Aristocrat Gaming with Dan Marks

Good morning, Dan. How are things in Vegas this morning?

Wonderful, Nick. Good morning. It is F1 week in Las Vegas this week. So that's all the excitement.

And as I understand from where we started today, raining cats and dogs for the fifth day in a row. Is that right?

Yes, sir.

Okay. Something is wrong with the universe when this is happening in Vegas. Did you have much of a monsoon season there this summer?

No, it was dry. I don't mind it. I love the rain, so it's all good.

Yeah. Okay. Well, if you'd like, come to-

Maybe not for the race, but ...

Okay. Well, you can come to Holland if you want to get sick of rain. I would recommend that very strongly. So Dan, we have a guest today for whom we have a lot of questions. So in the interest of time here, I'm going to skip the news segment today and just go straight into the listener questions. Before I do, let me say that we'd love to tackle any questions that anybody listening may have. So if you have a question about what we're presenting or something you'd like us to present, please drop us an email at reelcast@realmetrics.com. Again, that's R-E-E-L-C-A-S-T at realmetrics.com. Our policy is to keep all questions anonymous, so please speak directly and don't worry about us revealing your identity. This is not something we do. Okay. So this comes from an Eastern European operator who asks, "Hello, Mr. Hogan and Mr. Cherry. I know that you're focused mainly on improving operational results, but I would like to know your position on responsible gaming programs. Do you feel casinos should have them, even if not required by law? Thank you for the many interesting podcasts."

So big thanks to the listener for that question. I can't claim that it's one I'm often asked. But Dan, I guess my answer on this is generally I think these programs are good for business, it's good corporate citizenry. And I feel a transparent acknowledgement that gaming is a pastime that carries some inherent risks and that this casino accepts its so-called duty of care obligations relative to customers. Additionally, and selfishly, I guess, from an operator perspective, they provide pretty solid political capital when looking at things like expansion. So to a large extent, I really think it's kind of a sustainability question and that such programs really serve operators well over the long haul. Now, with that said, I also feel there's a spectrum here. In some jurisdictions, I feel these programs have become, for the most part, unmoored from reality.

So in Europe, a few programs are structured so that anyone who wagers over a certain level is just assumed to be a problem gambler. And then the operators must take these people aside and then ask them to substantiate, through the production of bank statements or tax documents, things like this, that they have the financial wherewithal to gamble at that level. And if they can't substantiate this or they simply refuse to supply the docs, that player gets banned nationwide.

And does it stop gambling? Of course not, right? So they just jump in the car, drive an hour across the border, and they're all set. And until January of this year, this was the core business model in Liechtenstein's casinos. They just sat there and took the action of the players who were banned in Switzerland. And in Sweden, cockeyed responsible gaming regs contributed massively to what was just the wholesale destruction of the land-based industry. There are no more casinos in Sweden. So design and execution are huge factors here. I guess I'm generally a supporter of these programs, but here's an important detail. I'm not an operator, so let's get the operator view, Dan, so your thoughts on these things.

Yeah. Absolutely. Well, well said and great question. I love this question. Obviously, not just an operator, but I'll come at it from the kind of USA perspective in terms of most of the land-based environment here. Those of us who came into the business prior to sports betting approval on the land-based side, I think for most of us, over the years, you hear certain negative perceptions of casino gaming for whatever reason, right? So I think a lot of us, it's been really important in our careers and instilled in our careers that there has to be some kind of community aspect and social aspect to this, right? So whether it's contributing taxable revenue to the community, whether it's establishing a job base, or providing economic value to the community, and also just responsible gaming, not just problem gaming, but underage gaming. So for those of us who grew up on the land side and regulated environments, I think wanting to make sure that we're being as responsible as possible and providing social value in addition to just the financial aspect, it's been crucial, right?

We all understand that we get our licenses as a privilege granted to us by the regulators. And we want to be responsible to us. So I think for most of us, it's front of mind, right? We have a responsibility for our communities and our customer base. Beyond that, we talked last time a little bit about the NBA betting scandal and the illegal poker games. Hot button this week has been what's going on in the prediction markets, right? So when you hear news of DraftKings and FanDuel, and then yesterday Michael Rubin at Fanatics announcing that Fanatics is going to be getting the next two weeks into the prediction market, it's really front of mind. And I think for a lot of folks that grew up in regulated gaming, we're looking at it.

And some of us are asking the question, hey, beyond the potential legality of this, put that to the side. Whether these futures contracts have any economic benefit or any risk management benefit or are legal at all, let the courts and the regulators decide that. But it really makes you question when folks announce, hey, we're dropping out of the American Gaming Association, whose primary research and primary motive is responsible gaming. We're saying we've been part of the regulatory framework and we've used regulated gaming to get a foothold and become established. But thanks, now we're going to move off on our own. For some of us, we asked the question of, hey, what does that mean? Right? These folks and these companies kind of grew up outside of the regulated gaming ecosystem as opposed to many of us who grew up within it. So is there just a different mindset when it comes to how important responsible gaming is or is not responsible, is not important? Because, obviously, if you don't view prediction markets as gambling, then you're not going to have responsible gaming programs, by definition, right?

You're not going to have underage gaming programs, by definition. So I know a lot of folks are thinking about what does this mean? And that's not just folks like me from the outside, but employees who are questioning, hey, if I ever have to be licensed somewhere, do I need to think about what I'm going to do? Existing operating partners who, in states where online skins are tethered to land-based casino licenses, thinking about, hey, what does this mean for me? And then, obviously, how regulators are thinking about it.

So I think it's front of mind for everybody. And it's just another example of why is it important to protect regulated gaming against all these external threats? And whether it's prediction markets or whether it's skilled games or whether it's sweepstakes or gray games, or whatever, beyond the taxable base that regular gaming provides. The other reason is RG, right? The protections and the programs around underage and responsible and illicit financial activities and things like that that RG and the regulated markets provide that some of these other markets don't. So I don't know what all that means. And ramble a little bit. But it seems very front of mind right now and very topical for the industry.

Now, do you feel ... So with respect to the idea of a spectrum, and I don't know this in the US, is it pretty variable from market to market, what kind of things you need to have in place for responsible gaming?

To an extent, right? I think for most operators, a lot of the work and a lot of what's ... I don't know if burdensome is the right word, right? But a lot of the effort is more around the Know Your Customer and the Title 31 responsibilities in terms of source of funds. And those are obviously federal-driven instead of local-driven. RG programs are different in every state, but I don't know that in most of them, they're drastically different.

