Will games-by-design measures avert the threat of stake limits?

There was a familiar ring to many of the measures introduced by the UK Gambling Commission in their games design consultation response document released at the start of February. Strictly speaking, not all the measures spoken about were new.

The moves to limit spin speeds on slots to 2.5 seconds, for instance, which will now be incorporated into the Commission’s licence conditions and codes of practice actually featured in the Betting and Gaming Council’s (BGC) code of conduct unveiled last September. As did provisions around the use of slam stops and turbo play, the prohibition of spins celebrating losses as wins and multi-play within a single gaming client.

No surprise, then, that there was overwhelming support for the measures within the responses to the consultation; 65% were in favour of limiting the slot speed, for instance and 62% either agreed or strongly agreed with the limit of features such as slam stop. This is also borne out in the scientific literature, which suggests there is some evidence that riskier products are likely to comprise of the characteristics of fast and continuous game play.

But there were more contentious issues contained within the consultation and worrying indications for the industry over the manner in which the Commission now intends to justify its ultimate decisions. The question now is whether this spells bad news in future when it comes to future decisions on stake size and how the sector can hope to influence the final shape of any further measures.
Automatic for the people
It is in the area of auto-play functionality that the issues arise. In the consultation response document the Commission made it clear this was an area where there was the most concern. In total, 73% of operators and 65% of all respondents to the consultation said they were opposed to the measure to ban auto-play.

“It was clear from the response document that many respondents felt there wasn’t enough evidence provided originally by the Commission in making its own summation,” says Simo Dragicevic, chief executive for BetBuddy at Playtech. ”The evidence base available to make a decision on something like auto-play, which is not a critical matter, should act as an urgent warning to the industry.”

The Commission gathered its own evidence, namely a commissioned piece of consumer research as well as a survey undertaken by GamCare. Yet, as Dragicevic points out, the evidence against auto-play from the consumer research also wasn’t pegged against any Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) measure.

“The Commission gave greater weight to the survey data which also doesn’t have PGSI scores, relies on memory and recall rather than actual use, and downplays the findings that don’t support keeping it,” he says.

He points here to a question which asked whether auto-play could help players budget where there was a net positive of 20% suggesting it could be a helpful tool.

“The Commission’s consultation response appears extremely light on evidence,” says Dan Waugh from gambling consultancy Regulus Partners. “Prominence is given to the proportion of respondents who supported the changes – suggesting that the Commission may be more interested in opinion than fact.”

Anna Soilleux-Mills, partner at law firm CMS, adds that the Commission “keeps coming back to” the data on the gross gaming yield (GGY) derived from slots play as detailed in its annual data overviews. This has shown a large percentage increase in the past five years from relatively few gamblers. But she adds, “other research quoted by the Gambling Commission in its consultation is a little thin and open to criticism.”

“For example, the statistic quoted in the consultation that 24% of participants in online slots reported that they had experienced a ‘hot state’ while gambling was taken from a survey which included around 100 people (and for some research sessions only 18 participants).”
The next battle
The debate over auto-play is over. But there are lessons for the sector in the debates to come, not least around stake sizes. “This shows where we are as a sector,” says Dragicevic. “The Commission doesn’t feel able to rely on the industry evidence base, but doesn’t have its own compelling evidence either.”

He points out that only one respondent to the games design consultation was classed as an academic. “Does that show academics aren’t interested or do they feel they can influence policy more via other stakeholders?” Without evidence both the Commission and the wider sector will be in the dark as to the effect of the latest measures. “There may also be unintended negative consequences but without any system of evaluation, it may be some time before these become clear,” he says.

This doesn’t stop the critics. As Matthew Curran-Whitburn, an associate at Wiggin, points out, even while the ink was drying on the new measures the critics repeated their demands on introducing stake limits. This is, of course, straight out of the playbook from the campaign against FOBTs, and the sector knows how that one ended.

“After FOBTs, stake limits for online slots seem almost inevitable, but much really depends on timing,” says Soilleux-Mills. “With the gambling act review already underway and the new measures only being introduced in October, it is impossible for their effectiveness to be assessed before a decision on stakes is made.”

“It seems unlikely that the Commission will consider the effectiveness of these measures when advising the government on stake limits,” says Waugh. “Also, even with the Commission’s very crude attempts to gauge impact, we are unlikely to have a clear idea of impact within a timeframe compatible for the DCMS review.”

What is apparent is a lack of joined-up thinking. “We want to ensure that regulatory measures are more likely to succeed and that consumer protection is maximised,” says Dragicevic. “Collaboration is essential for this between all stakeholders – regulators, industry, academics and those campaigning for reforms. And implementing new measures should be coordinated where possible so they work effectively.”

The fear is that when it comes to slots the regulator is in danger of simply chasing its tail. In attempting, as the Sports Minister Nigel Huddleston said in the press release announcing the latest games design measures, to reduce the “intensity” of slots play, the authorities are effectively confronting the very reason people play slots in the first place.

“What is difficult in assessing whether the measures achieve their aim is that the elements of slots which result in ‘intensive play’ are often the same elements which make them fun and exciting,” says Soilleux-Mills. “The aim needs to be to strike the right balance between minimising harm and not totally eradicating what makes them entertaining and enjoyable for the vast majority of people who play them safely.”

Helen Walton, chief commercial officer at games developer Gamevy, points out that “in reality intensity of play is about the feedback given to players” and removing auto-play, for instance, “won’t have the impact” that the Commission is seeking. “It leaves regulators constantly playing catch up to regulate out innovations which only succeed if players enjoy them,” she says.

Such an outcome is clearly not desirable and might, as the BGC’s Michael Dugher suggested, actually lead players to find alternatives. As he said, “none of these new changes apply to the unsafe, unregulated black market.”

As Dragicevic concludes, if regulation suffocates innovation in safer gambling then arguably nobody wins. “Regulators have a difficult job, however, It makes it much harder to continuing investing in and improving responsible gambling measures in the long run,” he warns.