- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The prospect of our industry being reduced by 90% is pretty gloomy, indeed.:madat:
They have been planning this for some time it seems.
I am kind of upset with them for choosing to blame this situation. What happened is that they have always excluded the US, for years and years, and finally decided to try it out. It wasn’t satisfactory, and apparently there are problems with payment processors and now they are going back to normal.
Blaming the legal situation for a failed experiment is rather irresponsible.
Dominique wrote:They have been planning this for some time it seems.I am kind of upset with them for choosing to blame this situation. What happened is that they have always excluded the US, for years and years, and finally decided to try it out. It wasn’t satisfactory, and apparently there are problems with payment processors and now they are going back to normal.
Blaming the legal situation for a failed experiment is rather irresponsible.
Your dead on, Dom. They were just releasing the casinos/Poker for American players around the time of Last years CAC and were recruiting for American players at the CAC.
It is a lame excuse and if anyone else got recruited by Zipang (playtech) they are doing and saying the same thing.I think that they’re simply being prudent to make a public statement about not accepting American players.
Do you want to argue that there are not “uncertain legal conditions in the US” ?
:hmmm:TheGooner wrote:I think that they’re simply being prudent to make a public statement about not accepting American players.Do you want to argue that there are not “uncertain legal conditions in the US” ?
:hmmm:Hey Gooner!:wavey:
I think the point is that we don’t believe that is the real reason behind their decision. I for one think it is a convenient excuse. Certainly I could not argue about the ‘uncertain’ legal conditions in the US…. but they are not in the US and I don’t really believe that plays a major roll.
I suppose you could say that it has always been a gray area in US law but I am under the belief that it is a convenient excuse. Perhaps I am wrong but it certainly seeeeeems that way.TheGooner wrote:I think that they’re simply being prudent to make a public statement about not accepting American players.Do you want to argue that there are not “uncertain legal conditions in the US” ?
:hmmm:The fact is that they got too many American bonus hunters and that they had payment processor problems. So after a short excursion into the American market they withdrew.
They would have done the same without any of this going on. It has nothing to do with any legal conditions, and it’s not proper to blame one’s failures on other circumstances.
Blaming the legal situation for a failed experiment is rather irresponsible.
So true! What a bunch of jerks. They helped nobody, not even their own ignorant sorry asses because they’re only adding fuel to a fire that if it does catch and burn will greatly reduce their player base regardless of whether or not they accept players from the states because if they think their competition … that does rely on US players … is going to just lay down and fade away when the going gets tough … they’re as stupid as they appear.
What happens is that with less players … those that remain become a fine feast to a lot of very hungry wolves all fighting for position for the same dinner.
Is there anybody in this industry with enough foresight and common sense to at least think to LOOK at the big picture before they act?
… don’t answer that last question. I already know…
Is there anybody in this industry with enough foresight and common sense to at least think to LOOK at the big picture before they act?
… don’t answer that last question. I already know…
No doubt!!
Dominique wrote:The fact is that they got too many American bonus hunters and that they had payment processor problems. So after a short excursion into the American market they withdrew.They would have done the same without any of this going on. It has nothing to do with any legal conditions, and it’s not proper to blame one’s failures on other circumstances.
I thinkn that you’re wrong here – and that has been borne out by several other gamblnig companies following suit with the same retrospective restriction on US players.
sleepy.gifI am not wrong, I KNOW what I am writing about.
I am talking about this specific program and no others.
The email I received said this:
“Due to the uncertain legal environment in the United States, we have decided to discontinue accepting U.S. players for all properties on the Grand Virtual platform. As you know, the strength of the Grand Virtual properties has always been pioneering new language versions and focusing on excellent service for our European, Asian and Latin American players. We believe this step will enable both of us to concentrate even more on these important customers.
As of July 24, we will no longer accept new U.S. players. They will neither be able to deposit nor play for real money. Any existing players you have recruited from the U.S. will be allowed to continue playing on their account for as long as they wish, and you will earn your commissions on their revenue for their lifetime with us.”
However, U.S. players are already being denied, despite the fact that the email says July 24.
TheGooner wrote:I thinkn that you’re wrong here – and that has been borne out by several other gamblnig companies following suit with the same retrospective restriction on US players.
sleepy.gifummmmm… I am not a legal expert or anything but if they were actually frightened of a POSSIBLE law that MIGHT get passed in a country that does not have jurisdiction over them (which would all be silly business decisions) then uhhhhh… why are they going to let EXISTING u.s. players continue to play???…. seems to me that they borne out the truth in their own Email.
Really I don’t see the logic in saying that they are being up front as to their reasons because another company wanted to bail on u.s. players. I really don’t think it has anything to do with any POSSIBLE u.s. law that has not even been passed.Try this on for size:
Maybe they are owned or operate in the United States?
Think about RTG, they’re in the US, though they “only write software”, we all know where the money for their software comes from and no doubt the offshore component is owned by the same people.
In the case of Grand Virtual, they survived without US players for a long time, why risk more scrutiny from the US government.
It may boil down to a hide and seek game at the end of the day. Those companies who don´t have property or employees on US soil will continue as before but the others may pull out.
cowboy wrote:The email I received said this:“Due to the uncertain legal environment in the United States, we have decided to discontinue accepting U.S. players for all properties on the Grand Virtual platform. As you know, the strength of the Grand Virtual properties has always been pioneering new language versions and focusing on excellent service for our European, Asian and Latin American players. We believe this step will enable both of us to concentrate even more on these important customers.
As of July 24, we will no longer accept new U.S. players. They will neither be able to deposit nor play for real money. Any existing players you have recruited from the U.S. will be allowed to continue playing on their account for as long as they wish, and you will earn your commissions on their revenue for their lifetime with us.”
However, U.S. players are already being denied, despite the fact that the email says July 24.
I know thats what they said. That is what has me upset with them. It’s not what caused this particular company to do this.
Maybe they are owned or operate in the United States?
This is a very good point. It may not have motivated this particular company but may very well have motivated the others.
Playtech is safe in any case. There is definitely no law against writing software.
The law is stalled in the senate as always, no news here.
A man got arrested for tax evasion and taking sports bets over the telephone, no news there, that’s been the law for decades and we all know it.
What is happening here is people getting the heebie jeebies, and that is exactly what is intended.
It’s called the “chilling effect”.
They appear to be using the method very well.
It is commonly resorted to when a real law cannot be passed.
