Every business wants to offer exclusive products or services. After all, it is the easiest way to stand out from competitors and please shareholders in one fell swoop.
But in the rush to release these titles, some operators seem to have forgotten the gameplay aspect. Some of their ‘exclusives’ are nothing more than white-label concepts of mechanics veiled behind stock vectors and backgrounds.
This begs the question: is it worth shipping out titles without much substance, just for the sake of an exclusive? Or is there a credible use for these cookie-cutter games that lend themselves to a wider strategy?
What are white-label games?
Some of these games are white-label titles, meaning they are made by an external studio that adds branding onto a template. Others are made entirely in-house by teams employed by the operator.
Many casino platforms offer richly developed games for exclusives, which are often pushed on the homepage and have promotions tied to them. These are not at the centre of the discussion. This discussion focuses on the titles that are created to be as plain and limited as possible.
These are most prolific in the arcade verticals, with operators offering ‘Plinko’, ‘Mines,’ ‘Aviator’ and other experiences along the same lines.
Rather than offering a fully developed game, these are often on plain backgrounds, with no standout visuals or peripheral features, such as multiplayer chat or infographics on what other people are betting on.
But, because they are created to be as simple and bare-bones as possible, this means that the ‘exclusive’ Plinko game at one operator is almost identical to its competitive counterpart. They are exclusive in name and branding, but little else.
Could cookie-cutter exclusives be hurting platforms?
Online casinos have matured to a point where operators are carefully considering every new addition to the library. There is no longer a race to fill the casino with as many games and operators as possible – the challenge now is to make sure players have access to well-performing titles, while balancing this with new releases and innovation.
This makes it even more interesting when visiting an operator and seeing bland, cookie-cutter titles filling the ‘arcade’ section. Arcade titles are no longer new, and they are offered by several different providers.
If every online casino is offering cookie-cutter ‘exclusives’ through a generic plinko title, is this experience actually exclusive at all?
They create a flat, uninspiring experience that makes the player ask why they are even there. No visuals. No rewarding gameplay loop. Just absolute barebones mechanics that make the slot section of the website look even more dazzling than before.
Not only that, but if every operator is offering an ‘exclusive’ bare Plinko game, is this going to be enough to convince players to use one brand over another?
What is the upside of the cookie-cutting strategy?
Developing games takes time, and partnering with studios can be a complicated process; especially when there are so many licences and jurisdictions to consider.
By releasing plain, minimally invested titles, operators can assess which types of games are catching the interest of players, especially in new genres such as arcade and crash.
Once there is enough data gathered on the subject, the operator can either create a flashier version of the game or find a studio that offers it.
There is also another aspect to this: while arcade games are nothing new, it is always the first time for someone. By removing any ‘unnecessary’ aspects, such as visuals, bonus rounds or even backgrounds, it can be much less intimidating for players to learn a new game.
Once a player gains confidence, they are much more likely to try out a similar title with more features to get the full experience.
Quantity over quality: Is the 'exclusive' aspect worth hindering other aspects of UX?
Cookie-cutter exclusives create an interesting scenario for operators. They come across as lazy, uninspired and almost half-hearted from the company – as if the casino wanted to offer Plinko, but could not be bothered to release a full game.
This, however, can also be a clever way to gauge player interest before committing to a full supplier partnership.
After all, these deals can be expensive and the bottom line is the ultimate consideration here.
And yet there is an argument that players are more attracted to games with flashy visuals, rather than barebones gameplay – and, by only offering cookie-cutter exclusives, operators are not giving these titles a fair chance.
The final point to consider is: if every online casino is offering cookie-cutter ‘exclusives’ through a generic plinko title, is this experience actually exclusive at all?
In the May edition of Trafficology, we looked at cookie cutters from an affiliate perspective
