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.
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?
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 |
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.
npm install @slottylabs/sdk, zero runtime dependencies.An aggregator is a middle layer that resells access to many game studios through one integration. The operator connects once and gets a large catalog; in exchange, the aggregator takes a share of the revenue generated on every round routed through it, on top of the studio's own share.
Catalog breadth and integration speed. Connecting to two hundred studios individually is not realistic, so the aggregator's routing genuinely solves a problem — for third-party content.
On first-party content. If a game is the platform's own, routing it through a reseller adds a revenue share without adding catalog value. That is the specific case where going direct changes the unit economics.
No. The five titles are Slotty Labs originals delivered from Slotty Labs' own remote gaming server, so rounds played on them do not carry a third-party aggregator's revenue share.
Yes, and most operators should. A broad third-party catalog and a first-party core are not mutually exclusive — the point is simply that your own core titles should not pay a routing tax.
Send us your current mix and we will walk through what moves when the core titles go first-party.