Okay. Okay. Well, anyway. Great question, indeed. It's just not something I have to say I am confronted with very often, but thanks again to the listener for that. It's a good question. And yeah, very interesting topic. Okay, Dan. Time has come to introduce today's guest. So this gentleman is graduate of Haverford College and Stanford Law School, and began his game design career close to 30 years ago. Since the late '90s, he's worked with a number of design studios, including High 5 Games, Marks Studios, Spooky Cool Labs, and Gimmie Games, of which he was the founder and CEO. So these days, Gimmie Games is a powerhouse studio inside of Aristocrat where he serves as Senior Vice President of Gaming. I'm speaking, of course, about Mr. Dan Marks. Dan, how are things with you this morning?

Going great. Thanks a bunch for having me. Really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you guys.

You bet. Delighted to have you here. So Dan, I thought we could just start off. Maybe you could walk us through your industry career a bit and just tell us about the path that took you to your current role.

Sure. It started in 7 World Trade Center in 1998 when 7 World Trade Center still stood.

Wow.

And I had just been accepted to the Secret Service. And my father called me and he asked me if I would be willing to join him in a new venture making a board game. And I said, "Okay." And I turned to the lady who was standing there waiting to schedule an intake for the Secret Service, and I told her I'd call her back in two weeks when I'd finished helping my dad, and now two weeks has become 27 years and I have not called her back. So I went into board games and then into table games for casinos and then into poker games. And finally, we landed on video slot machines when video slot machines had just started. And we came out with a game called Hot, Hot, Hot, if anybody goes back far enough to play Hot, Hot, Hot.

And it was a game with, I think, 12 colors and six frames of animation. And that game was pretty successful. And then it just went from there. So it went to games that people might still remember, like, gosh, Twin Win, Hoot Loot, then to Da Vinci Diamonds, Noah's Ark, Golden Goddess, Black Widow, Dangerous Beauty. Classics that have been around for a while now. You might still be able to find them in your high denom, high roller rooms. Stuff like Green Machine that been around on the Big Bertha forever. And took a little break in, oh, gosh, 2010, 2012. Went into mobile app building for city builders, if you guys can remember FarmVille style games.

Of course. Yeah.

Built one of those. That went very well. That company, after a few years, created a game called Hit It Rich! Social Casino, which became a successful social casino. Sold that company to the Zynga. And then late 2012, early '13, joined Aristocrat.

Okay.

Been with Aristocrat ever since then. We were purchased. Gimmie Games as a studio was purchased by Aristocrat about seven years ago. I'm now a full-time and have been a full-time employee growing the Gimmie Games studio, and enjoying it. I still love what I do. I get a chance to make games every day. That is phenomenal. And some of those games have been successful. I've gotten a couple awards, a couple of patents. And now we're over 200 people making 60 titles a year across land, social, high gaming, and just having a great time every day.

Good Lord. Did you say 200 people in one studio?

Yeah. We have over 200 people, but we make a lot of games for a lot of different verticals.

Okay. Wow. And it's an interesting segue, Dan.

And so that's what makes it great.

For sure. For sure. And so let's pause on this for a sec because ... So a lot of people listening today, they're maybe unfamiliar with that structure where suppliers have multiple studios competing under one roof. So can you kind of walk us through how this works generally? How these are structured and managed? And what that whole thing looks like?

Sure. So Aristocrat is comprised of a number of different, what I would call, independent studios that all work within the general D&D, design and development, organization. And they all both cooperate and compete together. So each one of these studios tends to be led by a creative head, who comes up with a vision for the games, and then attacks different geographical or verticals. So we have studios that focus maybe in Australia. We have studios that focus for iGaming. We have studios that focus in social casino. And of course, we have studios that focus on land. And within each of these areas, for example, land, you have studios that are just basically competing with each other, right? I want to put out the best game. And my sister and brother studios at Aristocrat also want to put out the best game. And that kind of friendly competition is what I think makes Aristocrat really, really strong.

Right.

Right? Because every studio has its peaks and valleys. And when someone's valleying, someone's peaking. And so there's always a balance of hopefully good games coming to market. And when everybody peaks together, that's awesome. And so for the last couple of years, as you guys have seen at ReelMetrics, I look at your data, Aristocrat's doing really, really well across the board.

Oh, yes.

And you'll see that each one of these studios-

Yeah. Not a lot of problems.

Yeah. And that's because each one of these studios is bringing their best because they're being pushed by the competition. So you can see that the studios have created some incredible games, like Lightning Link and Dragon Link and House of Dragon, that are really dominating the premium space. And then you can see games on your core side that come from a variety of studios, ourself, Mo' Mummy, Bao Zhu, but you also see other studios with stuff like the 4Up Lucha game, and you see other games on your top 25, which are doing really, really well, like ... Gosh. Trying to think of a good one that's up there, but there are a ton of them from our studios.

The Ultimate Fast Cash, for example, comes from a sister studio. And that game's been super solid. So it's this competition between the studios. Now, these studios are pretty independent, right? They compete with each other and they're independent from each other on purpose, right? Even though we all report up into the same structure and we all share the same technical underpinnings, there's a purpose, there's a method to the madness. And that madness is the competition that drives us. So I think it's a magical formula for Aristocrat. I think other companies are sort of coming to that now, but we've been doing it for a long time. And it's really built up the foundation for why we've been so successful recently.

Gotcha. And is it always friendly?

Yeah. It's friendly in the sense that if I'm going to lose to somebody, I want it to be my sister studio. I don't want it to be a competitor outside of Aristocrat. But I'm not sharing my math with other studios. Math is the sacred cow. Not only does it never leave Aristocrat, it never leaves my studio. Math is the heart and soul of every game. And it is the untouchable. It is the unspeakable. It is the key ingredient that gives the breath to every game. And so we are friendly, but only to a point. And that point ends when you start with my calculations. So that's how friendly it'll get. It'll get like, hey, that was a great game. Congratulations. Love to see you winning. But I'm not bringing them in to take a look at my Excel spreadsheets.

Gotcha.

Dan, first of all, congratulations. Spooky Link is the most successful horror theme I've seen in a very long time. It's incredible, the success. And you referenced Nick's charts and the EILERS charts. It's unbelievable. For those of us that are unfamiliar, and by that, I mean me and Nick, can you just kind of walk us through at a high level what the game design process looks like? And you kind of alluded to it that you lead with math. But between math and art and themes, what is the process? And how does all this come together without giving away the secret sauce?

Sure. Every studio is going to design games differently, of course. I can tell you from my perspective, it is very much an art form. The inspiration can occur almost anywhere. It can be walking down the street, it can be in the shower, it can be playing a game, a video game, it can be wherever the moment strikes you, but it starts with a kernel of an idea for a feature, right? So you come up with some differentiator, some unique differentiator that you think, oh, that would be cool. And then you do what you just said. You come back to the math, you sit down with your math guys, and you're going to lay out the high level specs.

