Key Points
- NEXT.io says Play’n GO let all major aggregators know on 29th October that its games would no longer be available through them with no big announcement from the studio, either.
- Industry insiders reckon the decision could cost the business tens of per cent of its GGR, though Play’n GO is staying tight-lipped about any numbers.
- Chief commercial officer Magnus Olsson claims the strategy remains the same, but a 2025 statement from the studio raises some tricky questions about this move.
In September, Play’n GO’s commercial chief had made a point of warning companies that are chasing easy revenue they’re essentially betting against the industry’s future. And then, just seven weeks later, Play’n GO had apparently sent letters to every major aggregator telling them that they’d no longer be able to get its games through their channels. Not a peep from the studio to let the world know.
The Aggregator Cut Off
NEXT.io reported on 2nd November that Play’n GO had sent letters to every major aggregator on Thursday, 29th October, saying that its games would no longer be available on those platforms.
This move is all about shutting the door on offshore markets the ones involving MGA-licensed operators. And it’s a problem because having a licence from the Malta Gaming Authority doesn’t automatically give you access to every market. So, the use of aggregators or middlemen becomes pretty important here.
A single integration with an aggregator can unlock access to loads of games from all sorts of studios, making it a key part of a brand’s issue. So when a brand gets Play’n GO titles via one of these services, they’re going to lose out. And while some operators might have direct agreements that don’t put them in the same boat, NEXT.io didn’t get the details on any of those.
The word on the street from industry insiders is that the financial impact could be tens of per cent of GGR gone in an instant. NEXT.io says that unhappy emails have been flying back and forth between Play’n GO and its old commercial partners. These figures come from people who chose to remain anonymous, so take them for what they’re worth.
Chief commercial officer Magnus Olsson had a response to NEXT.io, though he didn’t give any numbers. He just said the decision didn’t change the studio’s direction “It doesn’t constitute a change of direction” he said.
Asia Was First
NEXT.io’s insiders say that Play’n GO actually pulled out of Asia altogether at the end of September. It’s part of a plan to get rid of the risks associated with dodgy business over there.
The timeline is pretty interesting here: the Asia pullout happened in September, the Germany DOCV membership was announced on October 2nd and the aggregator letters went out on October 29th.
There’s this United Nations crime assessment that says how aggregators can get licensed content into unlicensed casinos in Asia. It doesn’t mention Play’n GO or any suppliers by name.
Play’n GO Promises in 2025
On 6 May 2025, CEO Johan Törnqvist claimed that Play’n GO will not provide any services to sweepstakes casinos. “Our stance towards regulatory markets is absolute,” he said while making an announcement.
Olsson noted that this stance means “leaving a lot of money on the table.” “Regulators have long memories,” said Shawn Fluharty who heads the studio’s government affairs department.
The very same announcement claimed that Play’n GO became the first supplier to officially reject bonus buy games. According to the company, it is their claim since the UK Gambling Commission called for operators to remove such features by January 2020.
In Germany, Play’n GO received priority status from Tipico and was removed from games provided by suppliers providing services in both regulated and black markets.
A month later, the Compliance+More newsletter claimed that it found Play’n GO titles on Curaçao-licensed casinos targeting players from the Netherlands and Germany.
Fluharty stated that Play’n GO receives “close to zero traffic from unlicensed operators.” In addition, he said that the offerings generate “as little as one to two euros a day,” though he did not specify what unit he meant.
It should be noted that the fact of Play’n GO titles on unlicensed casinos is not enough to conclude that Play’n GO violated regulations. As per the company, it contacts the operator whenever it notices suspicious traffic.
Germany Publicised the Strategy
On 2 October, Play’n GO joined the German Online Casino Association, the DOCV, for engagement with policymakers. Fluharty noted that “Germany was simply too important for responsible companies to remain on the sidelines.”
Olsson also used this occasion to announce that Play’n GO stopped dealing with “substantial unlicensed business.” Thus, just four weeks prior to the aggregator letters, it could clearly be seen that the studio stance on unlicensed markets.
According to Olsson, industry estimates of German channelisation lie between 30% and 50%. Olsson noted that the actual figure is much higher.
On 16 March 2026, the German gambling regulator, GGL, published a report. The share of illegal online gambling was estimated to be 22.97%, channelisation – 77.03%. It is significantly higher than the industry estimate given by Olsson.
No matter which figure is taken into account, according to Olsson “there is simply too much activity taking place outside the regulated market.”
What’s Next?
According to NEXT.io sources, the studio intends to collaborate exclusively with licensed local operators going forward. In addition, the sources say that Play’n GO will be more active and outspoken about external and governmental affairs in the coming months.
The expansion in the area of land-based slots along with the online segment is anticipated.
In accordance with NEXT.io’s information dated 8 July, all games in Play’n GO’s portfolio have been released in Betano in Colombia. As NEXT.io’s publication, dated 29 September, stated, Casino Barcelona in Spain received the studio’s games.
The Colombian regulator Coljuegos, announced on 6 August, that 58,916 blocking orders of illegal gaming sites have been implemented. Orders do not mean sites, thus, it is impossible to say how many sites exactly have been blocked.
Curaçao has toughened its laws. According to the Curaçao Gaming Authority, registration of the suppliers should be functioning by 24 December 2026.
NEXT.io’s report does not contain comments from aggregators which were impacted by the decision.
Expert Analysis: Principle or Positioning?
It seems that the reported cuts from Play’n GO have brought to light the reality of the company’s promise to focus on regulated markets. And it’s coming at a price, the question is whether that price is one that Play’n GO, or indeed any other operator, would be willing to pay. One thing is certain, we don’t have a figure to go off.
We know that in June 2025, Fluharty described the amount of revenue from unlicensed traffic as being effectively zero. But that was just a statement from the company, not any kind of independently verified figure. And more recently, anonymous sources have estimated that tens of per cent of gross gaming revenue comes from the aggregator channel, we’re talking a much broader picture this time.
The two sets of figures raise a very valid question, how much of the revenue from that channel actually comes from players using unlicensed sites? The only ones who can answer that are Play’n GO, and they’re not sharing that information with us.
Fluharty also dropped the line in 2025 that the unlicensed sites were all customers of several of the larger resellers, but neither Play’n GO nor NEXT.io has said anything about whether those same resellers are now part of the distribution network which has just been affected by the letters.
Olsson reckons the decision doesn’t represent any change in direction, his comments are in line with what the studio said earlier on. The difference is that this time they’re actually enforcing that position. Critics can reasonably ask whether it’s a genuine commitment to the principle, or just a way to give their market position a bit of a boost, and given that Tipico has a policy of rewarding suppliers that choose to work with regulated businesses, that’s a legitimate question to ask.
Personally, we think the principle argument is the stronger one because if you believe the anonymous estimate, then giving up tens of per cent of revenue would be a pretty costly price to pay. But at the same time, Play’n GO can’t control every way its games get to operators. They do have a licence page up which warns about people offering copies of their games while pretending to be aggregators.
Dealing with authorised resale through a legitimate aggregator is one thing, but dealing with unauthorised copies is a whole different problem, a letter may be able to sort out the first, but it’s not going to solve the second.
So we still don’t have a clear view of how much the decision is going to cost Play’n GO in the end. The figure they are willing to confirm will tell us a lot about how much revenue they’ve lost by enforcing their regulated market policy.
Explore more:
Share
6 views
