Choose the route that meets your essential coverage with the least unresolved rights, integration and maintenance work. Compare actual proposals rather than assuming either direct access or aggregation is inherently cheaper.
Use this proposed decision table:
| Route | Prefer it when… | Test before committing |
|---|---|---|
| Direct studio access | A small number of named studios or titles dominates the editorial brief | Permission scope, production support and the work required to manage each relationship |
| Publisher distribution platform | You need a shared catalogue workflow and a publishing-oriented launch interface | Downstream rights, usable coverage, usage metering and withdrawal dependence |
| Operator-oriented aggregator | Your scale or technical requirements justify a bespoke discussion | Whether demo-only publishing is actually offered, rather than merely possible technically |
| Hybrid | Different suppliers fill distinct, valuable gaps | Duplicate fees, overlapping upstream dependencies and a consistent launch interface |
| Original licensed HTML5 games | Entertainment value matters more than recognisable casino-game brands | Content fit, ownership, hosting rights and maintenance terms |
The important distinction is contractual purpose. SOFTSWISS’s public reseller description concerns iGaming operators, while First Look Games’ publisher EULA concerns promotional materials and game reviews. Those are not interchangeable grants. (softswiss.com)
For each option, ask suppliers to price the same domain list, title requirements, territories and launch volume. A comparison assembled from different briefs will not support a defensible decision.