By Editorial Team, reviewed by Editorial Team (approved by site owner) · Published · 1 min read
Every casino operator eventually decides how to source games. The choice between an aggregator and direct integrations is partly commercial and partly architectural.
What an aggregator gives you
One integration and one commercial relationship exposes many providers. Catalogue management, reporting and sometimes promotions come bundled. The trade-offs are an extra dependency, an extra fee layer and less direct influence over each provider.
What direct integration gives you
Direct relationships can mean better commercial terms for high-volume providers and fewer intermediaries in a dispute. The cost is repeated integration and certification work for each provider.
The architecture is the same
Whichever you choose, aim for a provider-neutral internal model: launch, bet, win, refund, rollback. Each source gets an adapter to that model. Then adding a source is a bounded task, and you can mix both approaches.
Wallet safety
Provider callbacks can repeat or arrive out of order. Store each transaction identifier before applying it and return the stored result for repeats. Keep round-level records so you can reconcile against provider statements.
Questions to ask
- What are the callback formats and retry policies?
- How are rollbacks and unfinished rounds reported?
- What reports are available for reconciliation, and how often?
- Who handles disputes?
A pragmatic path
Many teams begin with an aggregator for breadth and add direct integrations for the few providers that matter most. Design the adapter layer so this is a configuration change, not a rewrite.
