Compare the routes that can meet the brief; do not begin with the largest advertised catalogue. The examples below show different commercial and operational starting points.
| Route and qualification lead | What the public evidence establishes | Your next qualification question |
|---|---|---|
| Studio-supported demos: Playin | Its affiliate page provides demo embedding examples, game data and studio assets. (playin.com) | Which titles, territories, domains and promotional uses are covered for this publisher? |
| Publisher-focused platform: First Look Games | Its publisher service is advertised as free, with website registration and account approval. Its EULA limits use and requires attention to studio-specific restricted markets. (firstlookgames.com) | Which required demos are eligible for our named websites and US audience under the current studio profiles? |
| Hosted demo distribution: Slots Launch | It markets WordPress integration, API access and direct embeds, with game-load request allowances. (slotslaunch.com) | Can you evidence the relevant rights, territorial scope, supported launch method and account-specific commercial terms? |
| Original browser-game licensing: MarketJS | Its FAQ distinguishes fixed-fee compiled files from subscription links; the standard licence is for one domain, with custom multi-domain arrangements available. (marketjs.com) | Will the actual games satisfy our editorial need, and what hosting, modification and maintenance rights are included? |
| Operator-oriented aggregation: EveryMatrix | Its aggregation offering is presented to operators. That page alone does not establish an independent publisher demo proposition. (everymatrix.com) | Do you serve this demo-only publisher use case, and can you provide a suitable agreement before technical evaluation? |
A useful distinction: First Look Games’ EULA permits specified promotional and review uses, prohibits sublicensing and addresses restricted markets through individual studio profiles. A platform-level approval therefore should not replace the studio-level eligibility check. (firstlookgames.com)
How do you turn a catalogue into usable coverage?
Build a sequential catalogue reconciliation:
Advertised records → distinct games/configurations → editorially relevant candidates → documented rights and territory eligibility → tested candidates → approved live titles.
Use consistent identifiers and count an exclusion only once at each step. Preserve meaningful configuration differences; do not count language records as additional editorial coverage unless that distinction matters to the brief.
Catalogue freshness and metadata checklist
- [ ] Match studio, supplier ID, title and version/configuration.
- [ ] Separate the game’s release date from the metadata record’s update date.
- [ ] Identify pre-release material and publication restrictions.
- [ ] Record the source for mechanics, RTP and other review-critical attributes.
- [ ] Ask for confirmation where the demo cannot be matched confidently to the reviewed version.
- [ ] Record withdrawal status, replacement IDs and the last successful eligibility check.
- [ ] Keep untested titles outside the tested-availability total.
- [ ] Rank missing must-haves separately from missing long-tail titles.
Playin specifically asks reviewers to wait until games are in their final, complete state. That is a concrete reason to distinguish early access from review-ready content rather than equating freshness with publishability. (playin.com)
Stage output: a comparable supplier matrix, a prioritised coverage backlog and a defined pilot catalogue.
Stop condition: the supplier cannot establish eligibility for launch-critical titles. Either reduce the editorial promise or change the sourcing route.