Interactive SINGLE WALLET GAMING
A singular vision for payment solutions
The view of payment solutions specialists, First Data, is that Single Wallet will become the de facto way to pay for gaming, just as mobile wallets will become ubiquitous for standard retail payments. First Data’s Jonathan O’Connor explains why.
From a payment processing perspective, how complicated technically is the provision of a single wallet solution for a player - one that would allow them to play online, on mobile and on-property?
The complexity is directly related to the number of vendors involved – that is why the PayLucky solution simplifies single wallet solutions for mer- chants. First Data has multiple payment options all in house, and does not require the same level of integration. Providing a multi-channel solution requires connections to many platforms – more are available at a provider that can provide many / most / all in a single connection. On-property (brick and mortar) are serviced by established players, so many of the connections to online providers require separate connectivity – and separate reporting. Online providers that are working with niche acquirers / processors present new challenges into what have typically been mature/ stable environments. Operators / Merchants should not have to sacrifice a common reporting format to adopt online capabilities – they should look to acquirers that can support multi-channel experiences.
Is player verification and system vulnerability made harder or easier to manage with the increase in number of devices a player connects to their wallet?
Player verification is generally manageable across devices with the right technology partners. Security vulnerability increases along with the complexity and the number of vendors in the wal- let. It is very difficult to ensure a standard level of security for payment types that are outside your control. Security needs to be designed into the infrastructure from the ground up, and it is impor- tant to differentiate end-to-end security models (processor) from point-to-point (gateway) mod- els. While it is technically true that you can achieve security in a gateway model, there are multiple encryption / decryption processes and
6 0
more opportunities to attack the model – called attack surfaces. Most merchants prefer extending their security all the way from the point of cap- ture to the processor environment, which keeps things simple and defines clear boundaries of responsibility for sensitive player data. The new Apple Pay architecture supported by First Data is
Providing a multi-channel
solution requires connections to many platforms. On-property are serviced by established players, so many of the
connections to online providers require separate connectivity – and separate reporting.
a large step forward – the combination of the hardware based security with biometrics and strong tokenization will impact both card present and card not present payments going forward.
What kind of infrastructure does an operator need to offer their players a single wallet solution? Do they need to tie together lots of individual part- nership agreements, or is there an ‘off-the-shelf’ solution ready in waiting?
Operators need connectivity to each solution that they want to offer in the single wallet solution. The fewer points of connectivity and message types required, the better. In general, most solu- tions in the market require a patchwork of con- tracts and partnerships because very few players have the breadth of solutions necessary to make a single wallet solution possible. The PayLucky wallet combines market leading payment solu-
tions for open loop prepaid, closed loop prepaid, direct acquiring, and ACH into a single wallet that can be leveraged across industries.
What do you see as the advantages of Single Wallet Gaming and are there disadvantages too?
Advantages of Single Wallet Gaming:
l Easier to pay-in / pay-out across payment types
l Better acceptance rates than credit card acquiring only
l Better opportunities for co-branding l Disadvantages of Single Wallet Gaming
l Can be complex (lots of steps) and require duplicate data entry depending on the number of partners involved
l May have the same risk models for different payment types – risk models should be more flexible and use customized risk models
l Perceived vendor lock-in: some merchants do not want to rely on a single source provider, but this can be mitigated by choosing partners wisely and contractual language.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84