G2E 2017 marked the third G2E showings of next-generation skill-based gaming, and the first since the first wave of such skill-based games went live in this past year, starting with GameCo in Atlantic City in Nov. 2016 and followed by Gamblit Gaming in Las Vegas in March. This year’s show brought a new wave of shinier, more polished offerings – some representing upgrades/replacements for existing games, and others breaking new ground for casino gambling games.
Let’s start with the two best skill-based games in the show.
Best in Show: PAC-MAN Battle Casino (Gamblit Gaming)
Gamblit’s PAC-MAN Battle Casino was undoubtedly the flashiest game in the show, and features the gameplay to match. A collaboration with Bandai Namco, the game makes use of Gamblit’s Model G multiplayer platform, the same used for Gamblit Poker and Cannonbeard’s Treasure, both of which are currently live.
Like the other games, PAC-MAN Battle Casino is played with 2-4 players. To begin, all players buy in for an equal amount, and a wheel is spun to determine to the size of the cash prize. After the prize is determined, different colored PAC-MANs (Pac-Men?) appear around the center of the screen corresponding with the color-coded joystick of each player, with four ghosts (bad guys) trapped in the center of the screen to start.
The goal is to be the last PAC-MAN standing; nothing else matters, and winner takes all.
There are two ways a player can get knocked out: (1) a player can eat a large pellet, become large temporarily and eat another player, thus knocking that player out of the game; or (2) a player can run into or get knocked into a ghost, and be eliminated from contention.
The game starts with a few pellets on the screen; these pellets have no bearing on the game. After a brief get-to-know-you moment, a fruit appears; whenever the first player eats the fruit, a full set of pellets will appear on the screen with a single large flashing pellet – eating the large pellet will temporarily make a player larger and invincible, while allowing the player to eat the opposition.
A few other notes:
• Bumping another player will push them—and yourself—in the opposite direction.
• There is no time limit, but after a brief grace period to start the game, the ghosts are released from the center to hunt players down and create some urgency.
• A new fruit will appear periodically, and eating that will bring up a new set of pellets, including another large one.
The last player standing wins the pre-determined prize.
Strengths
• Model G platform
• No-brainer brand
• Flashy good looks
• Sound
• Easy gameplay, doesn’t require much explanation
• Tangible skill component
• Fun
The golden ticket here is the Model G platform, which—ever since Gamblit introduced it along with Gamblit Poker (then called Grab Poker) at G2E 2015—I’ve liked for its versatility, as it’s the kind of thing you can stick just about anywhere, from traditional gaming spaces on the casino floor, to non-traditional gaming spaces like the corner of the bar.
PAC-MAN is a no-brainer brand, and will have no trouble finding an audience. The game looks and sounds every bit the part—and if you’re like me and you like the sound and feel of a classic Japanese arcade, the Gamblit games on the Model G platform have it. The game itself is fairly easy to pick up and play, and doesn’t require a whole lot of explanation.
And like Gamblit Poker, PAC-MAN Battle Casino is a game with a large tangible skill component—only instead of card variance, the randomized features seems to be the location of large pellets and the movements of the ghosts. Other than that, there’s relatively little randomness in the outcome.
You beat your friends and your new friends, and you win.
Challenges
• Game speed, game speed, game speed
• No single-player mode
• Win/payoff frequency with four players
• Skill gap problem
• Collusion possibility
The challenges are a matter of context and expectation—if a casino operator were willing to offer the game at $1 stakes with a 10 percent average rake and be satisfied with whatever revenue is generated, this game is a smash hit and ready to go right now. No need for further discussion.
You would not be able to keep people off this machine.
But for higher stakes—as a serious gambling machine—PAC-MAN Battle Casino has the same challenges as Gamblit Poker, as those concerns have not been addressed in this initial iteration.
The biggest challenge continues to be game speed. A modern slot machine processes wagers at speeds up to once every four seconds (and theoretically can go as fast as you want); the challenge with having a game that takes about a minute to run (varying based on player skill, and probably the number of players as well) is the need for the game to run at higher stakes and/or with a higher house advantage/rake to at least partially compensate for lost wagering. On the Las Vegas Strip, the Gamblit machines are currently set up for $3 minimums, up from their initial $2 buy-ins; and at G2E, the buy-in for PAC-MAN Battle Casino was set up to run at $5 per player on the Model G, and $10 on the super mega big screen version.
Those are steep stakes for an arcade game that lasts a minute, whilst played amongst friends for kicks. And if we’re looking at a 10 percent average rake, then you are about 10 times better off playing blackjack at the same stakes; this makes it difficult to market to serious gamblers, and impossible for a knowledgeable gambler to sell to his or her friends as a reasonable wagering proposition.
Also like Gamblit Poker, there is no single-player mode. A game that requires two players to play is much less likely to run than a game that only requires one; having a single-player, house-banked mode would do wonders to maximize the usage (occupancy) rate of the Model G platform.
