Who should be left accountable, the casino or the software provider?

[Mavin1]

[QUOTE=Casinomeister;337524]I haven't voted yet, because the option for "both" isn't there

As reflected in several post so far, there are many scenerios that require responsiveness from both the operator and software provider. The online gaming industry is unique and really can't be compared to any other IMO. There is no industry that requires the level of trust as this one.

The casino operator is responsible for all aspects of the casino operations - even if their support is centralized - it was their decision to accept this casino package - they have to ensure it's functioning properly. Like the saying goes "the buck stops here."

On the other hand, it is the software provider that is responsible for the games' fairness. They are also the ones who have done their due diligence by putting these operators online, so they should be answerable or offer solutions if the operator goes tits-up.

In a more preferable situation - like Simmo! said - we should be drawing our attention to the licensing entity. But with most cases (sans IoM and Alderney) it's a joke. I don't even bother with Malta anymore - it's a crying shame.

Inside scoop: Kahnawakee btw is making a major turn-around at the moment which is good to hear. We won't have to call them Kahn-a-ha-ha wakee anymore [/QUOTE]



Have to agree on this point as to both being responsible and would have voted for this option, even though many of us do use the chain of command.
Such as hearing Casino Jack stating he could manipulate the RTP for players on request, this makes it a casino issue.
Then you have countless posters stating the change in RTP at countless casinos, not just with one brand but many, IMO, this makes it a software provider issue as they are making changes from the top that creates the change in all casinos equally that use said software.

But a player should only have to go as far as the casino rep for questions, concerns or issues, it should be the reps responsibility to seek and provide answers or take care of issues that their players have in a diligent and honest manner.

 

[Wildfire7]

The casino operator is responsible for all aspects of the casino operations - even if their support is centralized - it was their decision to accept this casino package - they have to ensure it's functioning properly. Like the saying goes "the buck stops here."

On the other hand, it is the software provider that is responsible for the games' fairness. They are also the ones who have done their due diligence by putting these operators online, so they should be answerable or offer solutions if the operator goes tits-up.

Absolutly agree. So what about the player? What is the player responsible for? Adhering to the casinos T&C's, and being accountable for his/her own actions. Yes the software providers and the vendors do have a duty to offer the player a trouble free gaming experience.

But if that is what they are providing, and the player is still unhappy then he/she should be taking stock of themselves and accepting that gambling by nature involves risk. Rather than jumping on every bandwagon going, to look for flaws and errors to avoid blaming anyone but themselves.

Mike

 

[Mavin1]

The casino operator is responsible for all aspects of the casino operations - even if their support is centralized - it was their decision to accept this casino package - they have to ensure it's functioning properly. Like the saying goes "the buck stops here."

On the other hand, it is the software provider that is responsible for the games' fairness. They are also the ones who have done their due diligence by putting these operators online, so they should be answerable or offer solutions if the operator goes tits-up.

The above was originally posted by casinomeister, I was agreeing with him that both were responsible the casino and the software provider, but you are right too, the player needs to be mature and responsible as well.

 

[johnsteed]

***



The title of this thread was supposed to read...



Who should be left more accountable, the casino or the software provider?



... but the title spacing forced me to condense the title of the thread. Thus, I left out the "more" which changes everything now that I look at it.




Both parties - the operator and the software provider - are both responsible, absolutely, but I left out a 3rd option because the question should have read who's more accountable. In this case, there shouldn't be a 3rd option.



If I haven't stated so already, I'll say it now, is that specifically with casinos that use MG software, after all of these years, I get really tired of how the support teams of any particular casino use that crutch of hiding behind the software provider when there are errors with the games. And to be clear, I'm not talking about bonuses and such, specifically with a malfunction, or strange outcomes with the RNG.



I've generally got a response where the casino couldn't help me out because they said that it was to do with the program, and nothing to do on their part. Very well, but it's their casino, and I'm using their brand, and MG is a giant black hole for not answering questions to the low-life customers that ultimately use their software, and the casinos are well aware that MG doesn't answer questions, yet my questions and concerns have been passed along to those wonderful people at MG who everyone knows won't answer my questions.



So, why do casino operators do that? I've never received any feedback from MG, on anything, and I know very well that I never will. Someone might have a wonderful answer as to why they didn't answer my questions, but it's a great tool for the casino to have, by that if there are ever any major problems, they can just direct you to MG.



Now, knowing that I'll never get any answers from MG, and the casinos know that I'll never get any responses from MG, then I direct full my attention squarely on the casinos because there aren't 2 avenues to use, only 1. Really, where's the choice?



As far as I'm concerned, there's no concrete evidence of anything in this industry, because we aren't privy to everything that goes on within the boundaries of MG HQ, we can't personally observe what goes on directly at any casino operation, but we're often told to ignore what we're seeing with our eyes, ignore how we experience something that didn't seem quite right because we don't have trillions of sample data to prove it, our experiences and explanations for them are often called nothing more than "theories", and I guess that the player doesn't really have 2 legs to stand on.



As far as we're told, each casino can't control the payouts of their games. I don't believe it, and there's nothing out there that's absolute proof that can tell me that they can't control the RNG. Am I wrong for thinking this? Is it okay for someone to laugh at this suggestion (that's been made so many times), and call me foolish for thinking this? I know the mindset around here, and it's "wrong" to believe what I just said. But I believe it.



I don't believe that the numbers provided to the player, are necessarily concrete. I've experienced a problem with PlayCheck not recording a hand that was played prior to the system disconnecting me (nothing to do on my end), a hand that I know I had played, yet it never showed up in PlayCheck, therefore it never existed. I know what I saw, I experienced it, but it didn't happen (they say) because it doesn't show up in PlayCheck. Wow, PlayCheck is God I guess, and I'm full of shit. So, personally, I feel for Wayram, because I know from my experience, that not everything is as it should be.




Steed


***

 

[bernynhel]

I just don't remember seeing any 1-800 numbers at any online casino I've ever played at for the "End-user to Software Support".

"If, you should encounter a problem with any of our games at Grubby's Casino, just call the Casino Software Manufacturer's Hotline at 1-800-WHEN-PIGSFLY where a knowledgable tech is there to help you, 24/7!"

That'll be the day.