RTP is too low..

[brianmon]

Weren't a deliberate attempt to be rude.

But you have been pretty abrupt yourself in regards to the casinos.

You are spouting out this 98% figure, and then say " Yes they must have overheads, but should still make money". That's why I said about, you talking from your behind.

At least back what you say up?.

If Casinos are struggling now with extra tax's, ect at 96%. VS for a prime example, cutting back on all the freebies. They are not doing it for a giggle.

Please tell me how they could survive if (in your world) they increased pay out across the board to 98%

The extra tax is only on the casino's profits from UK registered players. They still have players from the rest of europe, and indeed, the rest of the world, the profits from which, aren't taxed by the UKGC. I'm pretty sure the UK isn't the major income source, compared to the rest of the world for most casinos.

The casinos who should be shouting about the taxation, and battening down the hatches, are the UK bookies sites, who are predominantly UK focused. But they're pretty quiet about it all.

I think it's as much a case of casinos not making as much as they've got used to making. Rather that them not being able to make ends meet.

The site who are closing down are the ones who haven't got a big enough player base to cover the break-even costs.

The one thing I will never understand is... How such a 'clever' industry got it's self tied up to such absurd affiliate deals?
Ok, an affiliate should definitely be paid for bringing a new customer to a casino. But to enter into a contact to pay a percentage of the losses, over the entire lifetime of that players account, month after month, year after year.....?

 

[brianmon]

But in the real world 951 spins would be boring as hell.

475 would, or should give entertainment.

Everyone can still choose either HV or LV. There's enough games out there to please all. More so on VS

Yeah, obviously, that kind of game doesn't and will never exist. It's just to illustrates how a 2% increase in RTP doubles the number of spins if you take the average 'literally'

and the 475 spins would be identical in entertainment value to the 951. the only difference would be you lose 4p a spin, rather than 2p

 

[Matti]

The extra tax is only on the casino's profits from UK registered players. They still have players from the rest of europe, and indeed, the rest of the world, the profits from which, aren't taxed by the UKGC.

Just to clarify the tax is not, in any country as far as I know, based on profit. It is based on Gross Revenue or Net Revenue(and some mixes of this). It is nowadays easier to say what markets a casino don't pay tax that the countries they don't. (talking about European facing ones)

UK 15% (21 on 1st of April)
Germany 19%
Ireland 23%
Denmark 20%
Italy 20%(soon to be increased)
Spain 18%
Portugal 25%
Sweden 18% as of 1st January
Austria 40%

France, Australia not permitted for casino games.

Poland, Czech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Estonia, Latvia and a number of other smaller countries.

Countries without tax for now
Netherlands
Finland
Norway
Switzerland(will probably be off bounds from 1st July 2019)

 

[Reelsoffun]

As much as I agree with your post, makes a lot of sense, can't go any lower than 0.09p DoA spins and STILL I'm regularly, in fact VERY regularly busting out in such a short time, I don't even get "warmed up" and begin to enjoy my sessions

Said no more rigged posts and I shall stick to that but no way on Earth do I (we?) get anywhere near as much value for money / play time as we did a couple of years ago. Not looking for any reasons, nor as I say pointing even my little finger, just a very accurate observation. Think AK had a very good point when he mentioned simply WAY too many casinos about nowadays!

But on games like DOA your probably playing a 86% base game which is why your seeing regular shorter bust outs, as i would guess 10% is in the wildlines so if your not hitting them your gonna struggle. I feel your pain BTW having never had a WL in DOA anywhere.