Okay. I'm going to have XYZ feature and maybe have a couple features. I'm going to dedicate X percentage of the game RTP, of the coinage, to those features and X to the base game, right? And one thing you'll see over time is, and I think you probably, guys, already see this already, is that more and more of the RTP is going into these bonus features. Back in the day, when I started with games like Golden Goddess, Black Widow, Hoot Loot, it was more of a 50/50 split. And that has become more and more extreme towards the bonus features. Every game is slightly different, but it's moved where the money is in the chase, if you will, right?

So you lay that out. So what's your RTP breakdown between the bonus features and your base game? What's your bonus frequency? Super important. Some games like to push their bonuses out. Some like to make them more frequent. How often do you balance those between multiple features? Right? Do I push my free games way out and bring my hold and spin feature farther in? Do I balance them evenly? Or in some cases, do I just get rid of free games? Right? So if you look at Bao Zhu Zhao Fu, doesn't exist, right? 10 years ago, you would've never built a game without free games. That would've been crazy. And now it's common. So your RTP is ... So what's happened is the designers said, "Hey, I need all of my money for this hold and spin feature. I can't split any of it out." And so you just get rid of it.

So that's a big change that's occurred over the last, I don't know, five, nine years. And then you have to get down with your math designers and really dig in. What do your reel strips look like? How does it really all get down into the sausage making? But of course, like you said, there's also art, animation, sound. And I would say one of the biggest evolutions for us as a studio in terms of how these parts come together is data. And you guys know that really, really well because you guys focus on data tremendously from the operator side. We try to create data for ourselves in the design process. And so when we're coming up with an art theme, we can have an opinion, right? I like owls, I like penguins, whatever. But it really doesn't matter what I like, right? Because I'm not the guy playing the game day in, day out on a casino floor. So we've developed a testing process where we take art themes, 40, 50, 60 art themes at a time, and get player feedback.

We go out with a testing team. This is what they do. And they dedicate a significant amount of time to testing themes, getting feedback from players. And then we use that data to select our themes. So it's not just my preference anymore. That's been a very important part of our art decision-making process. And then you layer sound on top. And as you know, the company of Buffalo, sound is important. Sound is important, right? And so we layer that on top. So yeah, you need all of it come together. It starts with a feature. Obviously, the math is the most important part you're going to back it up with. And then you're going to scaffold all the other stuff on top of it. But the more data you can put behind it, the better off you are, right? And you guys know this very well. We try to incorporate that into the process itself as much as we can.

Yeah. You obviously touched on the mass and how over time, no secret, more and more of the RTP has gone to the bonus features, right? I'm wondering, do you think because Aristocrat has had so much success and because there've been so many hit games over the last several years, that the customer has given you maybe more leeway to be more aggressive on the volatility than they would someone else? Because they love the hardware. They know, hey, if I go to the Bear and I'm going to find hit themes, and if I don't hit a bonus the first time, I'm probably going to come back to you. Do you think it gives you some more flexibility, more aggressive that others don't have the luxury of, or no? I'm just curious if you thought about that.

I do think that familiarity with a brand is a huge benefit. And it does allow you to do things that maybe unfamiliar brands don't have that luxury. I'm not sure if that applies to volatility in that I think volatility is an industry-wide event. So to give you an idea, since I started, volatility has increased every year across not just my games, every game that I know of. Of course, I don't have access to everybody's data, but my sense when I play the games that I didn't create myself. And if I were to give you some more measurements, everybody measures volatility differently, so I'll just use my own measure, which may not relate to anybody. But when we started Aristocrat, a volatility might be like a seven or an eight on a scale. Now our games are 20, 22, 24 on our scale, to give you an idea. They've tripled in volatility.

And that applies not just to games like Bao Zhu and Mo' Mummy, which players are familiar with, and we've evolved. And yes, they've become a little more volatile from their original version. But also applies to our newer games that no one knows. So we'll bring out a new title no one's seen before, right? I believe Spicy Fortunes is a good examples at the show. That game is pretty volatile relative to what I would've built five, seven years ago. No one knows it. But I think that the industry is there as a whole. I don't think there's anything about Bao Zhu or Mo' Mummy that is more leeway. It gives me more leeway to innovate.

I can bring out features that maybe are a little more complex, that might take a little more for the player to truly appreciate and understand. And because they're more complex, because we're adding, let's say, more metamorphics, the time to get that big, big prize, let's say get all four metamorphics or five, or wherever the hell we all end up, with a dozen metamorphics all going off at the same time, that chase can get a little longer, right?

So to get all the bells and whistles at the same time, it might extend that chase couple more spins. That's the leeway the player's giving you. They're saying, "I'm going to have more patience with your game. I'm going to give you more time to show me all the different ways I can explore this game." I'm not sure if that applies to the volatility, though, because I think every game needs to be volatile in this or more volatile in this market because that's just where the industry is. That's where players are. That's where we've matured to. That's what players respond to in the math. And again, I hate to repeat it, but it all comes down to the math. And if you're not doing your math in a way that reflects the player's preference, which, in my view, is more volatile, you're not going to get the resonance. And I don't care if it's a known game or an unknown game. It all comes back to the math, volatility being one element of that math.

Yeah. Yeah. Totally makes sense. [inaudible 00:28:03] such well-known titles and brands, right? So whether it's Buffalo or Lightning Link that's morphed into all the other various linked titles, how does a big company like this create a consistent look and feel across studios? Or does it not? And then I'm also curious, I imagine there's this push-pull between studios always trying to drive creativity and then commercial aspects in terms of how we manage brand extensions, how we create new concepts and new titles, et cetera. So I wonder if you could touch on that.

Sure. So again, every studio is its own little kingdom. And within each studio, you can do whatever you want to do, right? If you want to make all your games look the same, go for it. If you want to make every one of them look different, that's your decision. At the end of the day, you stand by the results of your studio, right? At our studio, I can tell you that we try to risk manage, just like anybody should risk manage, right? We're going to come out with Asian themes that we know resonate in the market. Asian themes have been here for God knows how long, seven, eight, nine, 10 years now. At some point, I thought almost every game looked Asian when you went to G2E. The whole floor was just nothing but Asian dragons.

And that's fine, but you need to risk manage. And that's what we do, right? So we still have fair number of Asian games. We all have seen that cartoons have come back from the dead. It used to be everything was a cartoon back in the day with Little Green Men and Texas Tea from years and years ago. And now they're back, right? So you see games, like from us, Mo' Mummy, right? And you see other companies doing that as well. Little cartoony pigs and penguins and all kinds of things popping up at shows. So we still believe in Asian games, but we also believe that cartoon is coming back. And again, it comes back to watching the trends in the market through watching the data, right? So if I were to look at your data, I would try to analyze what are the art themes that are performing in the top 25 games?

