Regulated Skill-Based Gaming: GameCo and Gamblit

The 2010s saw ambitious attempts to bring skill-based gambling to regulated casino floors. GameCo and Gamblit Gaming led this charge, promising to attract millennials with familiar gaming mechanics while maintaining the gambling element casinos require.

The Millennial Problem

Casino Demographics

Casinos faced a challenge:

Average slot player age: Increasing

Millennial casino spend: Lower than previous generations

Skill game familiarity: High among younger players

Traditional slots: Perceived as passive entertainment

The Proposed Solution

Create games that:

Blend video game mechanics with gambling

Reward skill while maintaining house edge

Appeal to players raised on console gaming

Fit within existing regulatory frameworks

GameCo: The First Mover

Company Background

Founded: 2015, New York

Concept: Skill-based video game gambling

Key Innovation: Variable RTP based on player skill

Product Approach

GameCo created games resembling console titles:

First-person shooters: Eliminate targets for wins

Racing games: Finish position determines payout

Action games: Score determines return

How Skill Affected Payout

The GameCo model:

Skill LevelRTPExpert95-99%Average85-90%Poor75-80%

Regulatory Approvals

GameCo achieved:

Nevada: First skill-based game approval (2015)

Atlantic City: Launch at multiple properties

Additional jurisdictions: Expansion continued

Casino Deployments

Placements included:

Caesars Atlantic City

Hard Rock Atlantic City

Planet Hollywood Las Vegas

Other major properties

Gamblit Gaming: The Hybrid Approach

Company Background

Founded: 2012, Los Angeles

Concept: Hybrid skill/luck gaming

Key Innovation: Skill games with gambling overlay

Product Philosophy

Gamblit took a different approach:

License familiar mobile games

Add gambling mechanic

Maintain recognizable gameplay

Skill influences but doesn't determine outcome

Product Examples

Gamblit games included:

Pac-Man: Skill maze navigation affects multipliers

Match-3 puzzles: Matching skill provides bonus

Card games: Skill/luck hybrid mechanics

The "Mode 2" Architecture

Gamblit's system:

Player wagers and plays skill game

Skill score determined by performance

RNG determines final outcome

Skill score modifies but doesn't control result

Regulatory Journey

Gamblit approvals:

California cardrooms

Nevada casinos

Additional jurisdictions

Technical Implementation

Cabinet Design

Both companies developed:

Large high-definition displays

Console-style controllers

Comfortable seating for extended play

Skill-appropriate interface design

RTP Calculation Challenges

Skill-based gaming created new problems:

Traditional gaming: RTP fixed by paytable

Skill-based gaming: RTP varies by player ability

Regulatory Accommodations

Nevada and other jurisdictions created:

Skill-based gaming regulations

Variable RTP disclosure requirements

Minimum return standards regardless of skill

Testing protocols for skill elements

Market Results

Initial Enthusiasm

Early response included:

Significant media coverage

Casino operator interest

Player curiosity

Industry awards and recognition

Sobering Reality

Results proved disappointing:

MetricExpectationRealityPlayer adoptionHighLowFloor retentionLong-termShort placementsRevenue per unitCompetitiveBelow slotsTarget demographicMillennialsMixed at best

Why It Struggled

Analysis suggested:

Cognitive dissonance: Gamblers want luck, gamers want skill

Casino environment: Not appealing to core gamers

Skill pressure: Stress of skill gambling not fun

Payout expectations: Gamers expect to "beat" games

Investment required: Learning curve discouraged casuals

The Fundamental Tension

Skill vs. Gambling Psychology

The core problem:

Skill gamers want:

To win through ability

Fair competition

Mastery and improvement

Guaranteed success with skill

Gamblers want:

Possibility of luck-based wins

Low stress entertainment

Hope without pressure

Immediate gratification

The Irreconcilable Conflict

Skill-based gambling struggled because:

High skill = Frequent wins = Low revenue for casino

Low skill = Frustrating losses = Player dissatisfaction

Neither segment fully satisfied

Hybrid pleased no one completely

Company Outcomes

GameCo

Reduced operations significantly

Shifted focus to esports betting

Some games remain deployed

Original vision largely unfulfilled

Gamblit

Acquired/merged multiple times

Product line discontinued in many markets

Intellectual property dispersed

Pioneer status but not commercial success

Lessons Learned

For the Industry

Skill-based gaming taught:

Demographics aren't destiny: Millennials will gamble traditionally

Skill gambling is niche: Limited mass appeal

Casino environment matters: Context shapes behavior

Traditional games work: Slots and video poker endure

For Video Poker

Implications for video poker:

Skill element is optimal amount

Too much skill creates problems

Transparent odds are valued

Traditional format is sticky

The Esports Alternative

Shifting Industry Focus

After skill-based gaming struggles:

Esports betting gained traction

Tournament gambling expanded

Fantasy sports integration

Different model than machine-based skill

Why Esports Works

Esports betting succeeds where skill-based slots failed:

Skill is spectator, not participant

Betting on others reduces pressure

Familiar sports betting model

Existing player base

Legacy and Future

What Survives

From the skill-based era:

Regulatory frameworks for skill games

Understanding of player psychology

Hybrid game design experience

Esports betting infrastructure

Ongoing Development

Some companies continue:

Konami: Skill-based elements in traditional games

AGS: Hybrid features

Others: Incremental integration

The GameCo and Gamblit era proved that pure skill-based gambling faces fundamental psychological barriers, while video poker's balanced skill/luck formula continues to succeed.