 

[shadow123]

Really dont know why people are expecting higher rtp,s.
The average over all the games in the reputable casinos has never been higher.
If you really want a greater rtp go to Vegas and play silly stakes

 

[SlotGrinder]

Noone is expecting anything . Personally I find the rtp of slots is too low on avg unless you're collecting welcome bonuses all the time and I can't do that because I have used up all my welcome bonuses at all of the skrill accepting UK licensed accredited casinos . And tbh its a pain to join a new casino and get verified etc
I understand casinos have to make money but I wonder if the rtp on slots is 96% because thats what casinos expect and thats what game developers are asked to make . Ultimately casinos make their money from deposits - withdrawals . For me personally I have a slot budget and when its gone its gone . Now if that budget allows me twice the playtime longterm but I lose the same amount then the casino made the same amount from me but I had better entertainment whilst losing the money

 

[mack341]

I think 98% rtp slots could attract more 'business' as long as the extra 2% goes into creating a better, more fun experience instead of just a slower egg timer ~ balance munching slot.

96% rtp slots on the whole were more attractive when casinos offered deposit bonuses to existing customers, but it seems this idea has been given the bum's rush, especially by the big firms, in my experience Coral, Ladbrokes, Betfair etc.. never offer any match bonuses to existing loyal customers.
William Hill have this year been offering bonuses based on staking, so 'do £20 worth of spins and receive a £10 bonus', which isn't bad for low rollers like myself but they have 30% wagering and either a £50 or £100 cap on withdrawals, which can sting if you hit big but it's better than a kick up the jacksy.

If the majority of slots are forever restricted to <96% rtp I wonder if this could be viewed as a form of price fixing; a quick google defines this as:
" a practice whereby rival companies come to an illicit agreement not to sell goods or services below a certain price."

I'm not saying casinos should be forced to have different rtp versions to each other of the same slot, but that possibly competition between the slot producers on the rtp levels isn't as lively as you might expect. If turnover is actually the key to a profitable game for casinos then would the greater popularity of a slot not offset any profit loss due to a higher 97-98 % rtp?

 

[Playford7]

Ok of course we all want as high rtp as possible but I think many potentially good or great games are being ruined by the industry "standard" of a 96% rtp
4% avg loss per spin is a hell of a lot imo and it causes games to have too many dead spins and too many low pay basegame "wins" and too many shitty bonuses so you're left feeling that the game is taking the p**s basically
Half that 4% and make the rtp 98% and you can improve the game in many areas . Less of the annoying 1/4 of your stake wins with coins flying everywhere . Less 0-10x bonuses . Less bs teases of ingame features which are zero spins dressed up to look like the game is doing something in an attempt to stop you realising it's yet another dead spin
I don't think max potential has to be increased forever and ever .. yes sure a few people want the possibility of 50000x wins but tbh most of us are ecstatic with a 1000x
Traditionally , the higher rtp slots have been low variance yawnfests but why does that have to be the case ? With some great new slot providers coming through and existing providers stepping up (push , pragmatic , blueprint and even quickspin) I think there is a market for a great slot with great potential and higher rtp . Not because players will see the rtp figure and choose to play it (although this can be a selling point) but because the improved gameplay and pays will mean players will naturally gravitate to the game . Of course it needs to be done right with high volatility , not just a bloodsuckers type pay system
Thoughts ? Would a higher rtp be noticeable when playing a HV slot ? Is there room for a HV slot with higher rtp to take a big share of the market and make up for the smaller profits per spin by attracting a lot higher spin volume ?

Great post.
Personally I think this yearning for the 'lottery' kind of win is spoiling slots, with the paid up shill streamers pushing it to the max.
1000x win is immense, 400x tbh is a awesome hit, sadly now slots are all over the net people are almost desensitized to a real win never mind the actual value of money.
A good example is 'streamer says', sensible stakes...then goes onto spin 200 spins at 2 quid a go, 400 quid gone quick spinning drive in less than 5 minutes.
Yeah we all can afford to lose that every 5 minutes as it's 'sensible' stakes.

 

[Gaz237]

But on games like DOA your probably playing a 86% base game which is why your seeing regular shorter bust outs, as i would guess 10% is in the wildlines so if your not hitting them your gonna struggle. I feel your pain BTW having never had a WL in DOA anywhere.

You need to go for a poo.

