How to distinguish a fake novelty from an official release

Who and why gives out a fake as a "novelty"

Unlicensed copies and clones. Ruskin popular hits without rights.
"Leaks" of test builds. Dev or QA versions posted as a "release."
Fan/emulsion ports. Collected on a third-party engine with other people's assets.
Aggressive marketing. Pseudo-announcements for the sake of traffic ("exclusive a week earlier").

Official release criteria (basic portrait)

1. Confirmed publisher/provider (on official channels and in the aggregator catalog).
2. Certification/listing of the game with an independent laboratory (GLI, iTech Labs, eCOGRA, etc.) or in the platform registry.
3. Stable build-ID/version (gameId, build, revision) in configuration; is the same for different operators.
4. Uniform economic parameters (RTP range, volatility, paytable) with an official specification.
5. Availability of legal attributions: logos, copyrights, links to the responsible game, correct T & C.
6. Synchronicity of announcement and layout: release note/press release + appearance in the lobby of large operators.

Red flags of fake "novelty"

The provider also has no mention in its press releases/social networks.
Ridiculous declared parameters: RTP 99-102%, "max x500 000," "without restrictions," etc.
Mismatch of build in different sites (different gameId, different mathematics/paytable).
Curve localization/currency: errors in the language, missing currency symbols, incorrect rate limits.
Suspicious hosting origin of assets: random CDNs without provider/platform signature.
Responsible Gambling and legal references are missing.
Non-standard integration of payments/demos: the game is loaded only through an iframe of unknown origin.

Step-by-step verification algorithm (5-10 minutes)

1. Reconciliation of announcement source

Check the site/press section of the provider, official social networks and release calendar.
We are looking for the exact name of the title, launch date, key features.

2. Validation of build metadata

In DevTools → Network, find'manifest. json`/`gameconfig. json '/initiating requests.
Сверить `gameId`, `build`, `version`, `provider`, `rtp`, `features`.
Are the parameters on different domains the same for large operators? If not, anxiety.

3. Profiling Assets

CDN Domain: Does it belong to the provider/official platform?
Are file signatures/hashes stable? Is there a "manual assembly" with scattered PNGs?

4. Economics of the game

Check RTP/volatility/jackpot pools against the game passport (spec sheet/FAQ provider).
RTP inconsistencies ± 0. 5–1. 0 pp without specifying a range is a reason to doubt.

5. Legal attributes

Availability of Responsible Gambling blocks, age marks, correct links to rules.
Availability of provider copyrights and trademarks in the footer/loader.

6. Behavioural test

Random "hard" scenarios: change of language/currency, loss of network, session recovery.
Official releases correctly survive reconnection and save their state.

7. Reconciliation with certification

We are looking for a public certificate/listing of the game from independent laboratories or platforms.
We clarify the build version/RTP range in the document - must match.

How to distinguish "pre-release" from fake

Field test/soft launch:

• - declared a provider;
• - limited by geography/operator;
• - build and economy coincide with the passport;
• - there are notes "early access," "pilot," release note with a global launch date.
Fake:
• - no public confirmation;
• - the economy is "sweet" but unstable;
• - assets from unknown hosts;
• - different name/ID of the game for different sites.

Frequent disguises as a "novelty"

Ruskin of the old slot with name/icon substitution. Check the layout of the reels, the paytable, the frequency of the features.
White-label assembly for a private operator without a public announcement is not a "world premiere."
Modular clone on someone else's engine (animations coincide, mathematics does not).
Undeclared "exclusives a week earlier" - without official confirmation, this is a stuffing.

Editorial checklist (content site/reviewer)

1. Link to the title page of the provider.
2. Link to press release/announcement with date.
3. Coincidence of the name/icon/feature with the official description.
4. Snapshot 'manifest. json`/`gameconfig` с build/version.
5. Table: declared RTP and range at provider vs in client.
6. Status indication: "global release "/" field test "/" operator exclusive."
7. Source of assets (official CDN/platform).
8. Note on certification (laboratory, number/date).

Operator's checklist (before displaying in the lobby)

Contract verification and distribution rights.
Reconciliation of build hash and version in staging/prod.
Economy autotest (bets/limits/currency, jackpot pool correctness).
AU/EN UI localization, correct legal blocks.
Monitoring metrics: console errors, reconnection, first spin time.
"Stop-switch" in case of discrepancies (operational hiding of the game).

Typical Features of Counterfeiting in an Interface

Non-consistent fonts/icons between lobby and game.
"Deaf" responsible play buttons/policies.
Inadequate rate limits (too wide/unusual for the provider).
Locale errors (currency signs, date format, headers).
Disruption of animations on weak devices without folbacks is often a consequence of artisanal assembly.

What to do if you find a fake

1. Do not publish/hide from the lobby, freeze traffic.
2. Collect artifacts: URL, file hashes, screenshots, configs, network request logs.
3. Contact the provider/aggregator and request confirmation of the release.
4. Inform users (if the release has already been promoted): a short update without the name of a third-party site.
5. Start an internal post-mortem: why QA passed, how to strengthen checklists.

Short rapid test (60 seconds)

Does the provider have a title page?
Is RTP/Volatility and Feature Set the same?
Are build/version visible in the config and do they match with another large operator?
Are there legal references and correct copyright?
If the answer is "no" to any item, this is most likely not an official release.

Conclusion

The official release is a verifiable chain: the announcement of the provider → a certified assembly → an agreed build-ID → uniform economic parameters → a correct legal showcase. Any break in this chain is a reason to label "fake/doubtful" and stop publishing until confirmed.