phattbloke

I would be shocked if the Cat C games go up to £2 stake... putting the jackpot up would be stupid too

The term used is "last credit incentive" - and since the days of the 2005 Gambling Act, no, absolutely not. Before that, it was done *sometimes* but always on a chance basis. Some manufacturers were very blatant about it and used to get letters from other manufacturers saying knock it off. Pacman Plus had a terrible one, every final credit it would spin in 2x feature symbols. Barcrest wrote us a letter of complaint, rightly so. Good old self policing industry.....sadly gone.

 

We updated the ROMs for that, I think. Still sold over 2500 units, Mazooma's best ever if I recall correctly...

And we both know who was responsible for that

Just met with a pubco general manager and she said with one supplier of machines, they can tell if the machine is on - and level of the hoppers?, even with analogue machines - is this true do you think?

Of course... This is something that is just more and more normal nowadays. The issue is the pub companies want flat profiles but also want a the high jackpot to stake ratio and a low RTP...

Realistically you need a 90%+ RTP to make a game play will wherever it is... And until the pub companies realise this and risk it, nothing will ever change... And course because test periods are short the extra RTP will only ever cause a lies in revenue in the short term

So if I were to make another fruit machine, what would you suggest I do differently to what is out there at the moment? I'm still not convinced by the 100 quid... But I guess it has to be on there somehow... Would a game like Roller Coaster with a 25 quid top, but a feature that paid 100 on there somewhere work? Assuming it had all the skill and cheats on it again?

Yeah... So for example, if I pick a square that is going to give you 3 nudges, but those nudges could affect a super hold feature, or reel blasts, then that's where the code can get complicated.