Never had a witnessed WL myself, But came back to a £200 balance, after reading the paper on the toilet@9p a spin.

 

[TheAddict]

A sneaky smoke can help, if you're interested in 5 scatterz.
I've had it twice while outside for a smoke.
Probably healthier to go for the WL and a crap though.

 

[Reelsoffun]

I think 98% rtp slots could attract more 'business' as long as the extra 2% goes into creating a better, more fun experience instead of just a slower egg timer ~ balance munching slot.

Its not the RTP thats the issue its the profile/math of the games 98% games can still play just as bad if the math is not a good fit for the game or player.

Land based AWP/slots have for a long time been split into 3 main profiles, arcade/single site/bingo and online is not really any different in that all players can be pretty much be bundled into one of three groups,

Low variance
Mid variance
High variance/very high

Once you learn which one suits your preferred play/ style/ budget you will enjoy your online gaming far better, however this can be tricky to pin down as each provider has different ideas of what each one entails.

Another issue and one im also guilty of is that many players just dont give a game a big enough chance, and add to a "never playing that again" after an early poor experience.

It is pretty much impossible for a game to cater to all players at the same time that would be the holy grail as such, pretty much everyone knows this, the players, casinos and developers.

Egg timer slots are generally low variance and it always amazes me how many people comment on such games that they are terrible, yet say the exact same thing about games which are high variance.


A lot of what players want or comment on is often conflicted,

Dont like low hit rates lots of dead spins but also,
Dont like lots of micro wins
Hate high feature rates
Hate low feature wins
Love high feature wins
Want playtime

the list goes on, but its just not possible to deliver it all and even if you did come up with the holy grail perfectly balanced slot as a developer and made more the same then all the comments would be oh another "perfect" slot cant they come up with any new ideas ? lol

Slot players will NEVER be happy, the sooner we all accept that the better LOL

 

[Playford7]

A sneaky smoke can help, if you're interested in 5 scatterz.
I've had it twice while outside for a smoke.
Probably healthier to go for the WL and a crap though.

I like your advice. I'm a smoker. Smokers are cool people. I'll employ the smoke tactic next doa attempt I have.

 

[Playford7]

Its not the RTP thats the issue its the profile/math of the games 98% games can still play just as bad if the math is not a good fit for the game or player.

Land based AWP/slots have for a long time been split into 3 main profiles, arcade/single site/bingo and online is not really any different in that all players can be pretty much be bundled into one of three groups,

Low variance
Mid variance
High variance/very high

Once you learn which one suits your preferred play/ style/ budget you will enjoy your online gaming far better, however this can be tricky to pin down as each provider has different ideas of what each one entails.

Another issue and one im also guilty of is that many players just dont give a game a big enough chance, and add to a "never playing that again" after an early poor experience.

It is pretty much impossible for a game to cater to all players at the same time that would be the holy grail as such, pretty much everyone knows this, the players, casinos and developers.

Egg timer slots are generally low variance and it always amazes me how many people comment on such games that they are terrible, yet say the exact same thing about games which are high variance.


A lot of what players want or comment on is often conflicted,

Dont like low hit rates lots of dead spins but also,
Dont like lots of micro wins
Hate high feature rates
Hate low feature wins
Love high feature wins
Want playtime

the list goes on, but its just not possible to deliver it all and even if you did come up with the holy grail perfectly balanced slot as a developer and made more the same then all the comments would be oh another "perfect" slot cant they come up with any new ideas ? lol

Slot players will NEVER be happy, the sooner we all accept that the better LOL

Just go light up a fag . Within the space of 1/8 drags a 500x win will happen, thank me later

 

[zreb]

The one thing I will never understand is... How such a 'clever' industry got it's self tied up to such absurd affiliate deals?
Ok, an affiliate should definitely be paid for bringing a new customer to a casino. But to enter into a contact to pay a percentage of the losses, over the entire lifetime of that players account, month after month, year after year.....?