How are they lasting? Do they have legs? If they do have legs and they are staying there, well, I need to think about how that works into my portfolio going forward because we're designing 18, 24 months out, right? So you need to see where are we now? What is this trend? How early can I pick up on this trend in data? And then say, "Okay. Where are we going to be 18 months from now?" And that's really hard, right? That's not easy. If it was easy, none of us would have a job, right? But using data and using interactions with operators and chatting with them and talking with players, you try and get a feel on how to balance your portfolio across look and feel, right?

So we believe that Asian and, we'll call it, realistic art is still a very strong player, but we're growing more and more our cartoon side. You're seeing more and more of that come to market from us, and you'll continue to see that going forward. And you see it even in highbrow games, like Monopoly, right? We're designing a Monopoly game. Monopoly is inherently a cartoony game. Mr. Monopoly, right? It's got a cartoony, fun, engaging feel. So the timing for that's actually really good, right? The timing to bring a Mr. Monopoly cartoony character out is well-timed. And it's got that little voice, that kind of high English kind of voice. Very-

Yes. Yes.

And it kind of has a little personality, kind of like the Yeti and the Ghost and the Mummy have their own personality. So I think the timing for that is great. And we manage across. So other studios have totally different perspectives. So if you look at other studios, Aristocrat, like Dragon and Lightning Link, you can see that a mile away. That's never changing, right? You can tell there's a Dragon Link game. I don't even have to be within 40 feet of it. And they'll always have that look and feel. So it's a total opposite of us. They are 100% into their style. They manage it super carefully. There's no accidents. Nothing is random on that game. That studio pays incredible attention to make the look and feel standard across all their games so player knows. When he came out with Buffalo Link, when that studio came out with Buffalo Link, you knew it came from the Dragon Link studio, even though it was a Buffalo game.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah. Yeah, yeah.

Their attention to that level of detail is incredibly high. And they focus 100% on that style. And we do a more mixed blend across. I know you had a second part of that question. And I-

Oh, just about-

... can't remember what it was because I talked so long about the first half of the question.

No, it was just how much ... When it comes to titles that are being developed, how much of it is about, hey, we want to come up with something new versus how much of it is, hey, there's brands and brand extensions that need to be managed that are more of a commercial discussion?

Yeah. So that is one of the greatest luxuries that we have as a Gimmie Games studio, is that we have games that you can actually build extensions upon. It's really hard. That is the magic of Dragon Link and Lightning Link and Phoenix Link, is that players love the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, 16th, 18th, 20th version of the game as he evolves it and adds new little features to it and new betting options. What we've been able to do with Bao Zhu, Mo' Mummy, whatever we come out with hopefully in the future, and we'll be able to continue, is those extensions. Extensions are great and they are hard to find. And when you get a game that allows you to extend it in a successful way, you ride that to the sunset.

You do because it is such a rare gem to be able to create a brand from nothing and have players identify not only with it, but with the second and third and fourth. Think how few games actually can do that, right? You come out with a great, great game. And the second game is more than likely not going to perform at that level, not even at the level that you want it to even come close to. It's really hard. It's like movies, coming up with a sequel. How often is a sequel any good? Right? It's really, really hard. And so to be able to do that is incredibly rare. And you have to jump on it. So if you were to say, "What is your priority?" my priority is to build extensions of winning brands and make it and innovate upon it, right?

Because you have the familiarity of the base game. You know they're going to at least try it, but then you bring in the innovation on top of it to give them some other chase, right? So a good example is Bao Zhu, right? Bao Zhu. The next one was Bao Zhu Blast. We put a wheel on it. Okay. The next one after that was Bao Zhu Ignite. Oh, we added a metamorphic. We gave you the ability to trigger a feature-in-feature. We added what we call a rainbow symbol, which allows you to trigger multiple features from a single symbol, right? Every one of those innovations built upon the prior allowed us to extend it, give the player a little something new to chase. And they liked it, amazingly enough. And it continued to perform at the level or even better than the previous one. So that's priority number one. You have to extend a winner. You've seen that from every competitor, right?

For sure.

Anybody who's anybody, as a winning game, they're going to ride that sucker until there's nothing left. And so we do that every time we can. In terms of how much innovation, again, it comes back to risk management. So in a dream world, you have 80% of your portfolio is extensions of winning brands and 20% is new stuff. So if you came to the show, G2E, you would've seen extensions of Mo' Mummy, right? You saw Fo' Mo' Mummy, for example. You saw the latest iteration of Bao Zhu Ignite. And you also saw a couple of news things, right? You saw Imperial Link and you saw Spicy Fortunes, right? So if you were to balance out our portfolio, I think 80/20 is the goal, but that only exists if you have extensions to be made, right?

And so we're in that lucky place where we have the ability to extend games. In the past, there are periods in every studio's life cycle where you don't have that, right? You tried, it didn't work, you go back to the drawing board, you got to come up with a fresh set, right? That, quite frankly, is not ideal because it's too much risk when everything is new. The beauty of Aristocrat and my studio is a microcosm of that, is that you have these seemingly lifelong brands, like Buffalo, that you can just keep on going back to. And that's the huge advantage risk it has. You're developing iconic brands that can continually be extended. It minimizes your risk, right?

It builds familiarity. It allows, like I said before, Dan, for that innovation that may be a little deeper, a little more complex than you would normally be able to bring out with a new game because they've come with you on this journey. They started simple. It got a little more complex. It got a little deeper, a little deeper. So they know what the base level is because they just played it. And now they're waiting for that next level of complexity. Whereas if you're starting brand new, you don't have that luxury. Yeah. So extensions are great. I can't tell how happy I am every day when I go look at the charts and see that my game is still performing. And I think, "Yes, I can extend that game one more time."

Well, yeah, I was going to ask about innovation versus familiarity, but you definitely hit that there. So I guess the other observation I'd have about Aristocrat relative to some of your competitors is you guys don't do a whole hell of a lot of brand slapping, it seems to me, right? We do see some stuff here and there. Of course, you've had the Dune, Game of Thrones, a couple of these others. But generally, just philosophically inside the studios, I just have the impression that you guys just aren't into that. Is that the case? Or where do you land on this?

Yeah. We love proprietary titles. Not that we don't like licensed brands, but we choose them carefully. It used to be back in the day, if you went back 20 years ago, you could find every brand you've ever even thought of, right? The Spam was a game that came to market.

Remember it.

And it actually did okay, but that was a moment in time, right? Literally anything you could think of was there. Every singer.

It was crazy.

It was nuts, right? It was just bananas. But that was a moment in time, and it worked. And that time has sort of passed, right? It doesn't mean that no brand works. It just means you need to carefully select your brand because building a branded game is harder now. And I'm not exactly sure what's going on in the player's psyche, but it's pretty clear that they are leaning towards these proprietary brands, right? So Lightning Link, Dragon Link, our games, go on the Mo' Mummys, the Bao Zhus, even the competitors. You see this a lot with competitors. You can look at Light & Wonder and see their top games are almost all proprietary games, right?

