An estimate in figures
2,388 slot titles from more than eighteen providers, with a note referring to fourteen further providers left unnamed.
An estimate in words
"The slot selection is small", with the observation that a player was "only able to access a small selection of games from Pragmatic Play".
The two accounts do not describe two different catalogues but the same one. This is the sharpest contradiction in the file, because it admits no reconciliation: a four-digit figure against a description of scarcity.
Two entirely contradictory descriptions of the same catalogue
| Source | Estimate | Literal wording |
|---|---|---|
| First review portal | 2,388 slots | With a detailed list of eighteen providers and a note of "+14 more" |
| Second review portal | "Small" | "The slot selection is small … only able to access a small selection of games from Pragmatic Play" |
A possible explanation, confirmed by no source. The operator held multiple licences for different markets, with European Union content separated from the rest — it was stated that NetEnt games were offered within the Union under the Malta licence, while more than 1,800 RNG games and over 100 live tables were tied to Curaçao supervision. It is plausible that each reviewer saw only the catalogue available in their own location. But this is an inference, and neither source states it.
The generalisable conclusion: the number of games given in any casino review describes what the reviewer saw from their location, not what the platform holds. Aggregate figures in this sector are unreliable by nature, and among the weakest criteria on which to base a decision.
Who made the games: five schools inside the catalogue
Listing eighteen names in a single line — which every source does — tells the reader nothing. Classifying by product character is more useful, because game behaviour within a single studio is broadly consistent.
The classic school Microgaming NetEnt Play'n GO
The studios that set the sector's standards: medium volatility, stable mechanics, and titles most players recognise. NetEnt specifically supplied the content within the European Union under the Malta licence.
High volatility Big Time Gaming
The studio that launched the Megaways mechanic and redefined volatility in slots. The typical session is a long run of losses broken by a rare large win.
The Nordic school Yggdrasil Rabcat
High production quality and inventive mechanics. This group is what distinguishes one catalogue from another that stops at the mainstream names.
Mainstream and broad Pragmatic Play BetSoft GameArt
Widely distributed titles and frequent releases. Pragmatic Play specifically is the studio whose games one review described as only partially accessible.
Niche studios Endorphina Booongo Fantasma Old Skool
Mid-sized and small providers filling the catalogue with varied titles, alongside Genesis Gaming, NextGen and Games Global.
The titles that were best known in the catalogue
| Game | Studio | Character of play |
|---|---|---|
| Book of Dead | Play'n GO | High volatility, expanding symbols in free rounds — among the most widespread titles in the Arab market |
| Immortal Romance | Microgaming | Medium to high volatility, multi-level feature rounds |
| Thunderstruck II | Microgaming | A reference title with a tiered feature system |
| Jack and the Beanstalk | NetEnt | Medium volatility, walking wilds mechanic |
| Gemix | Play'n GO | A cluster grid instead of conventional paylines |
| Cazino Zeppelin | Yggdrasil | High volatility, distinctive visual design |
Return rates: the gap within a single studio exceeds six points
This is the most important information on the page, and it is available in one source only and interpreted by nobody. The published data shows the gap in return within a single studio is far larger than the gap between studios.
The Microgaming example: two games from the same developer
| Game | Published return | House edge | Theoretical cost per 1,000 euros wagered |
|---|---|---|---|
| All Aces — video poker | 99.92% | 0.08% | About 0.80 euros |
| Louisiana Double — video poker | 93.45% | 6.55% | About 65.50 euros |
| The gap between the two | About 82 times in cost | ||
Six and a half percentage points separate two games from the same developer. The practical conclusion: choosing the version of a game affects expected return far more than choosing the studio. And yet every review examined organises its information by studio rather than by return.
What this table does not mean. Return to player is a long-run statistical concept, realised across tens of thousands of rounds and not describing a single session. A game returning 99.92% can produce a long losing streak, and a game returning 93.45% can produce a large win. The difference is real and calculable, but it is a difference in expected cost over the long run, not a promise of an outcome.
Progressive jackpots and their different logic
The progressive jackpot mechanism diverts part of every bet into a shared prize pool. The direct mathematical effect is that the base return of these games sits lower than their non-jackpot equivalents, because part of it has been routed outside the normal payment cycle. The result: higher volatility, rarer wins, and a far larger ceiling.
This category specifically was tied to an important exception in the limits system: progressive jackpot winnings were not subject to the weekly or monthly withdrawal caps.
Navigating a catalogue of this size
| Tool | When it is most useful |
|---|---|
| Filtering by provider | By far the most useful. Knowing a preferred studio narrows the catalogue to dozens of titles of similar character, because game behaviour within a single studio is comparable — even though return can vary sharply, as seen above |
| Search by name | When the title is already known. Entered in Latin characters |
| Filtering by category | Slots, tables, live casino, jackpots — separates the layers rather than the titles |
| Trending and new lists | Useful for discovery, but they reflect the platform's selection rather than the player's preference |
How to read any platform's catalogue
| Criterion | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Is the return rate published per game? | Rare in the sector. Here the data was gathered by an external reviewer, not the platform itself — which makes publication a genuinely distinguishing criterion |
| Which version of the game is available? | The gap within a single studio can exceed six percentage points |
| Is there a provider filter? | The only tool that makes a catalogue of thousands of titles browsable |
| Do not rely on the aggregate figure | The advertised game count describes what the reviewer saw from their location, and may differ from what you see |
Frequently asked questions
How many games were in the Untold catalogue?
The sources are entirely contradictory. One portal counts 2,388 slot titles from more than eighteen providers, while another describes the selection as small and offering only a fraction of Pragmatic Play's games. The possible explanation is that different markets saw different catalogues owing to the split of licences, but no source confirms it.
What were the highest and lowest return rates on the site?
The highest documented rate is 99.92% for All Aces from Microgaming, and the lowest 93.45% for Louisiana Double from the same studio. In blackjack the rates ranged between 99.89% at Ezugi and 98.74% for the Play'n GO single-deck version.
Why does return vary within a single studio?
Because return to player is a property of a specific game rather than of the developer: it is set by the game's rules, its paytable and its mathematical structure. The gap between All Aces and Louisiana Double from Microgaming reaches about 6.5 percentage points, larger than the usual gap between two different studios. The conclusion is that choosing the version of a game affects expected return more than choosing the studio.