When life is easy for casinos, that model makes a lot of sense. The idea is that getting 50% of a player's losses is much better for a casino than getting 100% of nothing. And when most players were just coming in and dropping off their money with few winners coming out, that might have made a lot of sense. There was a gold rush to try to get as many players in your door as possible.

But now apparently casinos are complaining - right or wrong - that it's a struggle to make any money at all, the above logic doesn't really make much sense any more. Having a huge number of players doesn't do much if they (again, "apparently") aren't actually helping you bring in a profit - you might be better off with a smaller number of players with less expensive strings attached to them.

But casinos are still following the same business model from when the profits were pouring in easily and complaining now that they can't make a profit (in fairness, they're kind of locked into some of those affiliate deals at this point.)

If taxes were done in a sane manner - something like taxing net revenues instead of crazy stuff like taxing individual player losses or bonuses added - there's no reason at all that 98% on slots couldn't be sustainable.

But if you just try to copy the existing model based around deposit bonuses, significant affiliate % payments on losses, percentage payments to software providers on every spin, in addition to the normal operating costs, and then throw in lawmakers that are either too incompetent to tax it in a way that makes sense or greedy enough that they don't care - 98% probably doesn't sound so good anymore.

Still, casinos have no trouble making money on games like baccarat, blackjack, and video poker, so it's certainly possible that a business model can support those slots - just maybe not the one they're using.

There's no reason the industry couldn't change some of the expense models above either out of necessity or if players demanded it. But outside of forums like this one, I don't exactly see players lining up and demanding fair games, so the pressure isn't really there.

 

[slot_zombie]

The one thing I will never understand is... How such a 'clever' industry got it's self tied up to such absurd affiliate deals?
Ok, an affiliate should definitely be paid for bringing a new customer to a casino. But to enter into a contact to pay a percentage of the losses, over the entire lifetime of that players account, month after month, year after year.....?

This! Standard deals are 30-40% revenue share which is ridiculous! A crazy expensive system, some people are making out very nicely here but as we can see over the last year, it's at the expense of the players, who are suffering lack of promotions etc, ridiculous WR and capped winnings, reduced competition due to casinos closing etc.

It would be cheaper for the casinos to do their own promo advertising and just keep 100% of the revenue, maybe put 10% back into improving existing loyal customer offers and bonuses.

 

[Slottery]

Pretty much (as mentioned above already), when it's coming to casinos profits, all these costs attached (including acquisition costs for affiliates or ways to get players, there are not much free ways to do it), would say that casinos like slots around 96% or at least much over.

We have seen these SOW and other rulings where effort need to be also made and requesting SOW including your payslips or what ever is money one is playing, is taking resources which are not really generate income but make (as we have seen in many topics in this forum) player not deposit to you anymore. There have been more countries (Sweden now latest in beginning of January) who start to demand their own licenses with bonus rules where you don't see reloads anymore, take some time to make yourself in fit to get that license with changes need to be done to your systems, make up something to keep players etc.... No to forget that 18% tax to pay for Swedish government, it's not really small amount either.

We all remember "all good days" when there was much less legislation what casinos have to do, now we are in world where casinos need to carry their AML/TF, RG practices in place and more countries demands their own licensed which you first have to study what is demanded and then how to use it.

I would assume that 98% RTP games are something what we don't really see in future anymore, unfortunately we see less bonuses around because of these costs attached to whole casinos operations. Business is business after all, are casinos greedy with their RTP demands from providers, everybody make their own judgement, but we see higher costs affecting to our player experiences little bit at least the ways mentioned, less bonuses, no really high RTP games much available anymore etc...

Other hand, players have now more protection and it's not wild wild west (not that slot) what it used to be for reputable casino operators, i rather stay with them than play fake slots from casino under very little to non regulations and don't even follow these by taking players from countries they are not allowed.

