Key Moments:
- Helen Walton, CCO at G.Games, has called for the integration of ethics as a strategic element in iGaming UX design.
- Regulatory shifts, such as the UK Gambling Commission’s measures, have begun to impact design standards and responsible gambling practices.
- The division between operators and studios often creates misaligned incentives, complicating efforts to prioritize player welfare and ethical standards.
The Influence and Limitations of Studios in UX Design
Sleek visuals and rapid gameplay remain important in iGaming, but ethical UX is now a critical focus. Studios often control only how their games appear. This creates a growing disconnect with the broader player journey. Helen Walton, Chief Commercial Officer at G.Games, argues for placing ethical considerations at the forefront of product design. According to Walton, studios usually have minimal influence, and the industry’s largest suppliers only intervene to mandate offers’ placement, rarely with the player’s experience in mind.
Game Interface: Shaping Player Behavior and Responsibility
Operators largely dictate the overall journey for players, while studios control only the game interface. Walton stresses the significant impact the interface can have on a player’s welfare, emphasizing that it is never truly neutral. This division hampers the development of games that align with responsible gambling standards. She highlights anticipation as a vital element in gameplay, and discusses how deliberate friction—interruptions or pauses—can be leveraged to encourage responsible behavior, drawing parallels with popular titles such as Candy Crush.
Walton notes that design choices in iGaming often reflect underlying business models. For suppliers, commercial survival influences every decision, which means intent is rarely neutral. Some operators have started to adopt protective design principles by using real-time behavioral data to pause play during high-risk sessions, demonstrating how ethical UX can complement responsible gambling practices.
Conflicting Incentives and Changing Regulations
Suppliers’ compensation structures, typically based on revenue share, further complicate the landscape. Walton points out that while operators care primarily about keeping players on-site, studios focus on engagement with their own games, regardless of the operator. This arrangement can lead to competing priorities that challenge responsible game design. Regulatory measures in the UK, such as autoplay restrictions, prompts regarding stake levels, and checks for players who spend over £150 per month, have started to raise the bar for safer gameplay. However, the underlying issue remains: studios still lack a decisive role in shaping the player journey.
The real-world risks associated with these design choices are echoed in recent data from the UK’s Gambling Survey, showing 2.7 percent of adults are classified as high-risk gamblers. Walton underscores the importance of viewing design decisions through a lens of responsibility, as session lengths and player spending patterns are increasingly engineered through UX.
Balancing Engagement, Innovation, and Responsibility
Walton observes that innovations in game features now blend commercial ambitions with potential concerns about bet sizes or session durations. She notes the subjective nature of interpreting ethical UX, especially as new features encourage players to remain engaged for longer periods.
Operators and studios frequently demonstrate divergent priorities regarding effective UX. Basic considerations—such as the prominence of spin buttons and regulatory transparency on various devices—remain critical for studios, while both groups typically favor minimizing returns to the game lobby to prolong player sessions and optimize Gross Gaming Revenue (GGR).
New Dynamics: Streamers, RTP Settings, and Ethical Dilemmas
The rise of streamer-driven popularity has introduced new design challenges, as games are increasingly tailored for visual engagement. Walton expresses concern over the ethics of creating separate versions or features primarily for streaming, especially when reports emerge of streamers accessing higher RTP (Return to Player) configurations. She questions whether this dynamic misaligns player expectations and increases temptations toward the unregulated market in places where specific features are prohibited.
| Ethical Design Concern | Potential Impact |
|---|---|
| Friction points in gameplay | Can encourage responsible behavior or be misused for monetization |
| Revenue-based incentives | May misalign operator and studio priorities, hindering player protection |
| Streamer-focused design | Raises questions about fairness and player agency |
Modernizing UX for Mobile and Beyond
Walton identifies a persistent UX challenge: adapting traditional 5×3 slot layouts effectively for mobile portrait mode, noting that existing attempts have yet to deliver a lasting improvement. She also points to the broader industry structure, stating the separation between operators and suppliers can stifle innovation and degrade the player experience, even when operators have their own in-house studios.
Walton suggests that unless suppliers are more actively involved in the broader ecosystem, efforts to protect players will remain superficial. She concludes that genuine progress toward safer journeys relies on recognizing studios as key contributors, rather than sidelined entities.
- Author
Daniel Williams
