The clone attack in iGaming: why providers copy one another

In iGaming, we have entered an era when creating a game has become technically easier than getting players to notice it. The market is saturated with content: in 2025, around 6,000 new titles were released annually – approximately 16-20 releases a day – compared with roughly 1,000 in 2019. At the same time, the number of visible positions in a lobby is, as we know, limited.

In these conditions, the industry tends to follow a simple principle: “Replicate a working model faster – that way, you do not waste time testing your own hypothesis.” This is how the clone attack emerged: take a familiar mechanic, slightly change the visuals – repaint the plane, give Zeus a different hairstyle, turn the chicken into a pirate or a zombie – and another release is ready. But why does everyone choose the path of imitation? And can a provider really achieve success with this approach? Let’s discuss it in this article.

What is a clone attack?

In iGaming, a clone is generally understood as a game that replicates the key elements of an already successful product:

- a well-worn game mechanic – a plane crash game, a Zeus-themed slot, or 30 different interpretations of the same chicken;

- the mathematical model;

- the user interface structure;

- the game-round sequence;

- the visual presentation;

- the public launch and marketing campaign, accompanied by loud applause and claims that “this title is definitely innovative.”

When developing another clone, a provider does not necessarily infringe copyright. However, it still produces a product that is essentially a variation of an experience players already know.

For example, after the success of the crash mechanic, the market quickly filled with games featuring planes in different interpretations. Following the popularity of certain instant mechanics, numerous variations of Plinko, Mines, and Towers appeared. The mechanics themselves may have been familiar for a long time, but the problem begins when the industry stops adding any new value to them.

Why copying looks like a successful strategy

1. “I’ve Seen this somewhere before”

Players find it easier to start a game when they can understand it within a few seconds. In this sense, copying a popular mechanic lowers the barrier to entry. The provider does not need to explain what awaits the player: the audience is already familiar with the basic logic.

This is particularly important for instant games. A good mechanic should be understandable in approximately 3–5 seconds. The player takes an action and receives an almost immediate result. This short “click-to-impact” cycle fits well with mobile habits and the consumption of short-form content.

As a result:

- players understand the rules more quickly;

- operators can place the game in a familiar category more easily;

- affiliates can create and launch a working acquisition funnel more easily;

- advertising creatives can rely on familiar associations;

- operators do not need to spend time educating players.

2. Copying is cheaper than developing from scratch

A game built around a new mechanic carries a higher cost of failure. The team needs to test whether the gameplay is understandable, whether the audience finds it engaging, whether the mathematics work correctly, and whether the product can retain players after the first round.

A reskin makes it possible to use an already tested foundation:

- an existing gameplay loop;

- ready-made architecture, mathematics, backend, and infrastructure – everything except the artwork, animation, and frontend;

- accumulated data on player behaviour.

Copying and adaptation can indeed be cheaper at the initial stage. However, experience shows that this approach does not scale well. It saves resources at first, but in the long term it may fail to deliver the desired results and eventually increase the cost of maintaining the game.

For iGaming, this means that ten similar games do not necessarily create ten independent revenue opportunities. They may compete for the same audience and the same lobby position in the same GEO.

3. Relying on commercial execution rather than the product alone

Providers compete not only on the quality of their games. They are also fighting for integrations, operators’ attention, positions in aggregators, and a regular flow of PR opportunities.

As a result, the number of releases often becomes a KPI in its own right, allowing the provider’s commercial team to distribute the product as widely as possible through marketing, sales, and account management. Product quality is not always treated as a unique selling point, because a well-structured sales system becomes the primary business priority.

The logic is simple: the more games a provider releases, the higher the chance that one of them will become a hit. However, this approach has limitations in today’s saturated market. If an operator’s lobby contains tens of thousands of games, a new title may simply fail to achieve sufficient visibility.

4. The risk of failure appears lower

An original game can fail for many reasons:

- the mechanic may be too complicated;

- players may not understand its value;

- the visual style may not match market expectations;

- the pace of the game may not suit a particular GEO;

- a lack of operator support may prevent the game from receiving enough traffic.

A clone reduces uncertainty, but it does not eliminate it. It may be cheaper and faster to produce, but its chances of becoming a genuine hit are minimal. Ultimately, you inherit all the weaknesses of the original, while the revenue still flows to the hit itself.

Why a reskin is not innovation

Creating a reskin is not always a bad strategy. Reskins can be useful for seasonal campaigns, localisation, special partner launches, or adapting a product to a specific audience.

The problem begins when reskinning becomes the primary way of building a portfolio.

If the same mathematical model is given dozens of different themes, players receive an illusion of variety rather than a genuinely different choice. They see different names, characters, and colours, but the experience remains largely the same.

This approach creates several risks.

For Players

Games quickly begin to feel interchangeable. Novelty disappears, and with it, the emotional reason to return to a particular brand.

For Operators

The catalogue grows, but it does not necessarily become stronger. Similar games compete for the same positions, and players may lose interest in an operator if they cannot find anything genuinely engaging.

For Providers

Players remember the mechanic or category, but not the studio. As a result, the provider becomes “just another game supplier” rather than an independent brand.

For Affiliates

Acquisition funnels and creatives stop working. Banner blindness sets in, while constant repetition and the same old USPs lead to weaker results.

The Ebaka Games approach

Our studio emerged as a response to these developments. We did not want to become the “701st provider” replicating existing solutions. At the same time, we understand that every game does not need to be completely unfamiliar or radically new.

Instead, each game we develop is built around the idea that players should understand its mechanic within a matter of seconds. At Ebaka Games, individuality comes from combining the familiar with the new:

- a recognisable visual style;

- our own mascot and a wider multiverse with supporting characters;

- unique Ebaka Modes;

- increased volatility, which is not generally associated with instant games. The most popular crash games initially capped their maximum multiplier at 10,000x – but we broke through that ceiling as well.

Innovation does not necessarily mean inventing a mechanic that has never existed before. In fact, we often see other studios bringing mechanics from mobile gaming into iGaming – from Tinder-style interactions to tap-based flying games.

We describe our vision and strategy as a symbiosis of “soul and chaos.” Chaos is expressed through visual boldness, risk, high volatility, and unexpected in-game events. Soul is reflected in the fact that the product is created around a specific emotional experience.

Conclusion

The clone attack emerged not because providers have forgotten how to create something new, but because it has become a logical response to a market where there is too much content, players’ attention is limited, and the cost of failure is high.

A reskin provides a quick start, but it rarely creates long-term value. It helps fill a catalogue, but it does not necessarily build a dedicated audience.

At Ebaka Games, we are taking a stand against reskins and clones because we aim to offer more than just a gameplay experience. We want to create recognisable products – and this approach is working. We put deeper meaning into every title and bring a fresh vision to each new release. The audience has already noticed it, and we know that we made the right decision.