You can even look at IGT and see a bunch of their games, although they still have Wheel of Fortune, a bunch of them are still proprietary games. It's become harder and harder to do brands. Now, in terms of brand slapping, probably never a good idea. And because it's great to try to combine the brand with the game a little bit than just throwing the brand on there. I'm not saying it's always possible, but you like to choose a brand that allows that depth so that you can work game features into the brand. And that's sort of a natural segue to Monopoly because Monopoly is exactly that kind of brand where the feature of Monopoly itself is easy to blend into our ... easy is a ... I shouldn't say easy.

I'll demean my own game design, but it is possible to bring it into the game in a seamless way, right? So if you were to play Monopoly at the show, you saw that when you go into this cash collect feature, you go into the bonus, you're collecting properties, right? That's exactly what you do. Oh, you're collecting houses. Oh, you're collecting hotels. Oh, when I put all three or both properties in a monopoly together, I double my payout. Well, that's exactly what happens in the Monopoly game, right? Oh, I land on free parking, I get a bonus. Well, that, in most Monopoly games, the ones that I play, I also collect a bonus when I go to free parking, right? And so that kind of brand inclusion into the gameplay is the ideal scenario, right? It is the exact opposite of brand slapping. It's making the brand work with the underlying features, make it work with the math, and that's the magic formula.

And that's why I think Monopoly has a very good chance to resonate with players because it isn't just a slap. We've actually integrated those game mechanics. So hopefully when they play the game, they feel like they felt when they were 12 years old playing the game. And they remember, oh, yeah, I remember collecting properties. Oh, yes, I made a Monopoly. Sweet. And that instinctual reaction to collecting that set of orange properties resonates with them. And they're like, "Oh, yeah. That's great." And the game rewards them, it rewards that feeling of collection, just like the game itself rewarded them when they were 12.

Yeah. Monopoly is a game, right? By definition, it has clear game mechanics that are easy to translate. And Nick and I talk about this quite a bit. Years ago, Aristocrat would talk about ... You would have your E-Series games and your T-Series, right? It seems like it's part of this whole evolution of the last six years or so where the makeup of the players that are coming to the casino have changed, right? It's more the pure gambler that's there as opposed to the entertainment seeker. I'm wondering if you think that maybe is part of that shift in appeal from the third-party brands to more internal. That it's more about the mechanics and math and the experience and less needing a known title to attract somebody just because it's a different play.

Yeah. That's an excellent question that I don't have a great answer to because I don't have data at my fingertips to tell you which players are coming in and how often they come in. I don't have that data set. You probably have that data set, though, is my guess.

Yeah. I have that data set.

You probably actually know the answer to the question that you just asked me.

Well, [inaudible 00:43:31] I know is you're not producing many E-Series games anymore, right?

Yeah. So I agree that players have become more mature, that players are looking for something that's a little more volatile, that players are definitely, definitely attuned to the math of a game over just the appearance of a game. Math has become more and more ... It's always been important, but I think it's become more and more important to our player base. And so maybe the brand is not quite as important, right? They're really now zeroing in on that math journey. How do they win? How do they lose? How often do they win? How often lose? So math has definitely become even more important than it's ever been. And the brands have become less important as players move towards it. I would agree with that thesis that you're proposing. I don't have data to back it up, but I agree, and you can definitely sense that, and you can sense that in our portfolio. Obviously, we do less branded games, we do more volatile games, but we still provide a pretty wide range of betting options.

I know that the cover bets have gone up, but everything's become more expensive over the last few years. But we still like to have a cover bet under a dollar or a dollar at most to allow players who may be a more entertainment player to still enjoy the game, right? We still want players to come to a casino who may not be dedicated slot players who are just looking for a nice time to be able to play it and spin it and enjoy and have some entertainment and win and lose and get to a feature, get to a bonus. We're not trying to chase that player out. We still value the entertainment player, but maybe the balance of those players has been shifting a little bit in terms of how many, how often. And I think that's okay. I think that's healthy. As an industry matures, I think the player base matures. They're looking for something deeper. When you look at video games, we're not doing 2D side scrollers anymore, right?

The games have matured, they've become deeper. And the players expect more from a video game. They're not going to play a game like that anymore, unless they want a retro feel for a few minutes. And I think it's the same with slot machine players. They're looking for a deeper, more mature game. And one of the elements of that maturity is its volatility and the depth of gameplay. So I think we're really seeing a maturation of a US player. And that has a lot of different elements going into it, including a little less entertainment, a little less brand, and a lot more focus on math.

I agree with you. Dan, I think you had a question about mechanics too, I believe.

Yeah. You touched on the math, obviously, and how important the math is and also just what the evolution is there. But I'm wondering briefly how you think about mechanics because it seems like there's been this convergence, right? Well, clearly, there's been a convergence where certain mechanics, hold and spin, three pot games, cash on reels, a few others have become you have to have these many people think as part of the game. So I'm wondering how you think about this convergence. And is that something that you're actively trying to chase? Or is it ... One of the other suppliers at G2E talked about how they kind of stay within this box, but then pepper in other mechanics, keep it safe, but add some variety.

And so wondering, just generally, A, how important do you think mechanics are? Clearly, you don't think they're probably as important as the math, but are they crucial? Or is it more just like a delivery mechanism for the math? And B, do you think it's important to continue to evolve this and find new ones? Or do you think there's going to be just more consolidation to these tried and true mechanics?

Yeah. So the consolidation of the industry around cash on reels, hold and spin, multiple random overlapping bonuses is really a function of data, right? It's what you guys do every day. It's that transparency and dissemination, widespread dissemination of data that is driving this consolidation. And I think that's good. I think the quality level of games overall, because data is available both to the operators and to the studio designers, has lifted everybody's boats. And at the same time, yeah, you're just seeing a lot of winning game mechanics come to market, right? So you're seeing probably, I don't know, 75 to 80% of every game on your top list has, in core, probably has multiple metamorphics. You're probably seeing in premium, almost every game in the top 25 has cash on reels, if not every game. I don't think that's bad. I just think it's driven by data. I don't think that makes it safe, however.

I don't think any of these mechanics are safe. So hold and spin, cash on reels, multiple metamorphics are not safe because there are a lot of games that use those that don't do well, right? There are a lot of hold and spin games out there that are sub-house, right? So it's not safe, right? It comes back to how you implement that mechanic, right? So again, I'm a broken record, but it comes back to your math. If your math is not strong, it doesn't matter if you copy someone else's mechanic or you choose all of the great mechanics that are testing well and put them all together. If your math doesn't work, it doesn't work. That being said, you still need to have the right future set to offer the player. It is a combination of all these events. I can have great math, but I still need a good feature that resonates with a player.

