GUEST COLUMN
G2S is on the rise W
When G2S was first introduced in 2008, it seemed it would take the market by storm. Aleš Gornjec, General Manager at Comtrade Gaming, talks us through the advantages of the protocol.
hen G2S was first introduced by the Gaming Standards Association it eliminated many limitations of legacy protocols, including the
connection of EGMs to hosts via Smart Interface Boards (SMIB), use of proprietary protocols and slow communication speed. It also introduced the ability to remotely verify, configure and update an EGM. G2S is an internet-based communication
protocol. In addition to being able to support cashless playing and basic accounting (like some legacy protocols), it also supports remote configuration and updates of EGMs, standardized accounting and software verification, and tracking of progressive
hybrid solutions where G2S is implemented at the level of a group of EGMs or at the level of the whole venue (at the level of a venue’s site controller). To stay in touch with the developing gaming industry, more and more gaming regulators are choosing to modernize their supervision, monitoring and taxation methods. A part of this process was also the adoption of regulations and requirements concerning the standardization of communication protocols.
The most common choice of the gaming
regulators is the adoption of a G2S-based supervision solution. Not only does the G2S protocol enable advanced and very detailed monitoring of every level of gaming operations (ranging from the level of an operator or venue to the level of individual EGMs), but it also provides gaming operators with a reliable platform to manage their EGMs.
In some jurisdictions,
regulators already require the implementation of central monitoring and player protection functionalities. Therefore, an implementation of an operator’s own management and monitoring solution represents no significant
jackpots. Standardized accounting and software verification capabilities are very important for the gaming regulators who most often opt to introduce G2S-based central monitoring solutions. Legacy protocols are often a hurdle in the
way of modernization and standardization of the gaming operations. Depending on the scope of implementation of the G2S-based systems, legacy protocols can be implemented in various ways. Most often, each legacy EGM is outfitted with a G2S-based SMIB, which essentially converts a legacy EGM to a G2S EGM. Alternative solutions include various
64 OCTOBER 2016
increase in the price of deployment. In some environments, gaming regulators are thus essentially encouraging gaming operators to modernize their operations. Widespread adoption of server-based gaming
introduced the need for the standardization of protocols. Gaming operators strive to establish open systems that can connect devices from many different vendors. The precondition for any standardization attempt is the standardization of connectivity. The G2S protocol is the most widely accepted protocol that truly enables the implementation of server- based gaming (as opposed to SAS).
The main advantage as perceived by gaming
operators is the ability to remotely modify and update games, which leads to notable reduction in maintenance costs and increased adaptability of the system. Remote modification and configuration of gaming devices enables greater flexibility and customizability of the system, while the systems running exclusively on G2S are also considerably cheaper to implement as they do not require SMIBS to translate different communication protocols. Another advantage of G2S devices is their ability to communicate simultaneously with up to six different hosts (compared to legacy protocols that only support 1 or 2 hosts). This enables gaming operators to link G2S gaming devices to different progression, bonuses and loyalty programs. Support for elaborate loyalty programs coupled with the ability to customize content on a gaming device on the fly empowers gaming operators to further strengthen and develop their bond with the player. Some casino operators (mainly in the USA),
however, have already made great investments in the implementation of cashless play. These operators never made the switch to the server- based gaming (and consequently did not switch to G2S). Server-based gaming did not seem to bring enough tangible benefits over cashless technology for gaming operators to invest in it. Another characteristic of these environments is that gaming regulators never demanded the implementation of G2S-based monitoring. Despite the costs associated with the modernization and transition to G2S, it is estimated that the majority of gaming operators will eventually phase out existing legacy protocols and make the transition to G2S. The transition will be propagated by operators’ intention to operate in a multi-vendor environment and regulator’s intention to introduce comprehensive monitoring and taxation systems.
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