New HMRC guidance on the skills / chance distinction...

[Istenem]

I would have thought the obvious way forward, and perhaps something GW in particular have realised, is to network all cabinets and only have tournament-style games. (king.com is considered skill rather than gambling)

If you are playing directly against other people, answering exactly the same questions or using exactly the same letters, then surely that removes anything that could reasonably be considered chance.

Might be better for the serious player. Play your favourite game all day and fleece drunks from across the country without leaving your local.

I suppose another option might be to run SWP games on a digital AWP cabinet.

good point Asphalt, well made. one problem might be the skill-matching algorithm. i would play a game of my choice against any other punter and i'd fancy my chances, but i have taken the time to get good at it, therefore i would always win and your mug punter would always lose.
having said that, i am not going to be bothered to log in any time i have a pint; joe public won't even consider it.
on king.com i have run out of competitors on games i'm good at (notwithstanding unashamed robots), then i realised i was doing it just to rack up a paypal balance which will never get used.

personally i'd feel pretty mucky to win 30 pee from gretel in wantage. i remember when itbox trialed a real-time* pool comp; the log-in process took longer than the game itself.

however, it is good to see some lateral thinking within the genre.


* (very obviously) against someone at titbox HQ

[kingzilla]

Good news for Wetherspoons but this could harm any compromise with HMRC. Wetherspoons have has joined the likes of the Rank Group by successfully claimed back £14.9m in overpaid VAT on gaming machines.

[Matt Vinyl]

Ah, they might be able to give me back that tenner that got caught in the gears of a titbox notey some years back...

[JG]

G0 ALL THE WAY


No Mr. Vinyl, they also clocked that claim you put in for that £20 that got stuck and then whirred back out again, so they are going to be chasing you for £10, so that is £14.90001 million they are now chasing.

[0.50]

This posting just took a credit, incredible, practically every time I reply to you now, you get a G0 ALL THE WAY and this one has carried on...what's it going for now? 140 words? Incredible, this is stupidly jammy

[0.00]

Oh my, just put another credit in, in case it breaks for over 210 words, I think 210 is the max but this is incredible, no one has ever had this, I can't believe it, you only dropped a few aitches in your last posting and you get the flasher.



Have that.

[Matt Vinyl]

they also clocked that claim you put in for that £20 that got stuck and then whirred back out again

Heh, very true, guess we'll call it evens (even though 'technically' I should owe them a tenner...

Well, there you go sir, enjoy the £210. don't invest it in method guesses on DOND Double Deal, however...

[grecian]

Further guidance now up:

http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPort ... OD1_030644

Busy now, but will post a few thoughts on this if I have time.

[Matt Vinyl]

Some highlights:

HMRC believes the law is clear that if a skill game contains any feature that introduces an element of chance into the game it is a 'gaming machine' and consequently liable to AMLD. Conversely if a prize skill game is solely a skill game it is outside the scope of AMLD.
Having considered information supplied by the industry, HMRC is content that neither current version of the quiz games based upon the 'Monopoly' and
'Cluedo' board games introduce an element of chance into the playing of the game. This is because the random number generator portrayed as a 'dice' does not affect the player’s chance of winning. A player can only win by answering correctly a predetermined number of questions.

Any request must clearly set out how the game works, what factors determine whether a player wins or not, and what is the role any random number generator used during the playing of the game. Any game with a clear gambling theme will not be considered.

[Matt Vinyl]

The game rules and game play instructions must be available to the player prior to crediting the game.

The game must not look like a recognised game of chance which will depend upon the whole presentation of the game. While no single factor is determinative, the game should seek to avoid:

gambling themes (e.g. casino games, bingo, and lotteries);

symbols associated with gambling (e.g. fruit symbols associated with reel-based gaming);

words associated with chance or gambling (e.g. 'lucky', 'random', and 'jackpot');

any 'Repeat Win Feature' that enables a player to win a second prize without completing successfully another game of skill.

[Matt Vinyl]

All advertised prizes must be available to win in each game.

The level and type of skills required to win (including reaction time) must be reasonable considering the context of the game in question.
Indicative examples of this would include:

The time to react to a visual stimulus should not be less than around 225 milliseconds.

For quiz games there should be sufficient time to read the question and all possible answers (normally at least 5 seconds).

In visual recognition games, such as spot the difference, all observations must be visible to the human eye and there should be at least 2 seconds per observation.

The time to memorise 50 upturned cards of various symbols should be at least 10 seconds.
It is important to note that the presence of one or more of the above examples does not necessarily mean that the level and type of skill is reasonable in the context of the game.

[Matt Vinyl]

And finally:

The level of difficulty may vary from game to game for the purpose of challenging a player’s use of skill provided that it is within reasonable bounds, for example at its hardest setting a player is not required to complete more than three times as many actions as he would be required to do at the game’s easiest setting.

Lot's of thoughts on these points in particular, but my lunch-hour is running down, so will probably have to post them later. Very interesting though, eh? I can see a lot of changes to existing games that will need to be implemented...

[messiah]

Couple of points I noted:

No direct mention of spoiler questions - however they could be caught by the chances of winning must demonstratbly be reduced by someone playing with their eyes closed.

Monopoly and Cluedo have a set number of questions? I thought it would depend upon the RNG how many questions were required. (Biggest shock to me here is finding out they actually nominally use a random number generator rather than a very specific and unhelpful number generator...

[Matt Vinyl]

I guess spoiler questions could be covered loosely by...

...at its hardest setting a player is not required to complete more than three times as many actions as he would be required to do at the game’s easiest setting...

How do you judge / measure the difficulty of a question though? I suppose it would have to be more around how 'fair' the question is, no question is difficult if you know the answer. But to ask you how many points separated the team that finished 3rd from the team that finished 7th in the 2nd tier of English Football in the 1972 season would generally be classed as unfair? Esepcially if the answer choices were all one or two points difference.

The 'set number of questions' also didn't add up for me as I don't think either of the two games they mentioned as examples have a set number to reach the jackpo... er, 'top prize'? Internally maybe, but that fact is never shown to the punter.

50p in... ...Choose your Character... ..."You are only 973 Q's away from winning £20!" :p

[messiah]

The 'set number of questions' also didn't add up for me as I don't think either of the two games they mentioned as examples have a set number to reach the jackpo... er, 'top prize'? Internally maybe, but that fact is never shown to the punter.

50p in... ...Choose your Character... ..."You are only 973 Q's away from winning £20!" :p

And if it is a genuine random number generator then it would be impossible to know how many questions you would need, as it would vary depending on where you landed.

Any industry insider want to comment?

Dr Paragon - you could do with raising your credibility at the moment, here is a chance....

[Northern Monkey]

If SWPs are made compliant with these guidelines, what will cost the industry more -
bands of marauding professionals who presumably will be better off if some of the more rubbish elements of the games are eliminated
or
the additional duty that would be payable under gaming laws.

Alternatively will the industry die off?

From my point of view I have given up 'serious' SWP play due to apathy and therefore any change is a good thing in my book.

[Guest]

I guess spoiler questions could be covered loosely by...

...at its hardest setting a player is not required to complete more than three times as many actions as he would be required to do at the game’s easiest setting...

That's Trivial Pursuit out the window then