I still need good artwork. I don't separate the two. I put them all together. I just put math as number one. And then I structure it down from there. None of it is safe. Okay? But I do think convergence drives from data. Then in terms of innovation, which I think was part of your question, innovation doesn't only exist by creating a brand new feature and just jumping out of the box. I think there's a lot of room for innovation within the mechanics that we know work. So we know, for example, that multiple metamorphic overlapping bonuses work, right? Bao Zhu works. And a lot of other games that have come out from other manufacturers have these multiple overlapping metamorphics. There is a ton. I can tell you personally from my own portfolio, there's a ton of stuff you're going to see over the next 18 to 24 months that is going to, I hope, [inaudible 00:50:25] this mechanic into a new space that will make what we see now look old and tired, right?

So even within each one of these spaces, we're still innovating. And so Bao Zhu Ignite is an example. I already discussed some of the feature. We added a metamorphic. Okay. Well, that's a small innovation. It's nice to have four instead of three. Okay. I like being able to trigger a feature within a feature. So I go in with one bonus, I can get a second, a third, a fourth. That's kind of nice. That's another little innovation. I like that I have a rainbow symbol, that I can trigger all or some of the features off one symbol. I don't need to see four different colors show up. I can see one symbol. Those are small, but when you add them all up, it becomes a significant improvement. So there's still a lot of innovation within the existing space. There's innovation within cash on reels, right? There's innovation within hold and spin.

You're still seeing this happen. And you'll see a lot of it from us. You'll see a lot of it from all the studios. Do we innovate outside of that? Yes. Is that incredibly risky? Yes. Do you have to manage your portfolio very carefully to avoid adding too much risk? Of course. So yes, you'll see every once in a while, we will take a flyer at a brand new mechanic. And you just have to be ready to accept that it may not work. And if it does work, great, but that's super risky. I like doing that because I'm a game designer, but at the end of the day, I have a balance sheet and I have a return to my company that I want to do. For every dollar they give our studio, I want to return a whole bunch more. And so I'm going to risk manage my portfolio and I'm going to seek to innovate within those features that I know resonate with the players because I'm looking at the data. And I'm just going to try to innovate better than my competition and bring it to market faster.

And again, that comes back to our idea of an extensions. It is easier to do that with a game extension than from the ground up because instead of putting all of the different ingredients together for the first time, if you're building a brand new game, you're only adding one or two new little plus ones. And it just reduces your risk. It allows you to introduce these deeper, more complex features in a much less risky manner because the base game, you know has the right math, has the right theme, has the right sounds. And now you're giving them a couple of additional chases to make that experience deeper, more complex, more compelling so that they have something to enjoy for a little longer and continue taking them on that journey. And so again, I've said risk management 20 times, but that really is what you need to do. You need to do that throughout your portfolio. And you need to do that when it comes to innovation. We need to do that when it comes to theme. And you just need to do it better than your competition.

Well, and so we're getting into-

There's just no other way around it.

We're getting into an area that I always love discussing with game designers, and that is all these different design elements that go into a slot machine. So the ingredients, as we say. And so what we often discuss here at ReelMetrics is how, for the complexity of these design stacks, and how, for a game to succeed, all these ingredients need to line up, right? So the art, the math, the mech, the configs, the hardware. And then the other thing that we see is that as soon as a given title succeeds somewhere in the industry, everybody rushes to copy it. And the overwhelming majority of those copies just bite the dust very quickly. So to the outside observer, it often feels as though luck is a big factor in getting to that Goldilocks feature set. So can you discuss that a little bit, Dan?

Sure. I don't experience a lot of luck in my game design. It may appear that way. There's just a lot of usage of data. There is a lot of learnings from prior mistakes, right? There is a lot of careful thought and testing. Think some games are better than others. And if you want to call that luck, you can. I call it making less mistakes than the other games in the market. If I can make less mistakes and make the game more solid in terms of math, in terms of art, in terms of sound, I'm being compared to other games. There's no absolute metric.

My game has to do 50%, 100%, 150% better than the other game sitting next to it. So if I'm making less mistakes and, therefore, have more strengths than the game next to it, I'm going to win. So it's not luck as much as using data carefully, thinking and testing through your product, and learning from past games and building upon them. Yes. Does it all need to come together? You're absolutely correct, right? So you do need the right math. You do need the right art. You do need the right sounds. But like we've talked about before, you need to use data to try and take as much of that, quote, unquote, "Luck, risk," whatever you want to call it, out of the equation and replace it with knowledge and experience.

And I think one of the great advantages of data is that you raise your hit rate. Whether it's on the operator side, which you guys do, or whether it's on the design side that we do, you have to come back to data and experience. And I don't think luck plays as much a role in it because if you're paying attention to the data and to the trends, you tend to be more successful, right? You build for what the player wants. I think one of the biggest problems with game design is designers tend to build what they want to play, right? If you're a game designer, you're like, "Oh, I love this game. I want to do X, Y, and Z with the game because I like it." Who cares what you like? Who cares what I like? It's not material. It's just not material to the game design process. What's material to the process is what do players like? And how do you gather that data and get that experience and get that insight to understand what they want to play?

And your opinion be damned, right? You use your creative force, you use your innovation, you use great math, you use great art to attract players to your game. You don't do it so you can play it on your computer in your test bank, in your studio because you like having a good time, right? And I think ego is very important to eliminate from the equation. And so if you have too much ego, you're just not going to have as many games as ... And then you will have to suffer luck. Luck will be does your personal gameplay style match up with what players are playing? That's not how you should design games. You need to eliminate the luck factor as much as possible and focus with whatever you've got on designing what players want to play. Data and experience are the key ingredients to aligning all the pieces you just said, such as testing game themes, right? It doesn't matter if I like penguins. Who cares? I want to know if players like penguins. And if they don't like penguins, I don't like penguins. It's just that simple.

We take a very systematic approach to trying to really isolate and understand preferences in players, in segments of players. And recently, you and I were having a discussion about player psychology. And we discussed the role of configuration. So the settings covering things like RTP, denom, line config, this kind of stuff. And I had mentioned to you that I am often shocked at how optimum configs, so the absolute best configs, are counterintuitive more often than they're not. It shocks us. Every day, we see this. So how can we understand and explain this exactly? This is incredible to me, really.

Yeah. And this is where you guys shine because you guys understand the ideas behind optimizing configurations for operators. I can tell you, as a studio, our mission is to provide operators with all the flexibility they need to address the players. I don't know what a operator is going to need for their player base, but I do know that I want to give them as many tools as they can to address this. So when you guys go and help them optimize their floors, they can tweak it because they have the tool to tweak it with. They have the right range of RTPs, right? They have the right number of jackpots. They have the right ability to choose denom sets. So when we make a game, we're making crazy number of configurations. We make 70 to 80 configurations of every game. And so we give the operators a ridiculous number of selections from which they can optimize to their player base, but we don't actually try to optimize them for their player base nor do we truly dig into that as a studio level.

