Interview objective: Compare complete operating models rather than headline subscription prices.
Put this to: Jan Kovac, a publisher’s budget holder and both direct-studio and aggregation representatives.
Why it matters to buyers: Slots Launch defines a billable request as a game load and advertises plans usable across unlimited sites. Those are specific commercial characteristics, not evidence of universal market pricing or unrestricted content rights. They illustrate why buyers should establish the charging unit and contractual scope before comparing offers. (slotslaunch.com)
Draft framing — a good answer should cover:
| Cost category | Questions to resolve |
|---|---|
| Acquisition | Setup fees, minimums, title charges and contractual commitments |
| Delivery | Hosting, billable loads, overages and treatment of failed launches |
| Operations | Integration, permission administration, QA and metadata work |
| Resilience | Monitoring, support, incident response and replacement sourcing |
| Exit | Export, termination, migration and removal costs |
Sharp follow-up: “Using our actual catalogue and staff-time assumptions, where does your route become less expensive—and which assumptions reverse that result?”
Buyer output: A twelve-month model with a base case and explicit sensitivity tests.
Suggested desk calculation: annual total cost ÷ sum of monthly eligible game counts = cost per usable game-month. Define eligibility consistently for the same domains, audience and editorial brief. Keep unknown rights out of the eligible denominator and report them separately. This is a proposed comparison method, not a market benchmark or return forecast.
Expert quote — awaiting interview: [Approved quotation and attribution.]