Always check the label

For me, social gaming should not be regulated in the same way as other forms of gambling for the sheer fact that social games are simply different types of entertainment. Social gaming introduces social interaction and, at the same time, provides entertainment with much less risk than real money gambling.

There are very clear differences between social and real-money players, including their motivation to play, psychology and mindset while playing, the objective they aim to achieve and, ultimately, what they define as ‘winning’. For the most part, people play social casino games because they find them entertaining; they are looking to interact and to compete with others, and they are looking for a few minutes of escapism.

The social elements of a social casino game include a variety of virtual goods and achievements which reflect a player’s progress in the game. There is also a more advanced chat mechanism built into the social casino games experience, while the messenger service, gifting and rewards, tournaments, leaderboards and notifications are developed to keep players updated with tips and info on how to progress through the game. The social offering puts more emphasis on the interactions between players and their progression in the narrative of the game, rather than focusing primarily on their chip balance.

The complete opposite could be said for real-money gaming. In regulatory circles there is a very common misunderstanding that social casino titles are connected with either real-world or real-money gambling. Gambling traditionally involves three elements: consideration, chance and prize. Generally, all three elements are required for a game to be considered ‘gambling’. None of the virtual items awarded or earned through social games – chips and gifts – have any real-world value, and none are redeemable for prizes with any real-world value.

What’s in a name?

Sometimes, the incorrect labelling of casual, social casino games is down to a genuine misunderstanding. But other times it is down to a simple lack of research or the fact that as soon as the word ‘poker’ or ‘casino’ is mentioned, the easiest (which is the laziest) thing to do is just lump social casino titles into the same class and genre as real-money operators such as PokerStars and 888. When looking at real-money gambling titles, there are several (principal) reasons for regulation. These include AML and preventing any type of addiction.

AML it is completely irrelevant when it comes to social casino games. All our games are ‘closed loop’ which means that whilst players can spend money in the game, any money won remains within the game’s ecosystem and cannot be withdrawn. Instead, players can spend their virtual in game currency (poker chips) on purchasing fun, social elements such as in-game status symbols like houses, cars, boats or to buy gifts for other players.

What this means is that there really isn’t even a theoretical opportunity of money laundering. In fact, the KamaGames business model across its entire portfolio was built this way so that it would avoid any AML complications completely. As to the point regarding addiction, there is a similar level of impossibility as the lack of any type of real-money withdrawal makes social gaming far less dangerous than real-money games. Throughout all walks life there are many things that are classed as addictive, such as alcohol, even sex, but banning them would be considered somewhat unorthodox nowadays.

All of this said, I personally believe that some voluntary restrictions would be a benefit. These could be specifically targeted at age restrictions on promotion and advertising of any type of game to ensure the audience is suitable, similar to the way the sugar and fast-food industries have now been limited in various parts of the world.