4 of a kind
Repeated violations of forum rule 1.16 - troll
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Location
- New York
[Max says: this was split off from "Return to Player - Critiques Requested" for what I assume are obvious reasons.]
Since you are the CEO of a gaming software provider, and certainly appear to be one of the good guys, maybe you could answer a few question that I'm curious about.
What drives a CEO of a software company to engage and associate within an industry that for over a decade has a reputation of misleading, embezzling, committing fraud, and outright blatantly stealing money from their customers? It's obvious you realize the waters are murky and deep as per your own quote above.
Based on your out of pocket settlement for 40K to a player that was obviously being stolen from one of these crooks using your software, what motivated the board to pay this victim while looking ahead?
It should be obvious to most that your decision to pay that amount was of course the righteous thing to do, but looking ahead did the company believe it would eventually recover those losses and continue to show profits?
Do software providers put all of these negative factual issues on the side, and take the approach that someone is going to do it regardless, so we might as well get a piece of the billion dollar industry?
If the operators are not regulated, why don't the software providers who are willing to supply the operators with the equipment needed to steal from their customers, have their own regulations and enforcement in place for protection which would in turn protect not only the software company but the customers also?
Would these conditions being in place before you sold them your software bring sales to a screeching halt?
Do software providers get a one lump fee upfront, or are the providers receiving commissions from the casino profits?
If the software providers receive commissions all along, (which I believe is correct since they own the source codes) wouldn't that in reality make the software provider and the operator both one in the same?
In terms of creating a page that addresses the major issues for online gaming - I'd agree there is little hope of that. The waters there are a little too deep, and a little too murky, for a small group of people out of Vancouver to clear on their own.
Since you are the CEO of a gaming software provider, and certainly appear to be one of the good guys, maybe you could answer a few question that I'm curious about.
What drives a CEO of a software company to engage and associate within an industry that for over a decade has a reputation of misleading, embezzling, committing fraud, and outright blatantly stealing money from their customers? It's obvious you realize the waters are murky and deep as per your own quote above.
Based on your out of pocket settlement for 40K to a player that was obviously being stolen from one of these crooks using your software, what motivated the board to pay this victim while looking ahead?
It should be obvious to most that your decision to pay that amount was of course the righteous thing to do, but looking ahead did the company believe it would eventually recover those losses and continue to show profits?
Do software providers put all of these negative factual issues on the side, and take the approach that someone is going to do it regardless, so we might as well get a piece of the billion dollar industry?
If the operators are not regulated, why don't the software providers who are willing to supply the operators with the equipment needed to steal from their customers, have their own regulations and enforcement in place for protection which would in turn protect not only the software company but the customers also?
Would these conditions being in place before you sold them your software bring sales to a screeching halt?
Do software providers get a one lump fee upfront, or are the providers receiving commissions from the casino profits?
If the software providers receive commissions all along, (which I believe is correct since they own the source codes) wouldn't that in reality make the software provider and the operator both one in the same?
Last edited by a moderator: