Vgt Video Gaming Technologies

• Video Gaming Technologies
• Vgt Video Gaming Technologies Pvt Ltd
• Video Gaming Technologies Inc
• Video Gaming Technologies Inc. Vgt Address
• Vgt Gaming Jobs

VIDEO GAMING TECHNOLOGIES v. ROGERS COUNTY BD. OF TAX ROLL CORRECTIONS
2019 OK 83
Case Number: 117491
Decided: 12/17/2019
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Video Gaming Technologies Salaries trends. 46 salaries for 34 jobs at Video Gaming Technologies in Franklin, TN. Salaries posted anonymously by Video Gaming Technologies employees in Franklin, TN. 102 Video Gaming Technologies reviews. A free inside look at company reviews and salaries posted anonymously by employees. Best Places to Work 2021 NEW! Hats off to our employees for a delicious Taste of VGT yesterday, and great job to our Diversity and Inclusion Council for putting the event together! Founded in 1991, Video Gaming Technologies, Inc. (VGT) is a leading developer, manufacturer and distributor of Class II (Native American bingo-based gaming) casino games in North America. With over 20,000 terminals in more than 140 locations across the U.S., VGT offers exceptional customer service and some of the highest ‘uptimes' in the.

NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL.

VIDEO GAMING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff/Appellant,
v.
ROGERS COUNTY BOARD OF TAX ROLL CORRECTIONS, a Political Subdivision; CATHY PINKERTON BAKER, ROGERS COUNTY TREASURER, in Her Official Capacity; and SCOTT MARSH, ROGERS COUNTY ASSESSOR, in HIS Official Capacity, Defendants/Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF ROGERS COUNTY,
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
HONORABLE SHEILA A. CONDREN, DISTRICT JUDGE

¶0 Plaintiff brought claims for relief from assessment of ad valorem taxes on electronic gaming equipment owned by Plaintiff and leased to the Cherokee Nation through its business entity. Both parties sought summary judgment. The district court rendered summary judgment in Defendant's favor, finding that ad valorem taxes were not preempted. We retained Plaintiff's appeal.

ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS REVERSED,
CAUSE REMANDED.

Elizabeth A. Price and Kurt M. Rupert, Hartzog Conger Cason & Neville, and Kevin B. Ratliff, Ratliff Law Firm, Oklahoma City, OK for Appellant.

Matthew J. Ballard, District Attorney, Rogers County District Attorney's Office, Claremore, OK, for Appellee.

OPINION

DARBY, V.C.J.,

¶1 On appeal, Video Gaming Technologies, Inc. ('VGT'), Plaintiff/Appellant, contends that the district court improperly granted summary judgment to Rogers County Board of Tax Roll Collections ('Board'), the Rogers County Treasurer, and the Rogers County Assessor, Defendants/Appellees (together 'County'). The questions before this Court are whether the district court properly denied VGT's motion for summary judgment and properly granted County's counter-motion for summary judgment. We answer both in the negative.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶2 Summary judgment settles only questions of law, therefore, we review de novo the grant thereof. Am. Biomedical Grp. v. Techtrol, Inc., 2016 OK 55, ¶ 2, 374 P.3d 820, 822. 'Summary judgment will be affirmed only if the appellate court determines that there is no dispute as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.' Horton v. Hamilton, 2015 OK 6, ¶ 8, 345 P.3d 357, 360; see also 12 O.S.2011, § 2056(C). Under this standard, we confine our review to the limited, undisputed, material facts. Techtrol, 2016 OK 55, ¶ 3, 374 P.3d at 823. We do not consider County's factual allegations included in its paperwork that County failed to designate as disputed or undisputed material facts or support with evidentiary materials in the district court. See id.; see also Frey v. Independence Fire and Cas. Co., 1985 OK 25, ¶ 6, 698 P.2d 17, 20

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶3 In December 2012, VGT filed a complaint with Board protesting the 2011 and 2012 assessment of ad valorem taxes. VGT claimed the electronic gaming equipment it leased exclusively to Cherokee Nation (Nation) for gaming was preempted from taxation under federal law. At that time, VGT submitted a copy of Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. Town of Ledyard (Mashantucket I), No. 3:06CV1212(WWE), 2012 WL 1069342 (D. Conn. Mar. 27, 2012) (finding preemption of imposition of ad valorem tax on gaming equipment), rev'd, 722 F.3d 457 (2d Cir. 2013). In December 2013, VGT timely filed a complaint with Board protesting the 2013 ad valorem tax assessments for the same reason. In April 2014, Board denied VGT's complaints by letter.

¶4 VGT timely appealed Board's decision, filing a petition for review in Rogers County District Court. VGT sought summary judgment claiming federal preemption of ad valorem taxes under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2721 (2018), Indian Trader Statutes, and federal case law. VGT set forth a list of undisputed material facts which it supported with declarations1 from VGT's Assistant General Counsel and an attorney for Nation; it also attached copies of its 2012 and 2013 complaints and Board's 2014 denial letter.

¶5 County filed a response and counter-motion for summary judgment, urging that ad valorem taxation of the property was not preempted or barred. County declared that 'the relevant facts in this case are not in dispute,' making summary judgment appropriate. County then set out its own statement of undisputed material facts. Later in its counter-motion for summary judgment and response, County argued:

Def't's Resp. to VGT's Mot. for S.J., Counter-Mot. for S.J., and Br. in Supp., filed May 31, 2018, at 10. County, however, failed to support this assertion with any evidence to dispute the evidence put forth by VGT. County attached a copy of Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. Town of Ledyard (Mashantucket II), 722 F.3d 457 (2d Cir. Jul. 15, 2013) (reversing Mashantucket I and finding no preemption), an affidavit from the Rogers County Assessor, copies of the complaints and denial, and a statement of the taxes currently assessed against VGT.

¶6 On September 27, 2018, the district court denied VGT's motion and sustained County's counter-motion for summary judgment. The district court found the rationale in Mashantucket II persuasive and held that the 'State of Oklahoma's ad valorem tax statutes are not preempted or barred by the Indian Trader Statutes, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, or pursuant to the balancing test set forth by the United States Supreme Court in White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker,' 448 U.S. 136, 100 S. Ct. 2578, 65 L. Ed. 2d 665 (1980). VGT timely appealed under Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.36 and filed a motion that we retain the appeal, which we granted. On appeal, VGT argues that the district court erred in (1) relying on Mashantucket II to grant County's counter-motion for summary judgment and (2) failing to grant VGT's motion for summary judgment because imposition of ad valorem taxes is preempted by IGRA and the Bracker balancing test.

III. UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

¶7 VGT is a non-Indian Tennessee corporation authorized to do business in Oklahoma. VGT owns and leases electronic gaming equipment to Cherokee Nation Entertainment, LLC (CNE), a business entity of Nation. Nation is a federally-recognized Indian tribe headquartered in Tahlequah, Oklahoma. CNE owns and operates ten gaming facilities on behalf of Nation.

¶8 CNE and VGT negotiated and executed their initial lease agreement, and all subsequent amendments, on tribal trust land. The lease agreements are based on a variety of competing economic factors and include consideration of several costs that are balanced to arrive at the lease terms. The equipment lease agreement states that VGT supplies the gaming equipment, software, and related services to CNE. The gaming equipment that VGT leases to CNE is located on tribal trust land in Rogers County and is essential to Nation's gaming operations.

¶9 The Rogers County Assessor assesses ad valorem tax on business personal property located in the county on the first of the year, pursuant to title 68, section 2831 of the Oklahoma Statutes.2 In 2011, 2012, and 2013, County assessed ad valorem taxes on the gaming equipment owned by VGT.3 County based its assessment on the value of the property and did not take into consideration use, possession, or specific location of the property.

¶10 Tax revenue from ad valorem assessments, like those imposed on VGT's gaming equipment, help fund the operation of Rogers County government, schools, law enforcement, health services, roads, and other government services within Rogers County. The economic burden caused by the assessment of ad valorem taxes, however, would ultimately fall on Nation because it would impact the overall costs of providing the gaming machines to Nation and therefore the price for which VGT would agree to lease them.

IV. ANALYSIS

¶11 VGT argues that taxation of its gaming equipment is preempted by IGRA and Bracker because the property is located on tribal trust land under a lease to Nation for use in its gaming operations.

A. Federal Preemption of Taxation of Non-Indians on Indian Land

¶12 The location of property on tribal trust land is not a per se bar to taxation because the legal incidence of the ad valorem tax falls on the non-Indian lessor, not on Nation. Okla. Tax Comm'n v. Chickasaw Nation, 515 U.S. 450, 453, 459, 115 S. Ct. 2214, 132 L. Ed. 2d 400 (1995); State ex rel. Edmondson v. Native Wholesale Supply, 2010 OK 58, ¶ 39, 237 P.3d 199, 212-213. When a state or county seeks to impose a nondiscriminatory tax on non-Indians on tribal land, there is no rigid preemption rule, rather we must apply a flexible analysis to determine if taxation is proper. See Bracker, 448 U.S. 136; see also Ramah Navajo Sch. Bd. v. Bureau of Revenue of N.M., 458 U.S. 832, 102 S. Ct. 3394, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1174 (1982); see also Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, 490 U.S. 163, 109 S. Ct. 1698, 104 L. Ed. 2d 209 (1989). Courts must perform a 'particularized examination of the relevant state, federal, and tribal interests' which is not controlled by standards of preemption from other areas of law. Ramah Navajo School Bd., 458 U.S. at 838; see also Bracker, 448 U.S. at 142, 144-45.

¶13 In examining federal treaties and statutes, we must look to congressional intent to preempt state taxation of non-Indians on tribal land, while considering the broad underlying policies and history of tribal sovereignty as a 'backdrop.' Cotton Petroleum, 490 U.S. at 176; see also Bracker, 448 U.S. at 142, 144-45. Preemption is not limited to cases in which Congress has expressly preempted the state tax. Cotton Petroleum, 490 U.S. at 176-77. The county seeking to impose a tax on non-Indians on tribal land must be able to identify regulatory functions or services the county performs to justify the assessment--interest in raising revenues is not enough. Bracker, 448 U.S. at 148-49, 150. Courts must follow the guiding principle to construe 'federal statutes and regulations relating to tribes and tribal activities' generously in order to comport with 'traditional notions of sovereignty and with the federal policy of encouraging tribal independence.' Ramah Navajo Sch. Bd., 458 U.S. at 846; Bracker, 448 U.S. at 143--44.

¶14 In Bracker, the U.S. Supreme Court looked to the comprehensive and pervasive nature of the federal regulation of harvesting timber, the number of policies underlying the federal scheme which were threatened by state regulation, the tribe's sovereignty over their land, the fact that it was undisputed that the economic burden would ultimately fall on the tribe, and the state's inability to identify any regulatory function or service the state performed that would justify the taxes except a generalized interest in raising revenue. Id. at 145-51. Ultimately, the Court found preemption of state motor carrier license and use fuel taxes on a non-Indian logging company's activities on Indian land. Id. at 151.

¶15 Two years later, the U.S. Supreme Court applied that analysis before finding preemption of a state gross-receipts tax imposed on a non-Indian contracting firm constructing school facilities on tribal land. Ramah Navajo Sch. Bd., 458 U.S. 832. The Court determined federal regulations regarding construction of Indian schools were both comprehensive and pervasive. Id. at 839-42. The Court noted that while the burden nominally fell on the non-Indian contractor, it impeded the clearly expressed federal interests by depleting the funds available for construction. Id. at 842. The Court again found the state's ultimate justification was a desire to increase revenue, without showing a specific, legitimate regulatory interest to justify the imposition of the tax. Id. at 843-845.

¶16 In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court found a non-Indian lessee oil and gas company was subject to severance taxes from both the tribe and the state for minerals extracted from their leases on Indian land. Cotton Petroleum, 490 U.S. at 168-69. The Court considered the history of the State's ability to tax non-Indian lessee's on-reservation oil production as well as one of the purposes of the act being to provide tribes with 'badly needed revenue, but [found] no evidence . . . that Congress intended to remove all barriers to profit maximization.' Id. at 173, 180. The Court determined that the state also regulated the field, the state provided substantial services to the tribe and the company in question, and there was no economic burden on the tribe from the company's payment of taxes. Id. at 185-86.

¶17 The Court distinguished the case from Bracker and Ramah Navajo School Board because the other cases 'involved complete abdication or noninvolvement of the State in the on-reservation activity.' Id. at 185. The Court determined that there is no proportionality requirement to the justification of taxes for States compared to the services provided. Id. The Court acknowledged that the taxes had a 'marginal effect on the demand for on-reservation leases, the value to the Tribe of those leases, and the ability of the Tribe to increase its tax rate,' but found that any impairment to the federal policies in play was too indirect and insubstantial to support claims of preemption. Id. at 187

B. Federal IGRA Case Law

¶18 In 2001, the Eighth Circuit analyzed IGRA's preemption of state law claims in a dispute between a non-Indian general contractor and non-Indian sub-contractor. Casino Res. Corp. v. Harrah's Entm't, Inc., 243 F.3d 435, 439 (8th Cir. 2001). Resolution of the dispute required review of a contract terminating a gaming management arrangement between one of the parties and a tribal entity. Id. at 438. The Eighth Circuit noted that '[n]ot every contract that is merely peripherally associated with tribal gaming is subject to IGRA's constraints.' Id. at 439. The court held that '[i]t is a stretch to say that Congress intended to preempt state law when there is no valid management contract for a federal court to interpret, when the Nation's broad discretion to terminate management contracts is not impeded, and when there is no threat to the Nation's sovereign immunity or interests.' Id. at 440.

¶19 In 2008, the Ninth Circuit addressed whether IGRA preempted state sales tax on construction materials purchased by a non-Indian sub-contractor from a non-Indian vendor and delivered to Indian land for casino construction. Barona Band of Mission Indians v. Yee, 528 F.3d 1184, 1186 (9th Cir. 2008). The court weighed heavily the parties' attempt to manipulate tax laws and noted that the taxed materials 'could be used for a multitude of purposes unrelated to gaming.' Id. Goal handicap 1. at 1191-93. The court found that 'IGRA's comprehensive regulation of Indian gaming does not occupy the field with respect to sales taxes imposed on third-party purchases of equipment used to construct gaming facilities.' Id. at 1193.

¶20 In 2013, the Second Circuit determined ad valorem taxation on gaming equipment was not preempted by IGRA. Mashantucket II, 722 F.3d at 470. The court compared the ad valorem tax on gaming equipment to Barona Band and Casino Resource, where the generally-applicable laws were not preempted by IGRA's occupation of the governance of the gaming field, but were merely peripherally associated. 722 F.3d at 470. The court found that 'mere ownership of slot machines by the vendors does not qualify as gaming, and taxing such ownership therefore does not interfere with the 'governance of gaming.' Id. (emphasis original).

¶21 In its Bracker analysis, the Mashantucket II court stated that '[n]othing within IGRA reveals congressional intent to exempt non-Indian suppliers of gaming equipment from generally applicable state taxes that would apply in the absence of the legislation.' 722 F.3d at 473. The court determined that 'IGRA presented an opportunity for Congress to preempt taxes exactly like this one; Congress chose to limit the scope of IGRA's preemptive effect to the 'governance of gaming.' Id. (quoting Gaming Corp. of Am. v. Dorsey, 88 F.3d 536, 550 (8th Cir. 1996)). The court concluded:

Mashantucket II, 722 F.3d at 476--77.

¶22 In 2014, the United States Supreme Court considered whether a tribe's off-reservation gaming activities were covered under IGRA. Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 572 U.S. 782, 134 S. Ct. 2024, 188 L. Ed. 2d 1071 (2014). The Court noted that 'numerous provisions of IGRA show that 'class III gaming activity' means just what it sounds like--the stuff involved in playing class III games.' Bay Mills, 572 U.S. at 792. The Court noted multiple phrases in IGRA that 'make perfect sense if 'class III gaming activity' is what goes on in a casino--each roll of the dice and spin of the wheel'--and together signify that the 'gaming activity is the gambling in the poker hall not the proceedings of the off-site administrative authority.' Id. The Court explained that two sections of IGRA describe the 'power to 'clos[e] a gaming activity' for 'substantial violation[s]' of law--e.g., to shut down crooked blackjack tables, not the tribal regulatory body meant to oversee them.' Id.

Video Gaming Technologies

¶23 Since Bay Mills, the Tenth Circuit addressed the question of jurisdiction over tort claims arising out of IGRA. Navajo Nation v. Dalley, 896 F.3d 1196, 1200 (10th Cir. 2018), cert. denied sub nom. McNeal v. Navajo Nation, 139 S. Ct. 1600, 203 L. Ed. 2d 755 (2019). The court concluded that 'Class III gaming activity relates only to activities actually involved in the playing of the game, and not activities occurring in proximity to, but not inextricably intertwined with, the betting of chips, the folding of a hand, or suchlike.' 896 F.3d at 1207. The court found that actions arising in tort are not 'directly related to, and necessary for, the licensing and regulation of [gaming] activity.' Id. at 1207, 1209. The court clarified that the licensing or regulation of gaming activity 'does not relate to claims arising out of occurrences that happen in proximity to--but not as a result of--the hypothetical card being dealt or chip being bet.' Id. at 1209 (citation omitted).4

¶24 Recently, the Eighth Circuit again addressed IGRA in two cases issued the same day. Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. Noem, 938 F.3d 928 (8th Cir. 2019); Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. Haeder, 938 F.3d 941(8th Cir. 2019). The court determined in Noem that IGRA preempted the state's imposition of a use tax on non-Indian purchases of amenities at a casino. Noem, 938 F.3d at 937. In Haeder, the court determined that IGRA did not preempt an excise tax on gross receipts of a non-Indian contractor for services performed in renovating and expanding a casino. Haeder, 938 F.3d at 942, 947.

¶25 The Eighth Circuit stated that the phrase '[d]irectly related to the operation of gaming activity' is narrower than 'directly related to the operation of the Casino.' Noem, 938 F.3d at 935. The court thus determined that sale of amenities is not 'directly related to the operation of gaming activities' in order to be expressly preempted. Id. But the court found that while the amenities are not directly related to the operation of gaming activities, they do contribute significantly to the economic success of the tribe's class III gaming operation. Id. at 936. The court noted that the state's taxation of amenities would raise the cost--potentially reducing tribal revenues and detrimentally impacting IGRA's policies. Id. In affirming the preemption of state use tax on non-Indian purchases of amenities at the casino, the court found:

Id. at 937.

¶26 In Haeder, the court considered a provision in IGRA requiring National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) approval of a tribal ordinance stating that casino construction would adequately protect the environment, public health, and safety--but noted that the NIGC does not regulate construction activity or prescribe what adequate protection requires. Haeder, 938 F.3d at 945. The court concluded that the provision did not preempt the state contractor excise tax, 'a tax which does not regulate or interfere with the Tribe's design and completion of the construction project, or its conduct of Class III gaming.' Id. The court further noted that, unlike the ongoing casino amenities tax in Noem, the contractor excise tax is a one-time tax which 'hardly implicates the relevant federal and tribal interests.' Haeder, 938 F.3d at 946. The court also found that because the tax did not regulate casino construction or gaming activities, there were no implications to the federal and tribal interests in IGRA. Id. Regarding the state's interests, the court noted that the relevant services provided included those available to the contractor and the members of the tribe on and off-reservation. Id. at 947.

C. Bracker Analysis of Ad Valorem Tax on Gaming Equipment

¶27 In the present case, we must (1) look to the comprehensiveness of the federal regulations in place, in light of the broad underlying policies and notions of sovereignty in the area; (2) consider the number of policies underlying the federal scheme which are threatened; and (3) determine if the state is able to justify the tax other than as a generalized interest in raising revenue. See Bracker, 448 U.S. at 142, 144-45.

1) Comprehensive Legislation

¶28 IGRA was 'intended to expressly preempt the field in the governance of gaming activities on Indian lands.' S.Rep.100-446 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3071, 3076. In creating IGRA, Congress recognized that the extension of State jurisdiction to Indian lands has traditionally been inimical to Indian interests and attempted to balance the need for sound enforcement of gaming laws and regulations with the strong federal interest in preserving sovereign rights of tribal governments to regulate activities and enforce laws on Indian lands. Id. at 3075. Congress found:

25 U.S.C. § 2701.

¶29 Congress adopted IGRA in 1988 to provide for the operation and regulation of gaming by Indian tribes. Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 48, 116 S. Ct. 1114, 134 L. Ed. 2d 252 (1996). IGRA divides gaming on Indian lands into three classes, and it provides a different regulatory scheme for each one. Id. Class II gaming is bingo, electronic or otherwise, and card games that are either explicitly authorized by the State or not explicitly prohibited and are played elsewhere in the State. 25 U.S.C. § 2703(7). Class III gaming is heavily regulated and is defined as all gaming which is not included in class I or II; it includes slot machines, electronic games of chance, casino games, banking card games--such as baccarat, chemin de fer, or blackjack--and others. Seminole Tribe, 517 U.S. at 48; 25 U.S.C. § 2703(7)(B),(8).

¶30 Congress declared IGRA's purpose included providing regulation from corrupting influences, ensuring the tribe is the primary beneficiary of the operation, and assuring that gaming is conducted fairly and honestly, by both operator and players. 25 U.S.C. § 2702.5 In accordance with that, IGRA provided comprehensive guidance on gaming. IGRA mandates that tribes may only conduct Class III gaming when the tribe adopts an ordinance or resolution that satisfies certain statutorily prescribed requirements and it is conducted in accordance with a negotiated Tribal-State compact. Seminole Tribe, 517 U.S. at 49; 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1).6 The State is able to assess necessary amounts under the compact in order to defray associated regulation costs for Class III gaming. Id. § 2710(d)(3). Although Nation's compact with the State is not part of the record, the model state compact provides extensive regulation requiring inspection of gaming equipment to ensure the gaming is conducted fairly and honestly. 3A O.S.2011, § 281 Part 4(B), 5(C),(M), 8(A). It also mandates that companies that lease over twenty-five thousand dollars a year of equipment to a tribe must be licensed by the tribal compliance agency, and requires payment of annual assessments for oversight of the gaming equipment. Id. Part 10(B)(1), 11(B).

¶31 IGRA also established the NIGC and gave it power to close gaming activities; adopt regulations for, levy, and collect civil fines; establish the rate of fees; approve tribal ordinances or resolutions regulating class II and III gaming; and approve management contracts. 25 U.S.C. §§ 2703-06, 2710-11, 2713. The NIGC also has power to establish fees to be paid by each 'gaming operation that conducts . . . a class III gaming activity that is regulated by this chapter.' Id. § 2717(a). IGRA allows a tribe to adopt a resolution and submit it to the Commission to 'authorize any person or entity to engage in, a class III gaming activity on Indian lands of the Indian tribe.' Id. § 2710(d)(2)(A). IGRA further requires independent audits for contracts related to Class II or III gaming for supplies, services, or concessions in contracted amounts in excess of $25,000 annually. Id. § 2710(b)(2)(D),(d)(1)(A)(ii).

i) Gaming Equipment versus Gaming Activity

¶32 We find IGRA's regulations governing gaming are comprehensive and pervasive. Before we go further in the analysis, however, we must first address whether for purposes of IGRA there is a difference in owning gaming equipment used exclusively for tribal gaming versus engaging in gaming activity. IGRA itself does not expressly distinguish the game from the equipment on which it is played. Nor has the U.S. Supreme Court. While Bay Mills focused on the action rather than the equipment--describing gaming as the 'act of throwing the dice'--it is clear that regulation of gaming equipment is encompassed under IGRA in order to prevent corruption. If regulation of traditional gaming equipment, such as preventing crooked blackjack tables, is necessary--regulation of electronic gaming equipment, which has much greater potential for abuse, seems that much more important.

¶33 IGRA was clearly intended to provide oversight of gaming equipment to prevent corruption. But, the Second Circuit determined that gaming equipment is somehow peripheral or tangential to gaming and thus distinguished gaming equipment from gaming in order to find taxation of its ownership was not governed by IGRA's express preemption of the field of 'governance of gaming.' The Second Circuit also confused the Bracker analysis when it stated that '[w]hile IGRA seeks to limit criminal activity at the casinos, nothing in Connecticut's tax makes it likely that Michael Corleone will arrive to take over the Tribe's operations.' Mashantucket II , 722 F.3d at 473. The fact that the specific tax in question does not infringe on a purpose of IGRA, does not remove the applicable stated purpose of IGRA or its importance.

¶34 Unlike Barona Band, the gaming equipment in this location cannot be used for anything but gaming. Barona Band, 528 F.3d at 1191-93. The ad valorem tax would not apply to this gaming equipment in the absence of IGRA, because the gaming equipment is only located in Rogers County due to its use in Indian gaming activities. And prior to IGRA, mere possession of the gaming equipment on tribal trust land would have been illegal. See 15 U.S.C. § 1175(a) (2018).

¶35 Mashantucket II held that 'this is arguably a close case,' 722 F.3d at 476, however, we disagree. Here, the ad valorem tax is assessed against the owner of property located in the county. Focusing only on the ownership of the property separate from the property itself--especially in this case where the property would not be located in the county but for its possession by Nation for its exclusive leased use in Indian gaming--would be incongruous with Bracker and its progeny. While ownership of gaming equipment does not automatically subject it to IGRA, when the gaming equipment is used exclusively in a tribal gaming operation, such as with Nation, we find it is inextricably intertwined with IGRA gaming activities such that it is absolutely directly related to and necessary for the licensing and regulation of gaming activity. See Dalley, 896 F.3d at 1207.

¶36 Mashantucket II also ignored the U.S. Supreme Court's guidance that courts should err toward Indians on questions of preemption. Ramah Navajo Sch. Bd., 458 U.S. at 846; Bracker, 448 U.S. at 143--44. Unlike the situations in Casino Resource and Barona Band, gaming equipment is not tangential to gaming. Rather, it is a sine qua non of gaming. Due to the United States Supreme Court's clear comments about the nature of gaming activities, and the Court's clear guidance to construe federal statutes relating to tribal activity generously, we find Mashantucket II unpersuasive.

2) Federal Policies Threatened by Ad Valorem Taxation of Gaming Equipment

¶37 It is an undisputed fact that the burden of the ad valorem taxes will ultimately fall on Nation. Due to the success of Nation's gaming enterprise, the passed on cost will not threaten the purpose of Nation being the primary beneficiary of the gaming operation. Title 68, section 3104 of the Oklahoma statutes, however, allows County to seize property when ad valorem taxes are not paid. 68 O.S.2011, § 3104. Thus, County's remedy for collection of delinquent taxes would directly affect the tribe, impact its gaming operation, and severely threaten the policies behind IGRA--including Nation's sovereignty over its land. See Wyandotte Nation v. Sebelius, 443 F.3d 1247 (10th Cir. 2006) (tribal sovereignty outweighs a state's interest in enforcing its laws to the extent of intruding onto tribal land and seizing casino equipment, files, and proceeds).

3) County's Justification for Taxation

¶38 County argues that ad valorem taxation is justified to ensure integrity and uniform application of tax law. County also justifies the tax by claiming, without additional supporting evidence, that the money is vital to them. County further states that the disputed taxes fund services it provides to the county at large.

¶39 County does not regulate gaming or gaming equipment in any way. Unlike Cotton Petroleum, County has not shown it provides any regulatory functions or services to VGT, the out-of-state company, to justify its taxation of equipment which is only located in Rogers County for use in Nation's gaming enterprise. See Cotton Petroleum, 490 U.S. at 185-186; see also Bracker, 448 U.S. at 148-49. Like Ramah Navajo School Board, it appears that County's interest is primarily raising revenue without providing specific regulatory functions or services to justify it. Ramah Navajo Sch. Bd., 458 U.S. at 843-45. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that desire for increased revenue is not enough, instead basing justification on what the state or county provides to the entity in exchange for taxation. Bracker, 448 U.S. at 150. County has not shown any nexus between the services it provides through ad valorem taxation and services that VGT receives on-or-off tribal land. County's provision of services to other members of the county does not justify imposition of the tax which burdens the federal interests in IGRA. See Ramah Navajo Sch. Bd., 458 U.S. at 844. Like Bracker, 'this is not a case in which the [County] seeks to assess taxes in return for governmental functions it performs for those on whom the taxes fall.' Bracker, 448 U.S. at 150.

¶40 County's argument regarding uniform application of the law also fails; Oklahoma also already has use exemptions for ad valorem taxation that require County to consider property use in certain circumstances. Okla. Const. art. 10, § 6; 68 O.S.2011, §§ 2887, 2889; State ex rel. Cartwright v. Dunbar, 1980 OK 15, ¶10, 618 P.2d 900, 904-905 (use is the determinative factor for questions of exemption from ad valorem taxes for religious or charitable question use) (quoting State ex rel. City of Tulsa v. Mayes Cty. Treasurer, 1935 OK 1027, ¶ 36, 51 P.2d 266); Okla. Indus. Auth. v. Barnes, 1988 OK 98, ¶ 16, 769 P.2d 115, 120. Further, there are other statutory considerations of use for determination of fair market value for taxation. See 68 O.S.2011, § 2817. Requiring County to consider use in this situation is not an unfair burden on its enforcement of tax laws.

¶41 Gaming equipment is not peripheral to gaming. Based off the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of gaming in IGRA and its further admonishment to interpret federal statutes regarding tribes generously, we find that gaming equipment is a sine qua non for gaming and thus under IGRA. The comprehensive regulations of IGRA occupy the field with respect to ad valorem taxes imposed on gaming equipment used exclusively in tribal gaming. The state remedy for non-payment also acts as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purpose and objectives of Congress. See Gade v. Nat'l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass'n, 505 U.S. 88, 98, 112 S. Ct. 2374, 120 L. Ed. 2d 73 (1992). Due to the comprehensive and pervasive nature of IGRA, the number of federal policies threatened, Nation's sovereignty, and County's lack of justification other than as a generalized interest in raising revenue, we find that taxation of gaming equipment used exclusively in tribal gaming is preempted.

Vgt Video Gaming Technologies Pvt Ltd

V. CONCLUSION

¶42 Summary judgment is only affirmed if there is no dispute as to any material fact and the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The district court erred in relying on Mashantucket II and not considering the more recent guidance of the U.S. Supreme Court in Bay Mills. Based on this erroneous conclusion of law, we find summary judgment against VGT was improper.

¶43 Due to the comprehensive nature of IGRA's regulations on gaming, the federal policies which would be threatened, and County's failure to justify the tax other than as a generalized interest in raising revenue, we find that ad valorem taxation of gaming equipment here is preempted. We reverse the order of summary judgment and we remand the matter to the district court to enter an appropriate order of summary judgment for VGT.

ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS REVERSED,
CAUSE REMANDED.

Gurich, C.J., Darby, V.C.J., Kauger, Winchester, Edmondson, Colbert and Combs, JJ. -- concur

Kane, J. -- not voting

FOOTNOTES

1 An unsworn declaration, signed under penalty of perjury, may be used in place of an affidavit. 12 O.S.2011, § 426.

68 O.S.2011, § 2831(A).

3 VGT was assessed and paid ad valorem taxes on the gaming equipment from 2005-2010. The Rogers County Assessor has continued to assess ad valorem tax on VGT's gaming equipment since 2013 and VGT has continued to file complaints for all further ad valorem taxes. Board has not taken any action on the further complaints while awaiting the outcome of this matter.

4 In a footnote, the court noted that someone could potentially incur an injury from the gaming activity itself. Navajo Nation v. Dalley, 896 F.3d 1196, 1210 n.7 (10th Cir. 2018).

Id. (quoting Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 572 U.S. 782, 792, 134 S. Ct. 2024, 188 L. Ed. 2d 1071 (2014).

25 U.S.C. § 2702 (2018).

25 U.S.C. § 2710 (2018) (emphasis added).

VGT is the short version of Video Gaming Technologies, Inc.
VGT is a major player in the North American Class II casino
games market. VGT is responsible for the development,
manufacture, marketing, and distribution of casino games for
Native American casinos restricted to Class II games.

Founded in 1991, VGT now operates more than 20,000 machines
in 140 different casinos and game rooms. Most of their contracts
are with Oklahoma tribal gaming facilities, though they're
expanding into other markets, particularly the Gulf Coast.
American gamblers who visit a lot of Native American properties
probably recognize the company's signature Red Screen free spins
feature, a highly-visible effect common to all their latest
titles.

VGT started producing Class II games as soon as the Native
American market opened up in the early 90s. They're a trusted
name in the industry, an American end-to-end game producer with
specialists working in fields from game design and R&D to
customer support and corporate marketing.

Since the acquisition of VGT by Aristocrat Leisure Ltd. In
October of 2014, the company's profile has increased
considerably. Aristocrat is one of the biggest names in global
gambling, a premium supplier of gaming tech and services to
casinos and other gambling properties all over the world.
Becoming part of Aristocrat means that VGT's games may soon
start appearing in land-based and online casinos all over the
world in the next few years.

According to promotional material on their website, they've
doubled in size eight times since 2001. They're the number-one
gaming machine provider in Oklahoma, a massive gambling market
that relies heavily on Class II games. VGT is also the #1
overall provider of Class II machines in the United States, and
the largest privately-owned gaming machine manufacturer in the
country.

What Are Class II Games?

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act that created a market for
VGT's services also established a three-tiered class system to
identify and regulate different types of gambling games. This
Class system doesn't apply outside of Native American gaming
laws.

Of the three original classes created by legislation in the
1990s, only Class II and Class III are relevant to today's
world. That's because Class I only applies to wagers on
inter-tribal contests. These contests are pretty much ignored by
federal authorities today, and all emphasis is placed on Class
II and III titles.

Class III gaming is what most tribes want to offer – this is
traditional gambling like you'd find in the commercial casinos
of Las Vegas and Atlantic City. Class III includes table games
like blackjack and craps, as well as allowances for slot and
video poker machines. But US law stipulates that all tribal
groups have to negotiate private contracts with their state
government in order to offer III gaming.

Slots Empire Casino BONUS CODES. 40 Free Spins at Slots Empire Casino. Max Cashout: 3xB. Expires on: 2021-03-03. Play Slots Empire Casino. 60 Free Spins at Slots Empire Casino. No multiple accounts or no deposit casino bonuses. In this way, there are certain bonus codes you may need to use to avail bonuses at Slots Empire casino. The way to claim the bonus is as follows: Navigate to the cashier section of the casino and click on ‘Coupons'. Find the offer you are looking to claim and click on redeem, or you can insert the bonus code into the 'Enter Code. Slots empire no deposit bonus codes 2018 november.

Without this expensive and difficult contract, tribal groups
are limited to Class II gaming by default. So what's the
difference? These days, the difference is mostly about
semantics. Class II games have to produce outcomes based on a
bingo-style drawing, rather than the random number generator
used by Class III games.

Modern game designers have created loophole software that
produces a random number generator-style result while still
utilizing a bingo-style drawing system to satisfy their Class II
restrictions. In fact, that's most of the genius behind the guys
at VGT. They know how to produce games similar to the slots and
video poker machines their customers want while still staying
within the lines of the strict Tribal Class system.

You may have played a Class II game and not even realized it.
By law, all Class II games have to be marked with a symbol that
looks like a bingo card. But because these games now look and
act like traditional gambling machines, unless you knew you were
in a Class II facility ahead of time, you wouldn't notice any
real difference as a player. VGT succeeds when they produce a
slot machine that perfectly mimics a Class III slot game.

VGT Management

Jamie Odell

Jamie Odell is the head of VGT's parent company. That makes him also the
ultimate executive in charge of the operations at Virtual Gaming
Technology. Odell has been with Aristocrat since 2009, having
cut his teeth as a managing director (and eventually COO) at
Foster's. Odell is often credited with single-handedly righting
the ship at Aristocrat – the company is enjoying a renaissance
that began pretty soon after he stepped in the door. VGT's
parent company's share price is up 105% since he began his
tenure. The acquisition of interests like VGT (which some
conglomerates may see as too much of a niche producer) is a
direct result of Odell's leadership.

Jon P. Yarbrough

There's a great story about
Jon Yarbrough. Supposedly, his first business venture was
splitting profits of a foosball table in a neighborhood bar.
He's come a long way since then – Yarbrough sold VGT to
Aristocrat for a reported $1.2 billion a few years ago. Though
Yarbrough no longer does the dirty work of designing and
manufacturing games, he has decades of experience in a difficult
industry. At VGT, he serves as part-advisor, part-executive,
part-mascot.

Jay Sevigny

Mr. Sevigny was hand-picked by
Aristocrat CEO Jamie Odell to take over the operation of VGT in
2015. Sevigny's gaming experience comes from decades working for
big names like Boyd Gaming and Harrah's Entertainment. He'd been
a member of VGT's management team in various senior roles since
2006.

VGT Slot Machines

Video Gaming Technologies currently produces 97 slot-style
Class II games. The company also produces a set of eight bonus
games that be added to all of their other games by their
operators, for a grand total of 105 slot-style titles. They
break these games up into five categories:

1. 3-reel Mechanical Slots

These games are designed to look and
act like classic-style slot machines. Most of the company's slot
machine-style Class II games fall under this category.

2. 5-reel Mechanical Slots

These games are slightly more complex
than the company's 3-reel titles, with additional features
designed to make the games even more slot-like.

3. Video Slots

Games in this category are VGT's attempt to
replicate the look and feel of the latest Vegas-style video slot
machines.

4. Progressive Slots

VGT produces a limited number of local and
wide-area progressive titles.

5. Red Spin Gambler Slots

These games are VGT's latest iteration
of updated slot-style Class II games.

VGT Slot Game Reviews

Below you'll find short reviews of twenty-five of VGT's most
popular Class II slot games. We've chosen to cover only their
most-popular and most-available titles, because these are the
games you're most likely to find when you walk into a tribal
facility powered by VGT technology. For more information on all
of VGT's titles, point your browser to
their official website, where
they have a short page and description of all their games, slots
or otherwise.

3-Reel Mechanical Slots

Mr. Money Bags

Mr. Money Bags is VGT's best-known and most popular title.
The 'theme' of the game, if there is one, is that the character
Mr. Money Bags is giving away his riches. You can stake your
part of his treasure by lining up symbols on the reels. Mr.
Money Bags accepts wagers of one, two, or three coins. The
company makes the game available in a wide range of
denominations: you'll find Mr. Money Bags as a $0.25, $0.50,
$1.00, $2.00, $3.00, $5.00, $10.00, or even $25.00 game. With a
top prize of 2,500 credits, it's about average in terms of VGT's
returns. The game includes the company's Red Screen Free-Spin
feature, in which the player can earn up to five free spins.
This feature is triggered randomly with winning spins. According
to VGT's website, it's triggered about once every five winning
spins.

Lucky Ducky

If Mr. Money Bags is VGT's top brand, Lucky Ducky
is a close second. The game doesn't have much of a plot – the
theme is the Lucky Ducky himself, a rubber ducky character that
VGT makes good use of on several other Class II titles. The main
reason for Lucky Ducky's appeal is its use of VGT's most
valuable 3-reel pay table setup, one with a top prize of 10,000
credits. Since Lucky Ducky accepts wagers between $0.25 and $5
per credit, the range of the machine's top prize is from $2,500
to $50,000. This is among the best top prizes of any three reel
slot setup we've ever seen, including Class III games in a
Vegas-style casino.

