Evolution’s Chief Product Officer Todd Haushalter has revisited the company’s unsuccessful games in a retrospective published on 2 November 2026, describing how ambitious technology and extra player choices can fail to deliver the response developers expect.
Earlier disclosures show the commercial stakes. Evolution’s 2023 annual report recorded sharply different outcomes from attempts to improve two games, and noted that one had displaced other projects.
Our reading is that the important question is how much work a game asks of its audience, and how much further work a supplier should commit when the results disappoint. That second decision can determine which other ideas ever reach a casino lobby.
The 2021 promise behind Gonzo’s Treasure Hunt
The original announcement on 9 June 2021 presented Gonzo’s Treasure Hunt as a combination of live casino, slots-style play and optional virtual reality. It featured a wall of 70 stones and an augmented-reality Gonzo alongside live presenters. The character came from NetEnt’s Gonzo’s Quest, following Evolution’s acquisition of NetEnt in late 2020.
There was a commercial idea behind the technology: take an established slots character into a live game show and offer players more involvement. In the launch announcement, Haushalter argued that the extra control could attract a new audience.
His assessment in the new retrospective is less enthusiastic. He suggests the premise demanded too much from players. Adding a bonus round, initially thought to be the missing ingredient, did not produce the hoped-for revival.
The gap is revealing. A demonstration can show that a virtual character, live presenter and interactive environment all work together. A customer still has to understand what to do and why the experience is appealing. Technical execution answers the first question; the player’s response answers the second.
Extra control also creates extra decisions
Gold Bar Roulette followed in July 2022. Its launch announcement described multiplier bars that players could retain for later rounds, place on chosen numbers and stack together. Player choice was part of the selling point. In the new account, Haushalter acknowledges that players found such games less straightforward than the team expected.
The design question is what those additional choices contribute. Selecting, saving and deploying something may add interest, but it also asks the customer to remember more. On a phone, the explanation has to share limited space with the game itself. More available actions can therefore create a trade-off between participation and effort.
Haushalter also discusses how the pattern of wins and losses can affect a game’s appeal. An average payout figure cannot describe every session. The Gambling Commission’s explanation of return to player (RTP) makes the underlying statistical point: the average applies across many plays, rather than guaranteeing an individual session’s return.
That creates a further test for the product. A familiar character may prompt someone to look, and an elaborate set may make a launch memorable. Whether the experience remains understandable and appealing is a different question. Visual polish alone cannot establish how the underlying game will be received.
Two redesigns, two different outcomes
Evolution had already discussed the mixed record in its annual report for 2023. Its account of the Gold Bar Roulette remake and the Gonzo remake provides a useful comparison.
| Project | What Evolution reported for 2023 |
|---|---|
| Gold Bar Roulette remade as Gold Vault Roulette | More than a fivefold increase in player volume and revenue. |
| Gonzo’s Treasure Hunt remake | Little change in performance despite the company considering it a better game. |
These are company-reported results, rather than a calculation of either project’s profit. The contrast argues against abandoning every weak launch: some interventions improve the business, while others leave the commercial problem unresolved.
The same report identified the cost of the Gonzo work in unusually practical terms: it had taken the place of other ideas on the development roadmap.
That is the part of a failed game’s economics that a launch budget misses. A team continuing a redesign also postpones something else. The next decision should therefore concern the evidence that another change could help and the alternatives waiting for that team’s time. Money already spent cannot, by itself, make the next revision worthwhile.
Operators have a player test of their own
The operator faces a related choice about prominence in its lobby. An impressive supplier presentation can explain the technical achievement, but the operator also needs to understand the game as its customers encounter it. The commercial questions include whether people follow the rules, whether mobile presentation works and whether initial interest develops into sustained demand.
For British readers, our Paddy Power Live Casino guide illustrates the range from familiar dealer-led tables to presenter-led formats. The format helps explain what a customer sees; the individual game’s rules still determine what its controls and outcomes mean.
Clarity also has a regulatory context. The Gambling Commission’s Remote Gambling and Software Technical Standards (RTS) require, under standard 3A, game rules to be readily available before a customer commits to gamble, with reasonable steps taken to make the explanation understandable. A striking interface does not replace that requirement.
In our view, simplicity is useful when it helps a player understand the choices, rules and limitations. It is a test of usability. The odds and payout structure answer different questions and need to be assessed on their own terms.
The next launch has to earn its place
Evolution is continuing to develop ambitious formats. In its report of 23 October 2026, it said Game Night, under its Hasbro partnership, was planned before year-end. That gives the retrospective relevance to an active product pipeline, without establishing how that forthcoming title will perform.
Our conclusion is that the value of new technology depends on the experience it enables. Operators and suppliers gain more from evidence about understanding, repeat demand and the effect of specific changes than from counting features. When a game struggles, a revision needs a clear problem to solve.
Evolution’s earlier disclosures make the final choice concrete. A redesign can revive a product, but it can also occupy the team that might have built the next successful game. Knowing what to simplify matters. Knowing when to move the team on can matter just as much.