every time we see a rogue casino swindle genuine players from legitimate winnings, this aspect could be removed at source if software providers stepped in and acted by - Issuing ultimatums of pay them or risk having your licence to use our software revoked.......

1). Yes, they should be more involved upto the extent that rogue casinos could soon be a thing of the past.

2). Yes, but not be quite as savage and just render a warning but future rogueness will be dealt with as above.

3). No, they should not be involved at all.

4). Hell no, it`s down to the individual to do loads of research (even though your average newb is unaware of rogue casinos) before they deposit.

Oooops, done something wrong there could a mod edit this and turn it into a poll please?.

 

[mattsgame]

I speak for a huge majority of us that are sick to the teeth every time we see a rogue casino swindle genuine players from legitimate winnings, this aspect could be removed at source if software providers stepped in and acted by - Issuing ultimatums of pay them or risk having your licence to use our software revoked.......

1). Yes, they should be more involved upto the extent that rogue casinos could soon be a thing of the past.

2). Yes, but not be quite as savage and just render a warning but future rogueness will be dealt with as above.

3). No, they should not be involved at all.

4). Hell no, it`s down to the individual to do loads of research (even though your average newb is unaware of rogue casinos) before they deposit.

Oooops, done something wrong there could a mod edit this and turn it into a poll please?.

1. Yes they should be more involved, you would think that they would worry about the brands reputation for a starters but it is a greedy world out there and gambling would be top of the list, so its all about the bottom $$$ and stuff anyone else.

From my recollection there has been 1 software provider stand up and take a stance and that was against Heroes Casino (think that's the name). They paid the player out of their own pocket after the casino in question was making all sorts of excuses not to pay the player and took away Heroes license to use the software.

If there has been any more someone please correct me? but I don't recall any myself.

Edit: Actually I found that thread Here It was a long time CM member and Galwind software, that rep is still active around here

 

[Seventh777]

1. Yes they should be more involved, you would think that they would worry about the brands reputation for a starters but it is a greedy world out there and gambling would be top of the list, so its all about the bottom $$$ and stuff anyone else.

From my recollection there has been 1 software provider stand up and take a stance and that was against Heroes Casino (think that's the name). They paid the player out of their own pocket after the casino in question was making all sorts of excuses not to pay the player and took away Heroes license to use the software.

If there has been any more someone please correct me? but I don't recall any myself.

Edit: Actually I found that thread Here It was a long time CM member and Galwind software, that rep is still active around here

Yep I remember that case Matt, thx for bringing it up.

I think of this whole issue like this - say for arguments sake someone is issued with a licence to use a shotgun, that person walks around with it uncased, the licence is revoked and his gun/guns are confiscated, this is all down to him breaching the terms and conditions of the licence, tell me there must be relative terms with casino software providers to adhere to, i`m sure I read somewhere that when granted an MGS licence the licensee has to pay a lump sum that assures they can meet a big payout.

 

[jstrike]

i`m sure I read somewhere that when granted an MGS licence the licensee has to pay a lump sum that assures they can meet a big payout.

Most companies require an operator to show plenty of money in the bank before they'll sell a software license, but after that they're probably not going to keep doing audits on them. As far as putting up collateral, I'm not really sure. Credit card companies require a pretty large floating balance for gaming, in case of reversals, so the money might actually be going to that.

The vendor's usually not just selling the software, they're also selling a gaming sublicense for the jurisdiction where they're located. In a few of these, the master license holder is supposedly on the hook, although I haven't really heard of that ever being enforced. Most jurisdictions probably prefer to slap the operator on the wrist rather than tackle the software provider, which is the golden goose.

Anyway, as long as players in general keep blaming shady operators, not the software companies who have the master licenses, the situation probably won't change much.

 

[KasinoKing]

Oooops, done something wrong there could a mod edit this and turn it into a poll please?.

You'll probably need to PM a mod or report your own post - the mods don't read EVERY thread!

Anyway, my vote is for # 1
Why companies like RTG, Playtech, Rival and others allow their whole brand to be tarnished by a few dodgy operators has always been of great mystery to me.

KK

 

[LaHutti]

What KK said.

 

[bpb]

You'll probably need to PM a mod or report your own post - the mods don't read EVERY thread!

Anyway, my vote is for # 1
Why companies like RTG, Playtech, Rival and others allow their whole brand to be tarnished by a few dodgy operators has always been of great mystery to me.

KK

Is there a reason why you didn't include Microgaming? Tain/Tusk/Eurolinx stiffed players for millions. People hold up Microgaming as a shining beacon but they're just as guilty as the rest of the operators as far as looking the other way while rogue operators rob the players.

 

[KasinoKing]

Is there a reason why you didn't include Microgaming? Tain/Tusk/Eurolinx stiffed players for millions. People hold up Microgaming as a shining beacon but they're just as guilty as the rest of the operators as far as looking the other way while rogue operators rob the players.

I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with that issue.
What was the name of the casino(s)?

KK

 

[jstrike]

Why companies like RTG, Playtech, Rival and others allow their whole brand to be tarnished by a few dodgy operators has always been of great mystery to me.

KK

I agree KK, but the software providers are complacent. Except for a few hungry newcomers like NetEnt that force them to make a few improvements, I'm sure MG and probably Playtech and Rivals too would just sit on their empires and probably never even bother to come out with a new slot. Their concept of marketing is 5-10 years behind the times, and I'm sure they probably think most players still blame the operators, not the network, for payout problems. If they knew a movement was growing that blamed them directly when there are rogue operators, they'd probably up the requirements for their licensees. But my guess is they're too out of touch to realize it's hurting their brand, even though it is.

 

[vinylweatherman]

The software providers could wield a bigger stick than the best regulator. If a regulator pursues a rogue, they can just jump ship and move elsewhere. If the software license is yanked, they have to go to the trouble of getting an alternative, and changing their marketing strategy, not to mention keeping hold of existing players who might not be happy with the changes. The mere threat of pulling the software license should make them reconsider any dubious practice, and if they don't, they don't deserve to be in business anyway.

We know that when it suits them, the software providers DO get involved. It was the software providers that dictated many operators pull out of the US when they did, even though some operators were able to manage the problems and provide a good service to players. When an operator is ripping off players though, there seems to be no interest in yanking their license.

When Intertops decided to open an RTG casino for US customers, to run alongside the MGS casino for non-US customers, MGS were all over them and forced them to sell off the MGS casino (Royal Joker). When TUSK were about to fail, MGS looked the other way, and only acted to BLOCK a rescue deal that could have meant poker players saw at least some of their money. Looking the other way was evident with Purple Lounge, and in many ways MGS CAUSED the eventual failure by forcing PL out of the MGS poker network, a move that beggared belief as far as players were concerned (PL claimed it was their decision, and one that would improve the player experience), and who's subsequent stampede for the exit caused the eventual collapse of the entire operation, and loss of everything for players who stuck around.

MGS also forced some operators to pull out of Spain, even though at the time it was impossible to get a Spanish license because the legislation and systems were not in place.