Evaluate distinct, relevant, documented and tested game configurations—not the supplier’s advertised row count. Keep unknown eligibility visible instead of silently counting it as usable or permanently unavailable.
First Look Games’ DGS documentation explicitly distinguishes studios using its platform from studios choosing to supply demos. This is a concrete reason to request a playable export rather than count marketing folders. (firstlookgames.com)
What should your catalogue spreadsheet contain?
Use this proposed schema:
| Field group | Suggested fields |
|---|---|
| Identity | Internal game ID, supplier game ID, studio, title, version/configuration identifier |
| Editorial need | Priority, planned page, mechanic, language and relevance explanation |
| Rights | Grant reference, authorised domains, audience restrictions, expiry/review date |
| Delivery | Supplier route, launch method, current availability state |
| Metadata | Release date, RTP/configuration source, feature data, source timestamp |
| Assets | Approved thumbnail/video references and reuse conditions |
| Testing | Device/browser, location, network profile, test date and outcome |
| Operations | Withdrawal state, fallback, incident owner and last successful check |
Retain a field for source and last verification date, not just a value. First Look Games describes comparing publisher reviews against game KPIs and notifying publishers of discrepancies; your own correction workflow should likewise identify what changed and which page needs review. (firstlookgames.com)
Do not publish a definitive configuration claim merely because a title string matches. Ask the studio or supplier to identify the demo configuration and the authoritative game information applicable to it.
What does a catalogue waterfall look like?
The following is entirely illustrative—not a finding about any supplier:
| Sequential filter | Remaining records | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Supplied catalogue | 500 | Starting rows |
| Distinct game configurations | 440 | Remove 60 duplicate rows |
| Relevant to the editorial brief | 180 | Exclude 260 outside the brief |
| Publishing and territorial scope documented | 120 | Hold 45 unknown; exclude 15 expressly ineligible |
| Required metadata complete | 110 | Hold 10 for correction |
| Passed the declared launch-test profile | 100 | Eight failed; two remain untested |
Apply filters sequentially so overlapping exclusions are not subtracted twice. Keep the held records in a separate queue with reasons and owners.
Here, 100 is the usable count under the declared test profile. It is not a promise of availability on every browser, in every state, forever.
How should you compare suppliers with different strengths?
After applying the gates, score coverage against your editorial priorities. For example, assign five points to a must-have title, two to a planned review and one to an optional addition. These are proposed weights, not market standards.
Then compare:
- Weighted coverage of the priority list.
- Number of essential titles still missing.
- Distinct additional coverage beyond your existing suppliers.
- Proportion with unresolved configuration or asset information.
- Amount of editorial work required before publication.
A second supplier should be assessed on incremental eligible coverage, not its full overlapping catalogue.