Topic: Casino owner or game owner? - page 5. (Read 993 times)

Why not both? Why not own the casino and design the games? Why not merge ownership with development? Profit is multiplied when you control the ecosystem. Profit is maximized when you manage house edge and creative design. The data is clear: better brand recognition, better synergy, better user retention. Technology also pushes this direction. Blockchain, AI, and real-time analytics expand potential in both fields. People demand novelty, demand fairness, demand speed. Controlling everything lets you innovate faster. You gather the players, you study the numbers, you set the rules. You can create automated algorithms that adjust odds, incorporate real-time updates, and keep your audience engaged. You can research spirituality angles and psychological triggers to refine the user experience. Owning the entire pipeline means stable revenue, stable user flow, stable brand identity. Why pick one approach if you can combine them for maximum impact?

I think being a casino owner is the right choice if you want to have a lot of money, where the owner can manage all the games available, because if the game provider does not have a place/space then the  game casino they have will not make money, be it an online or offline casino in my opinion

I see casino owner to be a more easy role. Despite you have to fight with million of other competitors, you have more instruments to promote, to be noticed. Being casino owner is a serious business, there are no accidental passengers in your money train. Being game owner is difficult. In todays world, come up with a new game idea, find investors, find proper people who will help your game to appear in casinos isnt easy. And to become a game owner isnt that hard after all. You need graphic designer, coder, tester and that is it. There are so many online courses to become a game dev, but there are so few courses that will teach how to be a business shark.

This is a simple question that only requires a simple answer. Of course, I would prefer to be a casino owner if I were capable of it. As for the games offered, whether developed by my own casino or provided by others, it’s not a big deal since the main purpose of running a casino is to offer competitive games that attract gamblers.

If I am capable of launching a game provider platform and a casino operator and I have a choice, its preferable to engage in an industry where the competition is not stiff and I need not spend huge money on marketing but only on the development of features. I prefer to be a game provider. The more casinos that use your games, the more money will come in. Casinos come and go, but game providers, if they have great games to offer, will stay for a long time.

They're are, OP is only trying to know which is more preferable putting everything( both inside and outside) into consideration ( responsibilities, profits, cost efficient) I think it's also better to note that anyone with money can ba a casino owner, no knowledge or past experience is needed but not everyone with money can become a game developer as it requires high programming knowledge/experience to become one.

I'd like being a game owner because it'd inspire being innovative and it feels good to learn about the players reviews of the games. It'd give encouragement to grow in advancement.
Moreso, it'd be less risk and economical unlike owning a casino with series of investments while faced the marketing challenges of gaining firm for players to come playing in my casino sites.
I just want to be providing games for the cainso owners so as well I wouldn't be in the position of the governments interference and policies as they ought to regulate the gambling companies.

I would love to be a Casino Owner. I consider casinos to be more profitable to earn revenue. There many game owners invest and work for you a lot of money from Casino. If the gambler will benefit from here without cheating then your casino grow fast. In this way, Casino owners will gain much more money from Game owners. If the casino owner fulfills the pay of a gambler reward then you will get gamblers' trust.

I think maybe the casino owner gets more profit than the game owner, because if you look at the game owner with a casino that provides many games but not all games are always in demand by its visitors, we know now there are some popular games and it is certain that they are games that are quite in demand by visitors whether local or not, while the casino that provides them will receive profit from all the games that visitors are interested in while the game owner can only get profit when there is interest in the type of game.
I myself, if faced with these two choices, I choose to be a casino owner which I think is more profitable than just not everyone can be a casino owner because it is not easy to become a casino owner.

The providers get a fixed percentage or a fixed pay from the casino owner in order for the casino owner to be able to use this provider slots in his casino. This for me is the best way as the provider of slots does not give a damn if the casino is at profit or at a loss, the provider gets paid what he wants as long as the deal is on. If you are a casino owner normally you would be in profit over the long run but we have seen those new casinos who have been hit by some whale players and they have closed down business and sometimes even gone and scam people by not paying them, so if you are a casino owner you need to have a huge balance when starting up and it is only better to be a casino owner if you are the owner of well established casinos.

