Not All Content Is Created Equal: Why We Need Better Data on Game Performance

by Simon Barff

During last week’s ARE Expo in Manchester, I had a number of conversations with retailers around a shared concern: content within digital compendiums, and whether it is truly delivering value.

Those discussions made it clear that this is not an isolated issue, but one that is increasingly front of mind across the sector. It also reinforced my view that it’s something worth addressing from the perspective of a data aggregator.

At CLMS, we are in a unique position to see what is actually happening on the ground and what players are engaging with, how games perform over time, and whether new content is genuinely adding value or simply adding volume.

In today’s pub gaming landscape, Category C digital compendiums containing an array of games are the dominant force, whereas in the past just one game would be put in front of the player for a limited time and its performance monitored.

Being able to make the same performance assessments across a myriad of games, particularly when new titles are being uploaded all the time, requires much more complex analysis, taking into account a wide range of metrics. As a result, many operators and retailers are effectively in the dark when it comes to knowing whether new content is truly delivering value.

CLMS, the largest aggregator of machine data in the UK, has undertaken significant work analysing the games available across different platforms, their popularity over time and what is actually being played on the major compendiums.

What is becoming increasingly clear is this: not all new content is created equal, and many of the assumptions the industry has traditionally relied upon may no longer hold true.

The illusion of “fresh content”

Manufacturers are increasingly requiring operators to pay ongoing content fees, removing the traditional model where a cabinet was purchased with a fixed game pack. These charges typically include regular updates to their compendiums with new titles.

In theory, this model benefits both operators and players. Operators receive a constant stream of fresh content, while players are introduced to new titles designed to keep them engaged.

It is estimated that around 60 percent of the current digital Category C landscape operates under this model, equating to roughly £18 million of operational costs per year in content alone.

However, the data tells a more nuanced story.

Many players gravitate toward older, established games and rarely explore newer titles. In some cases, “new” content is little more than a lightly reworked version of a familiar game – something that experienced players recognise immediately.

Quantity does not compensate for quality. Some manufacturers appear locked into providing regular game deployments, almost as if they are on a treadmill, rather than ensuring the titles they release are fully tested, well developed and genuinely improve the existing game compendium.

Two years ago, our position was that paying these content fees was essential to the ongoing delivery of improved revenues, with new games offering players fresh and innovative experiences. With some manufacturers, however, I’m not entirely sure that position still holds true.

This does not mean operators should stop investing in the content pipeline. But there must be a balance between investment and return, and it is not always clear that this balance is being properly managed across the board.

This disconnect raises an important question:

Are operators paying for content that their customers will never actually play?

Complicating matters further is the fact that different suppliers offer wildly different volumes and qualities of new content each year. Some release a steady flow of new titles, while others release far fewer. Operators can therefore end up paying comparable fees for very unequal offerings.

So how do you compare one manufacturer’s compendium to another, and how do you judge whether a fee reflects genuine value?

Increasingly, CLMS is helping retailers answer these questions by levelling the playing field; analysing performance in context, measuring engagement against releases, and unpicking the variables that influence how and why players choose one title over another.

What might have happened if MGD had increased?

Had the Spring Budget imposed an increase in MGD for Category C machines, which was something that looked worryingly possible – many retailers would undoubtedly have been forced to scrutinise these content costs much more closely.

Higher tax would have prompted questions such as:

Are we paying for new games that nobody plays?
Could we reduce our costs by sticking with existing content rather than upgrading?
Which suppliers genuinely deliver value for money?
While Category C escaped an increase this time, the situation highlighted a wider truth: operators are already looking more closely at what they are paying for.

The unpredictability of player behaviour

Even when strong content does arrive, its success is far from guaranteed.

The data shows that:

• Some games take months to gain traction
• Two nearly identical titles from different suppliers can drive very different staking behaviour
• Online favourites imported to Category C do not always perform the way operators expect
• How the game is presented to players - including how long it appears on the main menu - can have a significant impact
• A fishing-themed game, for example, may be played predominantly at £1 stakes on one platform, yet a nearly identical version from another supplier may see most play at 20p or 50p. The theme itself is not the differentiator but the underlying mechanics are.

And as the online sector absorbs a 40 per cent increase in MGD, we may see fewer online-to-retail conversions, limiting the pipeline of proven and recognisable titles entering the pub gaming sector.

This raises another question: are some manufacturers releasing content simply because they are contractually obliged to do so, or to maintain their revenue stream, rather than returning to the principles of properly testing games before releasing them to the wider market?

Perhaps it is time for the industry to take a step back and focus on quality rather than quantity.

The random element and the value of real data

There will always be an element of art  and a fair amount of luck involved in creating a hit game. No model can remove that entirely.

But by tracking:

• the number of new releases
• the rate at which players adopt them
• the longevity of successful titles
• supplier-by-supplier performance over time   

CLMS can identify patterns that help operators make clearer, more strategic decisions.

What emerges is not guesswork, but evidence which provides a fuller picture of game value stripped of assumptions and marketing gloss.

As costs rise and market pressures intensify, operators will increasingly demand transparency and measurable value from their content providers.

CLMS is already helping many retailers move in that direction, using real-world data from tens of thousands of machines to bring clarity to an increasingly complex content landscape.

Because in today’s market, knowing what players actually play is more important than ever  and it is no longer enough to assume that new automatically means better.

We continue to support the traction that investment in content development has delivered to date. However, if the pub sector is now sustaining circa £20 million in annual content charges, it may be time for the industry to review that investment more regularly to ensure it continues to deliver genuine value.

Return to the previous page

7 May 2026

See all news...