I think that's really where ReelMetrics and you guys shine because you take it, we hand it off to the operators, we help them do the best we can as a studio, provide them all the tools. And then you guys come in and say, "Hey. Hey, guys. Let's take a look at your floor and what works best." And if we've done our job right as a studio, you guys have all of the tools in front of you to set it up to fit perfectly with what the player needs at that particular location, at that particular spot on the floor. And that's, I think, one of the strengths of our studio, is that we do provide that in spades.

Mm-hmm. Now, with this-

And that's why I think it's important that you guys provide the opposite side of that service.

Yeah.

I think that's the beauty of it.

And when you're working with this many ... So like you just said, you can have 70 or 80 permutations for a single title. Okay? So when you're designing, obviously it's very hard for you guys to look at all of those permutations. So do you typically just fixate on one or two? Is that generally the way it works in design?

It just takes time. Every permutation, for example, different denom sets, may require different math because you may be going after a slightly different player base. So if I'm going for a VIP player, let's say a denom set that I want to track, I want to get to something the player's going to really enjoy and engage with. Maybe it starts at 10 cents versus starting at 1 cent because it's being moved to a high roller room. You might have a slightly different RTP range, just as an example of one thing you're going to give that VIP player. And that makes sense. They're betting more. And some casinos might want to set it a little higher for that player, and some may not. It's really up to a corporate strategy. Everybody has their own way of giving the player the experience they want. Some may give them a reward in their VIP program, so maybe they set the game a little lower, but they give a little more back to the player in a VIP program or vice versa.

But we try to think about that as we design each of these packs. So it's not like we start with a base pack and then we run it through some automated system that creates all the other packs based off of 1, 2, 5, 10 cent denom. We will go through and tweak each pack just a little bit to address what we believe the target ... We still have a range of options, but we might tweak it a little bit to give the high denom pack a slightly different feel or range than your low denom pack because you're trying to work with a different, slightly different player base. That being said, you can't do that to every single denom within each pack, but you do the best you can to address the different market segments with these different [inaudible 01:03:27] as best you can. So for example, you might have two different jackpot levels because some casinos might have a slightly higher liability threshold, and some might have a lower liability threshold.

Some are comfortable giving out bigger jackpots, and some are not. And that's totally fine because you'll adjust the frequency of giving out that jackpot. The player's still going to have a great experience on both jackpot levels, but one's going to be a little higher, a little less often. One's going to be lower, a little more often. And that, again, is to give the casino the option based on what kind of player they have and also what kind of liability tolerance they have. And so all different settings, all different options. And we do think about it. And what those numbers are for high and low, we think about that a lot. We work with the commercial and sales and product management team to try and understand what is the thresholds that work well in the US, what works well in Latin America, what works well in Europe, what works well in Asia, what works well in Australia because ideally your game is a global game.

So when you build these configurations [inaudible 01:04:33] think not only what works in the United States, but you need these configurations to figure out what's going to work well in Mexico, what's going to work well in France, what's going to work well in Macau, because you don't want to have to rebuild the game over and over and over again. You want all these options to be thought of ahead of time. So you're going to work within the entire D&D structure with the guys out in Asia and talk with them like, "What's working there? What settings do you need? What denom packs do you need? What jackpots do you need? What's going on over there?" And you're going to work that into your game so that the game is truly potentially a global product.

You keep mentioning data. And something Nick and I have talked about over and over again is what you just highlighted, which is how if it's done in the right way, the value of data sharing between operators and game designers in ways that could be mutually beneficial, so it's super important. I think you did a great job of highlighting how valuable and why that's important, if done in a responsible way. That said, let me turn attention back to something you mentioned before, which is Monopoly, right? So you highlighted the new game. Aristocrat recently acquired the exclusive license from Hasbro for land-based Monopoly content. Monopoly Big Board Bucks is the first launch title that's coming out soon. So just an opportunity. Is there anything before it launches that you want to plug or highlight on the game that you haven't mentioned already?

I think what's great about Monopoly, aside from, yes, it's a proven brand, we know players like playing it at home, it's been a popular board game for, gosh, I don't know, 80 years, a hundred years, are two things. One, we already talked about how well the game mechanics in the slot relate to the board game, so we've talked about that in terms of collecting properties, houses. I think that's unique and really, really engaging. But what I think is also super important about the Monopoly game and somewhat unique to it, if not entirely unique, I don't know every game that's ever been made, but I know a lot of them, is the incredible depth of game experience when you play the bonus. There are so many ways of collecting properties, of making monopolies, of putting houses and hotels, and going to bonus within bonus within the game that you never play the same bonus twice.

And that's really kind of cool. That's really kind of cool, right? Because you're like, "Oh, I got all the oranges this time. And I got a hotel on New York Avenue. Sweet. Oh, next time. Oh, I got Boardwalk. I didn't get Park Place, but I got all three yellows. And Marvin Gardens had four houses on it. Oh, I got all four railroads. And I went to free parking." The number of permutations is so insane that the player's always going to have a unique experience going around the board at the end and collecting their bonuses because those bonuses are always going to be different. And I think that's really, really fascinating because we talked about how games are getting more complex, are getting deeper, the chases are getting-

Yeah. This is the first-

... exponentially more.

First thing that comes to mind there is just depth as you're describing this. It just seems like it has a lot of depth to it here. It's very cool.

Yes. And that's, I think, really engaging because a player's always going to want to try and do something different or more. Oh, I got one monopoly. Now I want two monopolies. Oh, I got the yellow properties. I want to get Boardwalk and Park Place. Oh, I got Boardwalk and Park Place. Now I want them with hotels, right? So you're constantly seeking a different outcome. Obviously, you want a better outcome, if you can get it, but even the same outcome can be different and enjoyable in a different way. And so players constantly can go back to the game and feel like the game still has something to offer them. I think in addition to that, there's also a little bit of personalization, which is nice. I think that you get to choose your own game piece. It's not a huge deal. Just like it is in the game.

It's not going to control your outcome, whether you're the car or the dog, but you prefer to be the car or you prefer to be the dog or you prefer to be the thimble or the iron or whatever it is you want to be. And this game also allows you to do that. So you can choose your little symbol, your little icon, your game piece. And when you go to free games, the free games is thematically around that piece. Or when you go around the board to collect your prizes on your properties, your piece is moving around the board. It's a little touch, but adding this little bit of personalization also, again, makes it feel like you are playing the game you played as a child. So the combination of IP matching up with gameplay, phenomenal. The idea of endless depth to the bonus game, great, right?

