Open and closed source platforms
Open and closed source platforms
When choosing the technological basis of online casinos, operators are faced with two licensing models: open-source (open source) and proprietary (closed source). The difference concerns code availability, control level, costs and risks.
1. Open-Source platforms
The source code is freely available - anyone can download, modify and run the platform under their infrastructure.
Key examples:
Pros:
Cons:
2. Proprietary (closed) platforms
The descriptive code belongs to the provider, access is denied. The operator receives a ready-made service using the SaaS model or on-premise, but without access to the source.
Key examples:
Pros:
Cons:
3. Comparison table
4. Model Selection: best practices
1. Small and startup operators: open-source, if there is a technical team and a limited budget.
2. Large brands and high rollers: proprietary, for guaranteed reliability, fast launch and full compliance with regulations.
3. Regional projects: open-source with deep localization of payments and KYC, if the regulator allows independent responsibility.
4. Hybrid approach: start on proprietary for a quick exit, then migrate to a customized open-source solution as you grow.
Conclusion:
When choosing the technological basis of online casinos, operators are faced with two licensing models: open-source (open source) and proprietary (closed source). The difference concerns code availability, control level, costs and risks.
1. Open-Source platforms
The source code is freely available - anyone can download, modify and run the platform under their infrastructure.
Key examples:
- Oryx Gaming Framework (partially open)
- CasinoWebScripts (basic engine)
- OpenBet (Community Edition)
Pros:
- No royalties: no expensive annual fees.
- Maximum customization: access to all modules, the ability to integrate any third-party services and own developments.
- Community and plugins: extensions from the community, quick exchange of improvements.
Cons:
- Need for technical resources: Requires its own DevOps team and developers for support, updates and security.
- Compliance responsibility: You organize KYC, anti-fraud, RNG audits and regulatory compliance yourself.
- Security risks: open source - the potential for vulnerabilities if you do not monitor patches.
2. Proprietary (closed) platforms
The descriptive code belongs to the provider, access is denied. The operator receives a ready-made service using the SaaS model or on-premise, but without access to the source.
Key examples:
- EveryMatrix CasinoEngine
- SoftSwiss Platform
- EveryMatrix OddsMatrix (often combined)
Pros:
- Turnkey solution: minimal integration effort, provider responsible for upgrades and support.
- Security and Compliance Assurance: The vendor provides PCI-DSS, RNG certification, KYC integration, and AML control.
- SLA and technical support: clear agreements on response times and incident resolution.
Cons:
- License and operating expenses: monthly or interest fees, additional payments for modules.
- Limited flexibility: customization of UI/UX and integrations - only within the API and settings, without access to the depths of the code.
- Vendor dependence: the timing of the release of new features and fix patches is determined by the provider.
3. Comparison table
| Parameter | Open-Source | Proprietary |
|---|---|---|
| Code Access | Full | None |
| Customization | Unlimited | Within API and settings |
| License and fee | No license, free plugins | Subscription/SaaS fee, add-on modules |
| Support and SLAs | Through the community, without SLAs | Official support, SLAs |
| Security & Certification | Self | Provider Supplied |
| Launch speed | Depends on command (3-6 months) | Instantly - 1-2 weeks |
4. Model Selection: best practices
1. Small and startup operators: open-source, if there is a technical team and a limited budget.
2. Large brands and high rollers: proprietary, for guaranteed reliability, fast launch and full compliance with regulations.
3. Regional projects: open-source with deep localization of payments and KYC, if the regulator allows independent responsibility.
4. Hybrid approach: start on proprietary for a quick exit, then migrate to a customized open-source solution as you grow.
Conclusion:
- Open-source platforms provide license freedom and savings, but require support resources and security accountability. Proprietary solutions allow you to quickly start up with guaranteed support and compliance, but cost more and limit flexibility. The choice depends on the scope of the project, availability of technical resources and regulatory requirements.
