Inside Asian Gaming

INSIDE ASIAN GAMING | December 2010 30 GLI Is technology cooperation and research cooperation between original equipment manufacturers and the creation of open communication standards overseen by the Gaming Standards Association (GSA) creating opportunities for GLI? Yes. As systems become more complex, and we’re getting G2S [the GSA’s Game to System] and S2S [the GSA’s System to System] interfaces, operators are really pushing in that direction. An operator might say, ‘I want this system and I want this G2S implementation from two different vendors. And I want you two to sit down and work together on it, because that’s what I want and I’m buying the system’. More and more, we are seeing operators having a direct say in which company is selected for the testing process, because as they see it, ultimately, it is in their best interest to ensure devices and systems operate correctly when they are live on the floor. Operators are telling us they are choosing GLI because of our independence and expertise. As we start to get more complexity and interoperability, this is going to become an issue more and more. You might be surprised to learn it’s often being driven by the customer—the purchaser—of that system rather than the manufacturer saying ‘I want to make sure I work with “X” piece of equipment from another supplier’. That element is still there as well—particularly from the gaming device manufacturer’s side. There are eight or nine major online suppliers, and as new suppliers enter the market, they want to ensure their products work with all of the major systems. They turn to GLI and ask, “Can you hook my machine up with all these major systems and make sure it communicates correctly?” That’s much better than putting it straight on the floor of a casino and finding it doesn’t work—especially if the manufacturer is new to the market. Because if it’s a six-machine placement on a casino floor and it doesn’t work, then that’s a dead spot on the floor. The casino operator has very little patience for that. If machines are not working they are either off the floor very quickly or they’ll need a software update. If the manufacturer can’t get a software update to the casino quickly enough then the machines may be pulled [off the floor]. Whereas if that equipment goes through a lab and everything’s ironed out beforehand, they don’t have that pressure of live games on a casino floor. It can be adjusted in a test bed environment. We’re seeing a lot of that interoperability testing, and that’s going to become more and more complex with convergence of technologies and multiple platforms for content. There’s talk of new wide area jackpots being introduced into the Macau market to drive slot revenue growth and to create ‘life changing’ jackpots. What’s GLI’s role in testing such technologies? Generally, regulators see progressive jackpots as a core part of the game functionality and a core part of their responsibilities as a regulator to make sure the jackpots operate correctly. It’s not uncommon in some markets, for example, to have jackpots over US$1 million. So the potential for something going wrong is there. It can become a big problem very quickly. Issues such as fairness about players not being eligible to win jackpots and how jackpots are disbursedwhen they’re decommissioned creates a whole load of new requirements, but nothing that other jurisdictions haven’t gone through. So we certify and test many controls and jackpot formats. What about jackpots between properties owned by the same operator? From a technology point of view, running jackpots or any gaming networks between properties is the same infrastructure generally as running them within one property. Everything’s running on the same sort of topography—the same routers and servers. All the technology that connects sites together—whether it’s in the next room or miles down the road—is effectively the same.