 

[trancemonkey]

Ok of course we all want as high rtp as possible but I think many potentially good or great games are being ruined by the industry "standard" of a 96% rtp
4% avg loss per spin is a hell of a lot imo and it causes games to have too many dead spins and too many low pay basegame "wins" and too many shitty bonuses so you're left feeling that the game is taking the p**s basically
Half that 4% and make the rtp 98% and you can improve the game in many areas . Less of the annoying 1/4 of your stake wins with coins flying everywhere . Less 0-10x bonuses . Less bs teases of ingame features which are zero spins dressed up to look like the game is doing something in an attempt to stop you realising it's yet another dead spin
I don't think max potential has to be increased forever and ever .. yes sure a few people want the possibility of 50000x wins but tbh most of us are ecstatic with a 1000x
Traditionally , the higher rtp slots have been low variance yawnfests but why does that have to be the case ? With some great new slot providers coming through and existing providers stepping up (push , pragmatic , blueprint and even quickspin) I think there is a market for a great slot with great potential and higher rtp . Not because players will see the rtp figure and choose to play it (although this can be a selling point) but because the improved gameplay and pays will mean players will naturally gravitate to the game . Of course it needs to be done right with high volatility , not just a bloodsuckers type pay system
Thoughts ? Would a higher rtp be noticeable when playing a HV slot ? Is there room for a HV slot with higher rtp to take a big share of the market and make up for the smaller profits per spin by attracting a lot higher spin volume ?

Upping the RTP to 98% would make very little difference to how it feels. It certainly wouldn't help remove wins < half stake. Adding 2% just means that every 50 spins, you would have your stake to give away as a prize that you wouldn't have had at 96%.

96% is exceptionally high. A lot of markets (not online) are below 92%. Some below 90.
You should consider yourselves lucky to have 96. I don't think that will last though...

 

[trancemonkey]

No disrespect, but you are talking out of your arse.

Ok you say they make £20,000 a day.

I,m not even sure I can be bothered to cite the beginnings of a list of who needs paying out of the £20,000 (as you put it)

Think I have said before. Imagine you have a big steak and kidney pie.

Everyone is sat around the table. The players NOW want 98% of the pie (according to you)

That's leaves basically naff all for the casino after paying XYZ.

If the provider (in this case), the casino is left starving for food.

Why would they continue?

More so. I don't think they could continue full stop.

You also have to pay all the games providers out of the x% too...

 

[trancemonkey]

Its not the RTP thats the issue its the profile/math of the games 98% games can still play just as bad if the math is not a good fit for the game or player.

Land based AWP/slots have for a long time been split into 3 main profiles, arcade/single site/bingo and online is not really any different in that all players can be pretty much be bundled into one of three groups,

Low variance
Mid variance
High variance/very high

Once you learn which one suits your preferred play/ style/ budget you will enjoy your online gaming far better, however this can be tricky to pin down as each provider has different ideas of what each one entails.

Another issue and one im also guilty of is that many players just dont give a game a big enough chance, and add to a "never playing that again" after an early poor experience.

It is pretty much impossible for a game to cater to all players at the same time that would be the holy grail as such, pretty much everyone knows this, the players, casinos and developers.

Egg timer slots are generally low variance and it always amazes me how many people comment on such games that they are terrible, yet say the exact same thing about games which are high variance.


A lot of what players want or comment on is often conflicted,

Dont like low hit rates lots of dead spins but also,
Dont like lots of micro wins
Hate high feature rates
Hate low feature wins
Love high feature wins
Want playtime

the list goes on, but its just not possible to deliver it all and even if you did come up with the holy grail perfectly balanced slot as a developer and made more the same then all the comments would be oh another "perfect" slot cant they come up with any new ideas ? lol

Slot players will NEVER be happy, the sooner we all accept that the better LOL

A perfectly good and well written answer...
I could make (and have made) successful games at 86%... it's about what you do with the money (rtp). If Blueprint and BTG have 6% of their RTP in wins over 500x, you're playing a 90% games nearly all the time... and if you don't get a feature you are playing probably a 70% game..

 

[Lemon]

A perfectly good and well written answer...
I could make (and have made) successful games at 86%... it's about what you do with the money (rtp). If Blueprint and BTG have 6% of their RTP in wins over 500x, you're playing a 90% games nearly all the time... and if you don't get a feature you are playing probably a 70% game..

This man knows ^^^, and so does RoF.

You could have a slot with an RTP% of 102% and players could still not like it. All depends on the maths. Besides, if you change a 96% slot to 97% you're potentially reducing your profit by a quarter unless the game gets extra play because of it. Conversely, players might leave the game earlier if they get what they are looking for more quickly. Again, all depends on the maths.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that players are getting poor value for money online. As Trancemonkey says, a lot of countries and markets have it much worse. Would you rather be American and play 6/5 Blackjack, double-zero roulette and slots at 90% RTP, and then get taxed on winnings?

With 96% RTP being prevalent online, I often wonder how online casinos can afford the bonuses they give out on top of that.

Online gamblers have never had it so good in terms of RTP%, value for money, entertainment, promotions and vast choice of games to play. Enjoy it while it lasts

 

[zreb]

Upping the RTP to 98% would make very little difference to how it feels. It certainly wouldn't help remove wins < half stake. Adding 2% just means that every 50 spins, you would have your stake to give away as a prize that you wouldn't have had at 96%.

96% is exceptionally high. A lot of markets (not online) are below 92%. Some below 90.
You should consider yourselves lucky to have 96. I don't think that will last though...

Well, there's a reason that many people will say that slots are one of the worst games you can play at a casino, and those <92% slots are where that reputation came from.

With a 96-97% rtp, you still lose more than you might at baccarat, blackjack, or craps, but the difference isn't as extreme. Just because we're not getting robbed by some 85% casino slot doesn't mean we can't be disappointed if RTP's are slowly dropping.

While I hope this isn't taken as a personal insult, it seems weird to me when game developers describe something as "just" 1% or 2%, no big deal - and meanwhile the casinos themselves have rewards programs plastered all over their promotions pages that reward comp points worth .1-.2% - maybe even .5% if you lose tens of thousands of dollars to reach some special whale VIP tier. So which is it, should we be thrilled for .1-.5% worth in player points or is 1-2% on the games themselves unimportant?

Personally, if you tell me I can play one particular slot, or I can play an identical slot that gives me a free spin once every 50 - of course I'd be happy to take a free spin every 50. That doesn't sound insignificant.

We can talk about maths profiles, fitting the game to the players interests, or players whining no matter what they're given all they want, but the reality is that a higher RTP allows you to make an objectively better game. You can literally just take the same game and stick that 2% in small wins, you can make it a 50x win every 2500 spins - you can even create a 1000x jackpot that hits once every 50,000 spins if you want.

While it's true that a player probably can't tell the difference between 96 or 98% game in the short term by feel, it's bizarre to pretend that their playing experience isn't affected by it. Players will often run through more than 1000 - sometimes several 1000's - of spins in a single night. That 2% could either mean a lot more playtime, an exciting jackpot possibility, or something in the middle.

Yeah, you could trick players and put in a 2000x+ jackpot that hits 1 in 10 million spins to use that RTP elsewhere, but look at slots like the Napoleon one or dead or alive - people play those because those big wins DO actually hit from time to time. Even if you wouldn't know right away based on how a slot feels over a few hundred spins.

Well, I'm in the U.S now so options here kind of suck as it is, and I've definitely cut back my play as a result recently. If it gets worse I would probably quit altogether, simple as that. But even if the new games are terrible, at least the old games will probably still be around for a few years unless the casinos even decide to do away with those.

 

[SlotGrinder]

Upping the RTP to 98% would make very little difference to how it feels. It certainly wouldn't help remove wins < half stake. Adding 2% just means that every 50 spins, you would have your stake to give away as a prize that you wouldn't have had at 96%.

96% is exceptionally high. A lot of markets (not online) are below 92%. Some below 90.
You should consider yourselves lucky to have 96. I don't think that will last though...

