AGS The Bigger Picture
Held in sunny Fort Lauderdale last month, SBC Summit Americas saw the industry gather to discuss the growth opportunities across the gaming spectrum in North, South, and Central America. Following her appearance on the Casino Leaders track, G3 caught up with Zoe Ebling, VP Interactive at AGS, to discuss whether the mindset of U.S. land-based casino operators towards iGaming is beginning to shift.
What’s AGS' existing US market presence?
Te key states we're missing are Connecticut – where we have a launch pending very soon – and Rhode Island. Tose are the only two regulated US states that we currently aren't in. Otherwise, we’re prepared to enter day-one in any new state as, and when, they go live. Our collaboration with the land-based side of the business, which is something unique that AGS does particularly well, has positioned us to enter our next state strongly.
How is AGS utilising its remote gaming server and content to roll out and compete in the competitive landscape?
AGS’ interactive success is deeply tied to our land-based roots. A lot of what’s worked for us comes from harnessing that side of the business. So, a lot of the content that we bring to market is in alignment with what our land-based team does. Te quality of content is so rich. As well as this, we develop other titles for online release that don't necessarily fit into a land-based casino. Tis means that while the core part of our business is aligned with AGS, there is a segment of our business that's incremental and innovative.
What’s been the product impact of two US operators dominating the market?
I think we've seen a lot of strong products come out from both DraftKings and FanDuel. Tey’ve both focused on delivering to the player and creating a good experience, which I feel like they're both executing on. I've been interested to observe the different ways they're considering player value, and you can see they're making long-term plays.
50 Can new entrants compete?
It's possible. I don't think you're going to have someone come in and get 60 percent market share, but I think you can have a new entrant come in and do well, especially if states open up. Betty, for example, is an Ontario operator that has done really well. I wouldn’t consider the North American iGaming market established. It's still very immature. So, I think if we look at other markets, and if we look at history, we know it's possible. A disruptor can come in and have an impact. Te US isn't fully cooked, and while laying the groundwork in a state now won’t be easy, it is possible.
We’ve seen significant legal developments in the sweepstakes market. What's your take? Is the way to kill off sweeps to regulate iGaming?
Yes. We all want regulated gambling. I think sweepstakes have gained popularity because state-level expansion is not growing, and the barriers to entry in the US are so high that many of these sweeps- related companies wouldn’t qualify for a license. So, they’re using this model as a workaround. You can compare it to the “.com of Europe” analogy. Sweeps aren’t something AGS participates in, and we support regulating additional jurisdictions.
What's your assessment of the content that European iGaming suppliers are bringing to the market?
My general belief is that good content will work in multiple markets. Te content that you see resonating in the US from European suppliers is content that performs well in European markets. I understand that there are nuances to each market and player
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 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180
