Reasonable points but perhaps my question was worded badly. Why would MG block new games and stop taking new players, and allow existing plaers to play on? Would it not simply be a compromise to operators based on the fact that MG would ideally ban all US from all games, but would be in breach of existing contracts with their licencees if they did?
Maybe, but WHY go to the trouble of blocking the new games, and quite clearly piss off the EXISTING players that this compromise has allowed.
Why not let the compromise run WITHOUT introducing, at extra code writing expense, the blocking of new games. It has lead to MGS having TWO different products to support, one for US players that blocks new games, and one for the rest of us, that blocks nothing.
This can only be a TEMPORARY arrangement in any case, so MGS are investing in a "dead end" US variant of the product. Once they have decided commercial exposure to the US is small enough, they are bound to pull out altogether, and if there is regulation in future, they will NOT need the "crippleware" version anyway, since US players could have the LATEST version that the rest of us have.
It almost seems MGS have just blocked new games "for the hell of it", and not for any specific reason. They were "held to ransom" by operators threatening to change software if there was a total pull-out, and the new games block is just there for MGS to "make a point" to operators that such "blackmail" did not go down too well, and they would NOT cave in to EVERY one of the demands. Operators, it seems, settled for this.
PLAYERS on the other hand were not really considered at all during this "in fighting", and US players rightly suspect that operators and MGS do not care about THEM, but DO care about their MONEY, especially the extra year or two's worth that can be squeezed from those players granted these "grandfather rights" to continue playing on accounts opened before the cut off date.
In terms of US law, this is complete nonsense. The gambling is equally "illegal" whether on Spring Break, or Thunderstruck II - it is also just as "illegal" if an old account is used, or a new one.
Neteller found this out, when they were charged with making gambling transactions BEFORE the UIGEA was even considered, let alone passed & signed. It didn't help those founders that they had already left the company, and that there was no UIGEA in force when THEY were in charge, and making these transactions.
In the same vein, it will NOT help MGS one bit that they ONLY allowed EXISTING customers to break the law, and only on SOME of their games.
MGS are SUPPOSED to be doing this after taking legal advice - well, I don't want these lawyers working for ME if this has been their advice on how to approach the UIGEA.
RTG have taken a clearer approach, "it ain't illegal, so we are changing NOTHING". It may be wrong, but it is at least CONSISTENT. The MGS approach is to say, "it IS illegal, so we have taken certain steps, but we will STILL break the law where & when it is profitable for us to do so". The problem is that by recognising the issue, they CANNOT then claim in defence that they believed they were doing nothing wrong. Since MGS are dictating to operators what they can and cannot do with regard to US players, they are exposing themselves to greater danger of legal action than would be the case if they took the stance "we only supplied the software, it was the OPERATOR that chose to use it to take bets from US players".
So, what is being covered up here, and what does the future hold for US players.
My considered prediction was that June 1st would see another diktat from MGS, and that it would probably be a full withdrawal from the US market, and pretty quickly, perhaps even one of those dreaded "overnight closures" that the likes of Neteller and Cryptologic inflicted upon US players.
All the casinos now are tighter-assed than you-know-what. I'll wait it out, or just move on altogether.