Losing on avg half as much in the same amount of spins longterm would certainly feel different though
Other markets as in live casinos ? Obv they have to provide an individual slot machine for 1 single player and house it in an actual building , whilst online casinos can have 1000s of players playing the same slot at once . It's no comparison . Or if you're talking about the american market , well they're getting ripped off because they have no options
Most of us have thousands of options regarding slots to play and casinos to play at . So I'd like to see a decent slot with good potential and 98% rtp take a big share of the market , then others would follow suit (like megaways copies)
If you think players should be grateful to have any slot to play on regardless of the rtp then I think you are mistakenly believing that its all about entertainment and overestimating how entertaining they actually are... Players want to win money too . Most game providers seem to launch their slots with pride and 90% of the time they are uninspiring garbage tbh

 

[dunover]

The extra tax is only on the casino's profits from UK registered players. They still have players from the rest of europe, and indeed, the rest of the world, the profits from which, aren't taxed by the UKGC. I'm pretty sure the UK isn't the major income source, compared to the rest of the world for most casinos.

The casinos who should be shouting about the taxation, and battening down the hatches, are the UK bookies sites, who are predominantly UK focused. But they're pretty quiet about it all.

I think it's as much a case of casinos not making as much as they've got used to making. Rather that them not being able to make ends meet.

The site who are closing down are the ones who haven't got a big enough player base to cover the break-even costs.

The one thing I will never understand is... How such a 'clever' industry got it's self tied up to such absurd affiliate deals?
Ok, an affiliate should definitely be paid for bringing a new customer to a casino. But to enter into a contact to pay a percentage of the losses, over the entire lifetime of that players account, month after month, year after year.....?

If only it really worked that way! It does in theory but in reality the average new player lasts around 3 months. This means that hybrid deals tend to be best, so you get a fixed fee for a new depositor and lesser rev share. Players recruited that last years are very rare indeed. There's a variety of reasons for this, including DPA (casino gets box checked so cannot send the new player offers to retain them), losing player excludes, winning player excludes and primarily bonus-chasers who only make deposits until their incentives expire.
The actions of a casino determine player longevity too, i.e. cashback, regular extra spins and promotions.

You should also remember the cost per acquisition (CPA) varies hugely. A player I'd earn 100 euros from by way of a minimum 20e deposit say would cost the casino up to 3 times more via a powerful large scale affiliate group. These super affiliates can charge a few hundred per CPA and it's not unusual for them to negotiate RS in excess of 50%. That may sound outrageous but the cost of advertising on TV etc. is huge and that price can go even higher. So smaller affs like myself provide very good value on say a 100e/30% hybrid deal or a simple 35-45% RS.

This also explains why smaller affs are bought up by the bigger ones. My 100 new players a month that would earn me 5-10k (assuming ALL were hybrid deals!) would be worth 15-35k for a larger affiliate group who can use their clout for far higher CPA amounts.

The issue is that without affiliates you'd have no competition to the big bookies or casino groups as unless a new casino started with a huge budget for advertising via media (more expensive), it would never get enough players to thrive. It may be hard to accept for players, but it's a fact that without independent marketers like us lot, you'd never have seen half of the bonuses and casinos that you enjoy now.

 

[trancemonkey]

Losing on avg half as much in the same amount of spins longterm would certainly feel different though
Other markets as in live casinos ? Obv they have to provide an individual slot machine for 1 single player and house it in an actual building , whilst online casinos can have 1000s of players playing the same slot at once . It's no comparison . Or if you're talking about the american market , well they're getting ripped off because they have no options
Most of us have thousands of options regarding slots to play and casinos to play at . So I'd like to see a decent slot with good potential and 98% rtp take a big share of the market , then others would follow suit (like megaways copies)
If you think players should be grateful to have any slot to play on regardless of the rtp then I think you are mistakenly believing that its all about entertainment and overestimating how entertaining they actually are... Players want to win money too . Most game providers seem to launch their slots with pride and 90% of the time they are uninspiring garbage tbh

I think you're missing the point slightly here.
I would love to make every slot I create at the highest RTP possible, but it's not financially viable for the casino or the games providers to go much higher than 96.

