Topic: Casino owner or game owner? - page 3. (Read 1995 times)

The Casino owner should be the one to be most profitable, when sitting an agreement the game owner cannot be earning more from his game through a particular site than what the Casino owner collects as profits, meanwhile this games are published on different platforms giving an accumulated sum of profits from every casino. In certain times it depends on what they both agreed on, but likely the Casino owner is bearing the risk from every angles and deserves to earn more, it would be a cheat if the particular game owner earns more same with every others who would publish.

It depends on the profit sharing setup between game providers and casino. Some game providers only charge fees on every bet made on the casino but some setup is the opposite which the casino is the one asking for fee while the game provider shoulder all the payment and profit.

There’s an instance in the past that the game provider doesn’t pay the winner for a jackpot prize while the casino itself can’t pay it on their own bankroll. Also game provider usually have their own tournament available on different casino that shows that they are still risking money on the prize pool in exchange for players to play their game.

They can end up in lose if only few wager compared to the prize they set.

Indeed because as a casino owner, you have the opportunity to attracts many people to come to your casino. That can give your the chance to make a profit from the losses gambler and that profit will be bigger if they are tempting to continue gambling.

The game owner needs to spread his games into many casinos but that will depends on how many people play on his games. We know that gamblers will come to their favorite games so if the game owner can not create attractive games, he will not make money from the casino. That is because not many gamblers wants to play his games.

More profit might be made for casino owners if there the single casinos listed on the bookmaker or only a few casinos. because the risk on the casino's owner and the owner might be a loser but the game provider might not benefit too much for single casinos but more important fact is that the casino provider has no chance to be a loser.

When you are a casino owner, all the advantages have you, though we also have all the risks we can face as the owner of the gambling casino. You have all the hassle.

Unlike you the game owner is not that high hassle compared to the casino owner, this is if we talk about the two of them, though we can afford the profit to either of us.

And you think also that a casino loses if gamblers win? And do you think as well that they will agree to deal with the game owner and not sell completely? Casino owners know the risk, and they take action about it and make all transactions are not just transparent but have a clear agreement and responsibility of both parties. If I am a game owner, I also take a deal that guarantees profit. 

We don't need to argue about who is making more profit, but what is important is that both are making benefits. 

There is another aspect of the work of game developers.
This feature is that the software product they sell is something that connects one supplier with another in the form of one person, even often sometimes two specific persons - partners. And it is relatively easy for them to agree on the price and method of payment. But the sale of casino services for the masses of users is clearly dictated by the free market and the demands of clients - players. Such trade in casino services for clients is still much more complicated and its organization requires much more labor. These same issues are synchronously reflected in the corresponding financial transactions and in payment options, both legal, official, and in payment, for example, with some features for the purpose of, for example, reducing taxation, when it comes to official providers of gambling services registered in some jurisdictions.

Actually the only way I would have loved to be a game owner instead of casino owner is when the game owners will not sell their games completely to the casinos but instead in such a way they would be making their profits as people are using their game on the casinos then either daily or monthly they settle the casino who host there game on their casinos, actually if something like that can happen then the game owners will be more richer than the casinos because they have nothing to loss whether gamblers won or loss they're making their money but that would be a bad business for casinos, or are there any game owners who profits in a such way.

In my opinion, it is impossible to even imagine a guarantee of successful business development both in the direction of creating a new casino itself and the business of creating gaming platforms.
The gambling industry itself is so densely filled with competitors, usually those who have huge money from their previous work in this industry, that almost any newcomer to this business will face an extremely difficult situation in promoting their new project. I think that in general this business is mainly for those businessmen who have been working in this industry for a long time and have experience in creating new casinos based on old ones, which either continue to exist or deliberately go bankrupt.

In game owner, you only benefit from the game you have created and probably one of two or three but as a casino owner, you added many games in your Casino for people to come and play and you have many games in the casino for players to play and pay. So I will prefer to own a casino if the opportunity is given.
Game producers make money buy I don't think they are making it like the casino owners. Casino owners spend a lot of money to set up the casino yet they make more money. While game producers use their knowledge to create new motion games. Programming uses more energy than casino setting up.

If we briefly summarize what is discussed in this topic, the following picture emerges: the casino owner has a higher profit margin, but he involves more labor costs and takes more risks in matters of breaking the law. The platform owner has a lower profit margin, but relatively less labor costs and the risk of breaking the law and the troubles associated with it is less. Something like that. And psychologically, such people must probably be completely different.

I would prefer to be a casino owner. Casino owners have more profit than game providers. Even being a game provider means you have to request casino owners to add your games. If they add your games to the casino, you will get some money, but you will not own or be the owner of the casino. If you are a casino owner, you can independently decide which games to add to your casino and you will not have to request or be dependent on anyone. I would prefer to be a casino owner in terms of self-esteem, dominance and profit.