High profit versus average profit. I think I will take the Game owner. What I will need is to market my game and sure it will cost me some money but once the game clicks and many will buy, it will be a nonstop profit too because there will always be a need for maintenance and newly added games being injected.
Now, as a casino owner, it's a high-risk type of business that may end up in bankruptcy. You will also need a lot of investors here and before they invest they will not have some proof and reputation that you can show them so that they will fund your service at an early stage. Then, there's a need for manpower, security, and other employees that will also cost you some money. It's a difficult job that must be monitored every day.

i would love to be both if possible i mean that is for maximum profit but if i were to only choose one i will go with owning a casino since i think if you manage to make your casino big and have it in different regions you could gain more profit compared to only supplying games you could even partner with or make your own hotel chain with your casino there is a lot of things to sell and offer to people when you are running a casino compared to supplying games where that is all there is your work ends once you deliver the product

I think that being a game owner or developer is more convenient, not necessarily more profitable than being a casino owner. Casino owners will worry about running their management and the huge capital to operate their casinos while game owners are focused on marketing their games. Game owners main challenge is to partner with as many casino owners as they can and make their money quite conveniently. Although to make money as a game owner means that your game has to be patronized otherwise they wouldn't generate income, which means that game owners will always be in competition to innovate and upgrade their games.

Both make money regardless, to be a provider you need to know how to build games and this is different from running a casino, if I have to choose one I would go with running online casinos.

But if you are good at creating games for online casinos, it is better to be a provider, you will still make a lot of money unless your services are buggy and unfixed.

I think running a online casino will bring you a lot of money more than anything else but both sides have their advantages and disadvantages.

To me being a game owner is more profitable than being a casino owner. As a game owner, you're limited to a single income stream from that one game. You have to pay for development, marketing, and other expenses, and you face intense competition from other game developers.

On the other hand, being a casino owner offers more opportunities for diversification. You can offer multiple games, entertainment options, and services, which can attract a wider range of customers. Casinos can also scale their business more easily, accommodating more customers and increasing revenue.

I believe being a casino owner will be more profitable because it's also a more attractive option for entrepreneurs than being a game owner.

It's cool to be a casino owner. I often watch Skel Horn's twitter account, he is the owner of Metawin, the casino that I promote and when I see what he does and how happy his community is, he inspires me to become a casino owner.
It's very hard to start a casino but the hardest thing is to establish a good brand on the market because the competition is very high, this niche is extremely saturated. Casino's risk is that if it doesn't have a good bankroll, they might go bankrupt if a lucky player wins lots of money but if casino manages to successfully stay in the business for a few years, then their success is almost guaranteed because mathematically, casino is a winner in long-term plan.
Being a game provider is a different business. You don't need a huge capital to start this business, you need a good team of managers, designers and developers and other employees. This is a risk free business compared to real casinos because you rent the game to different casinos and get guaranteed income. For you, as a game provider, it doesn't matter who wins or loses, in the end of the month, you get guaranteed income for renting your game.
Both are very good businesses. A good game provider can be more successful than 99% of casinos. One example of such a successful company is Evolution. They rent live blackjack, baccarat and roulette games to 99% of casinos and are generating a huge profit.

I don't know if there are casinos that provide anyone's games at all, as aggregates, I think that they don't need this legal red tape. They themselves can easily order gambling games to suit any gambler's taste. For example, all sorts of slots, etc. Because it's easy. The algorithms of gambling games are simple, it's essentially a chance, and any beginner illustrator can make the interface, because you already know without me that the interface is always very simple, sometimes even stupid.

If there's really a chance that I can decide like that I would choose to be the owner since Gambling is multi million dollar industry and imagine how big the profits we can get for running such business like this.

Gamblers always carry the pressure since they are trying their luck to win. Also they are prone to get destroyed especially if they can't handle well their activities. That's why being the main man in gambling scene is better since players always get the problem and usually losing.

Both are profitable, the game provider and the casino operator but the competition is very robust on both industries, and the company that can provide the best features and security will be stand out.
I prefer to be a game provider because this is the industry where the market is not saturated compared to a casino operator, where you need a massive amount of money for marketing, licensing, and constant updates on the platform, On a game provider, you just need to create unique games that gamblers will likely play.

Regarding myself, I would " would prefer to be a game owner or provider who has his game on different casinos " as it would impose  less burden on my shoulders. Definitely,  casino owner will get more profit but his duties on  keeping casino's business above water ^{that  in fact similar to other businesses}  are enormous , thus I would scarcely cope with them.