Another potential challenge is win/payoff frequency. In a full 4-player game, the player will only win 25 percent of the time before factoring skill—even in a typical 10-handed no-limit hold ‘em sit-and-go (SNG) tournament paying three spots, the player will win 30 percent of the time before factoring skill. The higher the minimum stakes, the more noticeable this becomes, and the more likely this becomes an issue that prevents people from playing the game.
The skill gap problem is still present here, as there seems to be a fairly large amount of skill and relatively little randomness involved in winning at PAC-MAN Battle Casino. And the more skill involved, the bigger the skill gap; and the bigger the player disadvantage, the less likely it becomes for new and/or weaker players to continue to play in any volume. And this will only get worse over time as good players get better and widen the gap, shortening the shelf life of the game.
And finally, the possibility for collusion needs to be addressed. In PAC-MAN Battle Casino, the players don’t play completely independently of each other—instead, the players can physically bump each other. Now I’m not a PAC-MAN expert, but I’d want to know how likely it is that two players can team up and attack a third player to knock him out and turn an immediate profit in doing so.
Verdict: For $1 stakes and 10 percent average rake, PAC-MAN Casino Battle is an automatic smash hit and ready to go right now. But for higher stakes, there are logistical challenges still requiring consideration.
Best In Show: Steve Aoki’s Neon Dream (GameCo)
In a collaboration with EDM superstar Steve Aoki, GameCo showcased Steve Aoki’s Neon Dream, a first-person infinite runner set to Aoki’s music.
The game is simple. You fly over an endless track for 60 seconds; the goal is to reach the maximum score allowed by collecting coins and blue Aoki tiles, while dodging the red barriers that will slow you down. The game will move you down the track on its own – all you have to do is move the joystick left and right to change directions.
The wagering structure is essentially identical to GameCo’s other offerings. You make your wager to start the game, at which point the maximum score is set randomly; this maximum score allowed determines the maximum payout before bonuses, according to a paytable.
For example, let’s say you bet $2, and the game sets your maximum score at 350 points, which translates to a maximum payout before bonuses of 1.5x your original wager. In this case, if you hit 350 points, the game will pay 1.5x your $2 wager, translating to a $3 payoff for a net win of $1. If you score less than 350 points, you will be paid according to the paytable based on however many points you score.
The maximum payout is 25x your original wager for a score of 500+ points, but this is rare – in a live version of Poseidon’s Deep Sea Saga (a Bubble Bobble-type game) in Atlantic City, the top 25x payout is only available 0.098 percent of the time, or about once every 1,000 games – and then it’s still up to you to achieve it.
Among the new GameCo features is a new progressive jackpot.
Strengths
• Fresh alternative skill-based game type
• Millennial-friendly brand
• Music!
• Single-player, house-banked
• Simple, easy gameplay
• Multi-game bar top option
As a first person infinite runner, Steve Aoki’s Neon Dream presents a fresh alternative to the sea of match-3 games. Aoki’s brand is sure to turn millennial heads, while having Aoki’s music run throughout the game is an obvious plus-plus.
The game is single-player and house banked, which should prove out as the most efficient choice with regard to generating gaming revenue. It’s also easy to pick up, and super easy to play—and like many of GameCo’s early offerings, you should win the maximum most every time.
As a bonus, the game is available as part of GameCo’s new bar top multi-game machine, which will allow you to settle in at a machine while giving you a variety of GameCo game options.
Challenges
• Game speed, game speed, game speed
• Wagering structure
• Learning curve associated with wagering structure
Again, if you’re a casino operator and were to set these machines as $1 minimums with a 10 percent average actual hold percentage (and perhaps a hold percentage under theoretically optimal play closer to 3 percent-5 percent) and be happy with whatever result, you’d have little problem generating action with a game like this. But for anything more, challenges arise.
As with Pac-Man, the biggest challenge with Neon Dreams is game speed, as the game takes 60 seconds plus additional down time to process a single wager. As a consequence, the minimum wager on the GameCo machines in Atlantic City is $2—more than enough to cover probably 99 percent of slot players.
Put differently, with a $2 minimum wager, you are limiting the size of the potential player pool.
The second potential challenge is the wagering structure. As with the other initial GameCo games, the game sets the maximum payout before the game starts; but the vast majority of the time, your maximum expected payout will result in a loss. For example, in Poseidon’s Deep Sea Saga, you only double your money or better less than 10 percent of the time. You win 1.5x (a net win of 50 percent) 18 percent of the time, and lose money the rest of the time, before accounting for the rare bonuses. And the most common outcome is that on 58.065 percent of games, you max out with a win multiplier of 0.35x (before the rare bonuses) – which means that on a $2 wager, you will lose $1.30 when you complete the challenges in the allotted 60 seconds.
