Aggregator fees, and when they stop making sense
Aggregation solves a real problem for third-party catalog. It solves nothing for games you could integrate directly — and that distinction is worth understanding before you sign a revenue-share agreement.
What you are actually paying for
A game aggregator maintains integrations with many studios and exposes them through a single API. For an operator who wants two hundred providers in the lobby by next quarter, that is genuinely valuable — the alternative is two hundred contracts, two hundred certifications and two hundred integration projects.
The fee is a share of revenue on every round routed through the layer, charged on top of whatever the originating studio takes. It is priced as access to breadth, and for breadth it is usually worth it.
The question worth asking is narrower: what is that layer contributing on a game that is already yours?
- Catalog breadth — many studios behind one integration.
- Commercial consolidation — one contract instead of dozens.
- Routing and reporting across heterogeneous providers.
- Certification reuse for third-party titles already reviewed.
Two revenue shares on the same round
On third-party content this is simply the cost of breadth. On first-party content it is a layer between you and a game you already control.
| Layer | Third-party title | Slotty Labs original |
|---|---|---|
| Game studio share | Charged | n/a — the games are first-party |
| Aggregator routing share | Charged | Not charged |
| Platform / RGS | Separate | Included — Slotty Labs is the RGS |
| Certification evidence | Studio's, reused | Prepared per operator submission |
| Math model access | Rarely disclosed | Written model + Monte Carlo output |
| RTP configurability | Studio-set | Four variants, operator-selected |
What direct integration changes
Running your core titles first-party changes three things at once. The obvious one is margin: rounds on those games stop carrying a routing share.
The less obvious ones matter more over time. You get the math model in writing and the Monte Carlo output that backs it, which is what a testing lab and a sceptical regulator both eventually ask for. And you get RTP as a configuration decision — four separately simulated variants per title, chosen per market — rather than a number the studio fixed for everyone.
None of this argues against using an aggregator for breadth. It argues against paying one for content you did not need routed.
- One TypeScript SDK —
npm install @slottylabs/sdk, zero runtime dependencies. - Roughly twenty lines for SSO plus game embedding.
- Under a day typical SDK integration; one to two weeks sandbox-to-live.
- Evidence included — written math models, simulation output and a GLI-19-aligned dossier package.
- Your brand throughout — players never see Slotty Labs.
Aggregator fee questions
Run the numbers with your own volumes.
Send us your current mix and we will walk through what moves when the core titles go first-party.