And that this game also happens to have multiple metamorphics from your Bao Zhu. It also happens to have a cash collect from Mo' Mummy. The fact that it all works together with the game to provide endless number of outcomes, and you get to personalize your game just enough to feel like it's yours, pretty great, theoretically. Now we need to go measure the data, right? We need to get it out there and we need to see how it tests. I look forward, in six months, eight months, that we can get back together again. And you can ask me the same question, Dan and Nick. And you can say, "Well, we talked about Monopoly eight months ago. Let's talk about how it's doing." And hopefully we can have a really good discussion. Hopefully we can talk about all these things I'm talking about now and how they played into the success of the game and why we're building a sequel.

Yeah.

Absolutely. So thinking about the future, we always like to see if anyone has any predictions to make. So you think next three to five years in gaming or game design, is there anything that you're especially excited about?

Without giving too much away, I think you're going to see the depth that we talked about. I think you're going to see that these metamorphic games, these cash on reel games, these hold and spin games continue. I don't see it going away. I see cash on reels as a feature that will have as long a lifespan as, for example, free games did, if not longer. And free games is still around, and it's been, what, 20 years. I see cash on reels being at least that length of time. I see hold and spin being that kind of core mechanic. I see multiple metamorphic bonuses, multiple random overlapping bonuses being that kind of mechanic. So I think that's not going away. In three to five years, I think you'll see a lot of games. But I think, like I said before, you're going to see them grow in complexity and depth. More metamorphics, more levels within each metamorphic, more varieties of hold and spins, more ways of presenting cash on reels to the player.

And so when we chat in three years or five years, I think we'll be chatting about these games and we'll be chatting about which varieties and innovations worked and which didn't and why they worked or why they didn't work, right? And then we'll probably try to dive into the data a little bit and try to figure out what was it about this innovation or this mechanic that led players to spin less often or put less average bet into it or just not bet at all in it and just walk past it, right? And I think that's where the majority ... I'm not saying there's not going to be any innovation, like some new gameplay mechanic, but I don't see these core gameplays going away over the short term. I can't tell you what's going to happen in a decade or 20 years, but three to five years is still a pretty short ...

I'm designing games now for two years out. I can tell you with assurity that we have hold and spin and cash on reels and multiple overlapping bonuses still in our portfolio. Three to five years is just not that long a timeframe for a game studio. So everybody is still innovating within the space that we know today. And again, little risky offshoots will come out from different players. Some manufacturers will take more risk because they have less space to extend from. Some manufacturers will take less shots because they're expanding and innovating with their known base. So someone will hit something possibly. I've never seen anything like Lightning Link, Dragon Link, and the effect it's had on the market. And I think it's reframed how people build slot machines. And I don't think that's going away over the next three to five years. So I think you're going to see a lot of cash on reels, hold and spin, multiple metamorphics still there.

And look, if there's a new game mechanic that comes out and is successful, I hope it's mine. But short of that, I think we're going to be innovating within a known space, the majority of the gaming portfolio, in a known space for the next 36 to 60 months. And that's okay because as I said before, there's a lot of depth to explore. There's a lot of places to go within these game mechanics that I mentioned. And there's a lot of math that can still be created to drive player experience and to make it even more enjoyable than it is today.

It's amazing how deep a simple thing like designing a three-second game can be, right? Three seconds. There's an awful lot of math and art and sound that goes into it. And it's kind of shocking. When someone describes it, tells me, asks me what I do, and I tell them that a game lasts three seconds, they're like, "Oh, three seconds. Come on. How hard is that?" And it's actually remarkable how much needs to go into it and how much of it needs to work and how much of it needs to work together and how reliant you are on this underlying feature, math, art, theme combo to work within this tiny, tiny, tiny window of time.

Okay. Very good. Well, so guys, I see we're getting to kind of the end of our allotted time for today. So I wanted to ask, Dan, are there any upcoming events or speaking engagements or anything like that that you wanted to promote that you have coming up?

I don't give public interviews very often.

Okay. That's good.

This is my first podcast, so let me thank you for having me on. I've really enjoyed it.

Oh, you've been a great guest. Thanks for joining us.

I hope that in the future, like I said, that we get to discuss the success of other games, other game mechanics. And I hope that the industry remains strong and that we can meet together in eight months to discuss the sequel or to some game that we've come out, whether it be Monopoly or Bao Zhu or Mo' Mummy or something else. And that in three to five years, we can follow up again to see if Dan's question about innovation ... Maybe the market has changed and no one has a hold and spin game on their floor anymore. I doubt that'll be the case, but-

I doubt it.

... it'll be interesting to have it. So look, I've really enjoyed this podcast. And I look forward to having more with you in the future and seeing where we go in game design and as an industry.

Great. And we'd love to have you back. And just a shout-out to you and your team. We are big fans of your work. That goes for all the studios at Aristocrat. We oftentimes just are looking at the data behind your stuff and just shaking our heads and saying, "How are these guys kicking out this many winners?" Just all I can say is keep up the good work and kudos to your entire team there. [inaudible 01:16:55].

Yeah. And I'd like to ... I shout out the same thing to all the folks at Aristocrat. Aristocrat has been a great place to work. I've worked at a lot of manufacturers. And I like pretty much everybody, but Aristocrat's culture is really shockingly centered on game design. It is crazily focused on game design. They have great commercial people, they have great salespeople, they have great product managers, we have great marketing folks, but this company's heart and soul revolves around game designers. I can't express how the universe revolves in a Galilean way around game design and game designers. There is never a request from a game designer that goes unanswered at Aristocrat. It is amazing. And so I think if you were to come down to one key ingredient to all you said about Aristocrat's success is that there is a culture that is ingrained.

It is just instinctual at every level of the organization that game design and game math is everything. And that is actually, you would think, an obvious axiomatic way to run a game company. And yet, it is not universal. And Aristocrat is completely focused on that. I'm not saying that just to hype Aristocrat. I'm just saying that for someone who's been in the industry for 27 years, it shocks me every day how Aristocrat literally bends over backwards to make sure that game designers get everything they need. And all the independence they need to run their studios, take their risks, manage their portfolios, and innovate however they see fit, to innovate with very little interference and maximal support, that really is unique. I can't express that any more. And it sounds like a marketing pitch, but it is true. And I think that's what you're really seeing. When you look at your data, that is what you're seeing. And that is why Aristocrat is at the top of all those charts. It's a cultural focus, dedication to supporting game design at every level.

Well, I would say it's expressed very well in those charts that you mentioned there. For sure. For sure. Okay. Well, gents, thank you so much for your time today. Really appreciate taking the time to join us here. And yeah, I wish you both a lovely day and a lovely Thanksgiving. You got that coming up next week.

Thank you very much, Nick. It was a pleasure. Dan, great to meet you. And I look forward to maybe seeing you in real life one day.

Thank you so much, Dan.

Okay. Thanks so much, guys.

Take care, guys.

Bye-bye. Bye.