And this is just when you play perfectly and win every game. In other words, you can expect to win every game and still expect the game to grind away at your bankroll.
In a sense, the game behaves like a slot machine before the game starts, with the actual game itself something of a formality with regard to wagering. Some gamblers will be OK with that logic; others won’t.
And then the final challenge is that there is a bit of a learning curve associated with figuring out how the wagering works with these games. But the good news is that once you figure out one of the GameCo games, you’ve got most of them figured out; and then it’s just a matter of what type of game you are in the mood to play.
Verdict: If you’re a player on board with GameCo’s first wave of games—and thus their wagering structures—then Steve Aoki’s Neon Dream will be a no-brainer alternative. Give me the bar top multi-game option.
Honorable Mentions
• Bingo Trance (Gamblit). Another superstar on Gamblit’s Model G platform, Bingo Trance is essentially Gamblit Poker but played with Bingo cards. Every player starts with a bingo card, and numbered balls appear in the middle of the table one at a time; your job is to grab the balls that help you and make Bingo before your friends and new friends do—just make sure to hit the Bingo button when you do. If you win, you’ll receive a randomized payout. To be honest, this might have been my favorite game in the show—I just haven’t found the courage to tell anyone yet.
• Deal or No Deal Poker Special (Gamblit). Another Model G’er, Deal or No Deal Poker Special is essentially Gamblit Poker with a clever Deal or No Deal twist. Each player selects a briefcase before poker game starts. The winner of the poker game will be given a prize offer, and must choose to either take the prize offer or choose the prize in his or her briefcase. Adding this split decision allows for a wider range of payouts, ranging from painfully miniscule payouts to significantly larger payouts. This should help do a better job of hiding the size of the rake, which is an issue with the incumbent Gamblit Poker.
• Nothin’ but Net (GameCo). Another unique skill-based game from GameCo amongst a sea of match-3 clones, Nothin’ but Net is a basketball-themed video game where the player has 12 shots to score as many point as possible, at distances ranging from layups to half-court shots. The player uses a single button to pass and then time the receipt of the pass based on a moving meter, and then time the shot based on a second meter. The wagering system is similar to the other GameCo games, and the game works on GameCo’s multi-game bar top machine.
• Terminator 2 (GameCo). A Terminator-branded first-person shooter utilizing an Xbox-type controller, and a direct replacement/upgrade for GameCo’s Danger Arena, which is currently live. Also uses the standard GameCo wagering structure.
• Zombie$ (Synergy Blue). Palm Desert, Calif.-based Synergy Blue is a newcomer in the skill-based gaming space. Zombie$ is a first-person shooter in the vein of House of the Dead and Time Crisis, and uses a proper arcade-style gun controller. The wagering could use some work – shooting bad guys triggers the wagering, and as I’ve written before, having the action trigger the wager is a no-no in my view – but Zombie$ looks good, is fun to play, offers a variety of levels to play through, and occupies a new space. This is one to keep an eye on.
Closing Thoughts: On Platforms and Three Contexts
What these companies are attempting to accomplish is an extremely difficult task with a multitude of challenges. And while progress continues to be made in the skill-based gaming space, it’s important to realize that what we’re seeing is likely just scratching the surface of what is possible. Meanwhile, refinements will continue to be made, particularly with regard to wagering.
Let’s close by putting skill-based gaming in three proper contexts.
1. Platforms. Game performance aside, the most important thing to be proven out is the potential efficacy of these platforms. The calling card of Gamblit’s Model G platform in the short term will be its ability to monetize non-traditional gaming spaces. GameCo’s platform is thus far leading the way in providing variety single-player, house banked gaming experiences; a bar top multi-game machine should find an audience.
2. Arcade machines (present). As currently constructed, the proper context for the skill-based games we’ve seen thus far are as small stakes arcade machines on the casino floor. These games are not necessarily well equipped at present to function as high-stakes gambling machines.
3. Gambling machines (future). As skill-based gaming developers start to figure how they want to approach wagering, skill-based games will evolve from mere video game machines with a wagering component, and we will instead see new gambling-based games utilizing new technologies. Games that start with gambling will be far more efficient at generating gaming revenue; these games will have practical game speeds, which will allow practical stakes and house edges. These games will also have the ability to scale stakes and produce higher-stakes play.
The reason I mention this is because we’re not at #3 yet—we’re at #1 and #2, which are small-stakes arcade machines proving out platforms. And yet throughout G2E, I heard a lot of talk from the suppliers and operators about doing things to build awareness for the current wave of skill-based games; for example, having a dedicated, identifiable skill-based gaming area may build awareness and encourage action.
But not a single person mentioned the high stakes as being an issue hampering performance.
Much of the burden thus far seems to have been placed on the games to perform, but the burden should also be on the casino operators to look at these games accurately and in the right context, in order to give them a chance at success.