For now, of course, there are many casinos running and that allows game owners to definitely get a lot of profit, and if seen from another side, game owners will get money from casino owners who pay for their games while we know in the future the casino will get a lot of customers or not, if they don't get customers, maybe they won't get a profit even though they have spent money to pay for their games, but I don't think it's possible for their casino to have few players.
After I read your opinion about game suppliers who have casinos that will become competitors, I thought about why game owners don't build their own casinos, because if it's like that, maybe they will get a bigger profit, or maybe they just provide games and don't want to bother with managing a casino business.

As someone who's from the industry, I'm gonna give you a comparison:

A Casino Operator is like the CEO of a company, whatever is happening within the industry/country, they are the ones to blame.
#1. You don't have the right licenses? To jail.
#2. You don't keep KYC and AML policies in check? Jail
#3. You don't stick to the responsible gambling act? Straight to jail
#4. You've accepted a group of players from a non-regulated country? Jail.

I already said this, but I have a hand full of friends who can't go to Australia, Germany, Turkey and Poland, just because they operated there as a CEO of a gambling operation illegally and got caught, now they can't step foot into the country because they'll be prosecuted.

One of them famously said "In 10 years I might not be able to step foot in New Zealand, but I'll sure circle around it in my yacht".

A Game Provider is like the COO, he will still go down with the ship, but there's less responsibilities involved and less jail time. It's like being the developer of Gran Theft Auto, and then a kid shots down a school. They can't sue you because you strictly said that your game is for 18+ and no one below should have gotten a copy of it. Now, if they did, it's not your fault. However, you will still have trouble sleeping at night.

So if not an operator and not a game provider, who would I be?

From what I saw, the most clean and stress-free money comes from service providers, to be more specific, platform providers.

#1. Every casino needs a platform on which to work
#2. Every good platform charges a fixed monthly fee and asks for a slice of the earnings.
#3. If the operator goes down, the platform is not at fault.
#4. If the game goes down, the platform is not at fault.

They are like that little umbrella on cocktails, you can't blame the umbrella for getting drunk, you can't blame it for breaking the glass and cutting a guest, it's just there because it completes the picture and you need it to sell.

I want to sleep at night, and a platform provider is the best bet, least amount of black money, least amount of law issues, so then on a 10-year roadmap you'll have more money and less stress than someone operating a casino.

If you want to be either of the two, then you need to learn how to know about the aspect that interest you, have the management practice in place and also create enough time for it, this will help you to monitor everything concerning what you do, one cannot afford to have interest on something he have no idea about, that is why prior knowledge in doing something is first needed because that will be the initial security over it.

A lot of people want to own the casino, not bad but it also depends your business knowledge too, you know that casino is a business and there are a lots of competitors, if you don't have that knowledge to run the casino effectively, it can crash, while a game programmer already have his skill inbuilt and can be working on other casinos. So, like other have said, go for what you have the capacity to do.

Of course, any commercial organization can go bankrupt.

Such negative consequences can be caused by both the initial strategic mistakes of the founders and suddenly arising force majeure circumstances. After all, any commercial organization exists in interaction with the external environment, which can suddenly become very unfriendly and aggressive...

At the same time, the bankruptcy of a commercial organization does not mean that its owners did not have time to recoup their initial costs (in particular, the costs of forming the authorized capital of this commercial organization). Casino owners could in the past receive profits annually, pay themselves dividends from this net profit, and then, when the economic situation began to develop unfavorably, with a clear conscience carry out a legal bankruptcy procedure for a legal entity. Such situations also happen.

But in general, the online casino business is a profitable business, since the amount of payments to players (expenses) is always significantly less than the receipt of funds from casino clients (income).

This is initially embedded in the business model of any casino.

Well on a plain context, I really don't how the game owners go about with lots of cash on their part so I think majority of gamblers like you have said will also should being the casino owners. I think the casino owners also make deal with the game owners or providers which I believe everything will go down on percentage between the casino and the game owners.

This theory doesn't take in consideration a lot of  factors that may result in bad  profitability of the given casino. Among those factors are general economic situation, location, contestants, regulations, to name only a few.

Sure, owners of the big  Las Vegas casinos ^{that have strip bars inside, attached luxury hotels that offer more than often the  various shows with celebrates involved} may  compensate the influence of  non-gambling component but everything may happen....even Trump has bankrupted his casinos in  Atlantic City .

The casino owner is actually the market owner. The market owner has a clear business model (he receives a commission from all transactions) and never loses.

The participants in the transaction can make a profit or suffer losses, but the market owner will receive a guaranteed profit in any case.

The situation is similar with the casino owner. The casino owner's profit is guaranteed by the mathematical theory of probability.

As for the game owner, his position in the gambling market is very precarious. He is forced to bear costs in the current period, and will receive a profit (if he receives one at all) only in the future.

Therefore, in my opinion, being a casino owner is much more pleasant than being a game owner.