As a provider, you get a percentage of the hold (how much the machine or game keeps).. A game at 98% has to take twice the amount of money as a game at 96% to make the casino / games providers the same amount. A 98% will NOT play twice as well as a 96%. It will certainly never take twice as much money. Over a long period you might feel the difference but most people play around 150 spins per session IIRC. It's impossible to feel RTP in that kind of session.

So we have to balance RTP choices my a number of factors... apart from rogue casinos, all casinos WANT people to have a good experience. Players that have a good time keep coming back...

It's why this compensation/rigged idea is so ridiculous when people complain the game was awful therefore it's rigged... when if we COULD compensate games (and I've written many compensated Cat C and B4 games in my life) you would NEVER go on a raking (losing) period on purpose unless you absolutely had to, because it feels shit. So they were avoided at all costs.

If RTP was the main factor in success then every online game would be successful ... But most aren't. There is a LOT of shit. Why? Because the maths profiles or game designs are just rubbish.

So many providers in the world think slots are a cash cow... people will play anything... And don't pay attention much to maths. But it's THE most important thing. Which is why the profile of the game is way more important than the RTP. Yes higher RTPs help you award some of the bigger wins... But not often.

 

[SlotGrinder]

If only it really worked that way! It does in theory but in reality the average new player lasts around 3 months. This means that hybrid deals tend to be best, so you get a fixed fee for a new depositor and lesser rev share. Players recruited that last years are very rare indeed. There's a variety of reasons for this, including DPA (casino gets box checked so cannot send the new player offers to retain them), losing player excludes, winning player excludes and primarily bonus-chasers who only make deposits until their incentives expire.
The actions of a casino determine player longevity too, i.e. cashback, regular extra spins and promotions.

You should also remember the cost per acquisition (CPA) varies hugely. A player I'd earn 100 euros from by way of a minimum 20e deposit say would cost the casino up to 3 times more via a powerful large scale affiliate group. These super affiliates can charge a few hundred per CPA and it's not unusual for them to negotiate RS in excess of 50%. That may sound outrageous but the cost of advertising on TV etc. is huge and that price can go even higher. So smaller affs like myself provide very good value on say a 100e/30% hybrid deal or a simple 35-45% RS.

This also explains why smaller affs are bought up by the bigger ones. My 100 new players a month that would earn me 5-10k (assuming ALL were hybrid deals!) would be worth 15-35k for a larger affiliate group who can use their clout for far higher CPA amounts.

The issue is that without affiliates you'd have no competition to the big bookies or casino groups as unless a new casino started with a huge budget for advertising via media (more expensive), it would never get enough players to thrive. It may be hard to accept for players, but it's a fact that without independent marketers like us lot, you'd never have seen half of the bonuses and casinos that you enjoy now.

Yeh but that's the trouble - it's all about attracting new players with bonuses which need to be paid for by the existing player who is no longer eligible for welcome bonuses . It's all backwards . Join a casino and you get welcome bonuses , you get rewards more quickly as well . Play on there for a while and you no longer get any bonuses and the rewards dry up lol and you're left with the shitty rtp that the casino needs to make enough money to cover the cost of all the welcome bonuses and affiliates
My broadband/phone package used to cost 19.99 now its 40 for some reason because the "deal" has run out and I cba to go through the hassle of changing it!
Shouldnt the price go down if you are loyal and a good customer ? Not the other way around

What I'm trying to say is the guy who wants to deposit some money and play slots without any gimmicks (bonuses , rewards , races blah blah which are usually fairly worthless) well they are the one getting the bad deal with rtp at 96% considering the speed of play online that eats your money too quickly without providing enough playtime/entertainment imo