I understand where you are coming from, but in terms of affiliates the difference will be minimal, even assuming players don't go elsewhere to play the higher RTP.If you read the post properly, in order for the casino to make £100 based on all deposits and withdrawals. they need 25 deposits of £100. If you take it at it's simplest. level and a low variance.
25x £100=£2500 4% (@96%RT) of £2500 = £100
But those same 25 Deposits at 94% and 92% give a house edge of £150 and £200
25x £100=£2500 6% (@94%RT) of £2500 = £150
25x £100=£2500 8% (@92%RT) of £2500 = £200
Assuming the variance is such that the games can reach TRTP over those spins
Scale that up to refect 'real' variance, and the thousands and thousands of players
and 92%RTP makes twice as much profit as 96%
Your figures assume zero variance and each £100 deposit being played to £0 with each spin producing a win of %RTP x Stake (less than stake, with no actual wins, spinning at £1 a spin.
Which can only be used as a very simplified illustration of spins vs RTP. So, indeed the casino would only make £100
But scale that up to the real variance levels, over a million spins, which a player would be capable of doing, given a reasonable amount of time. Then factor in some withdrawals during that time.
Since some people do win and the majority withdraw most, if not all of their balance. The games are likely to reach TRTP, with the billions of spins from all the players combined.
You only need to look at VideoSlots RTP page and compare the Theoretical and actual RTP to see that the majority of popular games do in fact reach TRTP.
So 96% vs 92% = DOUBLE the profit
96% vs 94% = 1.5 x the profit.
Most players will have a budget. If they decide to deposit £50 and lose it they stop. If it takes 1000 spins to lose it they don't think, oh, I was expecting 1500 spins before I lost, better deposit another £25, they just think, ffs, lost that. Therefore the profit is £50 on either 96% or 91% (at the simplest way of looking at it, obviously costs come out of that and the casino hasn't made £50).
As there are less spins played, it may be that provider fees are less, but I think most casinos pay the provider a % of the profit they make on the game, rather than a fixed cost per spin, but that would be pennies to most affiliates.
Even then, it's also assuming the casino would increase the affiliate payment to make up for the slight increase in profit. I would suggest thats very unlikely. Casinos do what they can to maximize profits, and affiliates, as a rule, get a lot less than the advertised percentage.
As an affiliate (although only a small amount of my customers are slots, most are sports betting) I would prefer to see higher RTP's, or higher rewards/deposit bonuses, to keep players playing longer, rather than slashing everything to the bone in order to try to squeeze a few extra pence out of customers, which only goes to serve to alienate them and drive them elsewhere.
In a few months I think affiliates are going to see a large drop in income due to autospins being removed, and a slight increase from RTP being lowered won't make a difference being honest.