Crazy Billions

Every game on this short list of VGT's 3-reel
mechanical Class II games has a gimmick. We did that by design.
You'll find each of these game's gimmicks in use on other VGT
titles. We chose Crazy Billions to represent VGT's titles that
offer multipliers on every reel. This game also uses the
company's Add-A-Reel feature, which is nothing more than a
unique payout system. Lining up any three symbols on an active
line, and their value could result in a payout. About those
multipliers – they offer 2x, 4x, and 8x your wager on winning
spins. Credits range from $0.25 to $25 each. The game's top
prize is 3,200 credits, a little above average for this company.

King of Coin

King of Coin is an example of VGT's simpler
three reel titles. There's no plot, but the game includes VGT's
top three-line pay table that rewards a jackpot of up to 10,000
credits. Those credits can be set to multiple values: $0.25,
$0.50, $1, $2, $3, $5, $10, and $25 each. Players can wager
between one and three credits per line. King of Coin includes
the Red Screen Free Spins feature, but offers nothing in the way
of multipliers or other features you may find on some of the
company's newer releases.

Loose Lizards

Loose Lizards features a pair of animated
lizards along with some other special effects that separate this
title from the herd of three-reel VGT slot games. This game's
pay table is better than most VGT games, offering a top prize of
7,500 credits. Of course, the Red Screen Free Spin feature is
available, and this title offers multipliers, though only on one
reel. Players can choose their credit size, which ranges from
$0.25 up to $10 per credit. Loose Lizards features a simple
bonus game, called the Bug Money Bonus. When triggered, which is
about once per eight winning spins, the player simply chooses a
bug and a prize amount is revealed.

Reel Fever

Reel Fever uses the same pay table and many of the
same in-game features as Lucky Ducky. That means the big top
prize of 10,000 credits is available on Reel Fever for a
three-coin wager of between $0.75 and $15. Reel Fever is a
fishing-themed slot game, though there's no themed bonus round
or special video clips or anything. The Red Screen Free Spin
feature is available on Reel Fever. This is one of VGT's older
titles, but it's really popular, in part because their main
audience really loves fishing. Don't laugh – this is part of
VGT's genius. They know their audience so well, they can produce
an average slot, slap a fish logo on the front, and offer a
decent pay table and be successful. More power to them.

5-Reel Mechanical Slots

Free Spins of Fortune

Free Spins of Fortune is a typical five-reel VGT slot. The
game offers nine lines, and accepts bets of up to twenty credits
per line, for a total max wager of 180 credits. Available
denominations for wagers are $0.01, $0.02, or $0.05, which means
the max bet is $9 per spin. The game offers a top prize of
392,000 credits, or $19,600 at the max bet and max credit size.
That top prize comes from lining up five of the game's scatter
symbols, which are the game logo. Spinning three or four such
logos results in a win multiplier of 7x and 49x, respectively.
The game is one of VGT's older five-reel titles, and it doesn't
have much in the way of plot or effects.

Gemstone Falls

We included this review of Gemstone Falls to show what we
think is a pretty serious flaw on the part of Virtual Gaming
Technologies. Their five-reel mechanical slots are all pretty
much the same game. The same could be said of their three-reel
designs, but many of them include a gimmick that sets them apart
from one another. In the case of Gemstone Falls, Free Spins of
Fortune, and a few of the other games in the company's five-reel
library, the games lack distinguishing gimmicks. The result is a
slew of boring five-reel games without much replay value. This
is one tone deaf section in a library that (in many other ways)
nails it in terms of variety and replay value. For notes on any
aspect of Gemstone Falls, just read the Free Spins of Fortune
review. All the details are the same – it's just the symbols and
other accoutrements of the game that are different.

Land of the Free Spins

Land of the Free Spins is
(unfortunately) almost more of the same. It has a single
distinguishing feature that makes it stand out from a crowd of
really tone-dear five-reel Class II games produced by VGT.
Basically, you take Free Spins of Fortune, slap a few patriotic
symbols and stickers on the case and the screen, add a unique
bonus round, and you have Land of the Free Spins. The bonus game
that makes this game different enough from the other five-reel
titles is pretty simple. Lining up three of the game's flag
symbols triggers the game, in which you select one of five flags
to raise, revealing a random prize amount in the form of
credits. This symbol could be adapted into a scatter symbol,
adding another element to this pretty standard title, but VGT
didn't go that far. Everything else about this title is
identical to the two described above, down to the top prize and
wagering options.

Mr. Money Bags Free Spinnin'

This is a slight variant on
VGT's popular Mr. Money Bags title. The credit and wagering
options are identical to the other five-reel titles described
here. The only differences between this title and the original
Mr. Money Bags are slightly-improved graphics and the addition
of the company's standard Free Spins feature.

Polar High Roller Free Spinnin'

Similarly, this title ports
the company's popular Polar High Roller title, adds a Red Screen
Free Spins feature, and then follows the company's standard
outline for five-reel titles. Designed for fans of the original
looking for a little more replay value, Polar High Roller Free
Spinnin' was the original inspiration for the entire Red Screen
Free Spins reboot series that VGT is still churning out.

Pirate's Paradise

If you take all the games above, strip away
their gimmicks, features, and other options, and then add a cool
set of pirate-themed bonus games and a unique multiplier system,
you'd have Pirate's Paradise. All the financial details are
identical to the games described above – it's a typical five
reel title from VGT in every way except the multipliers and the
three unique bonus title. Each bonus game involved doing some
dastardly deed – stealing treasure, raiding a port, and fighting
in a duel – in exchange for rewards of coins or free spins. The
multiplier system is based on two sets of scatter symbols, one
in the image of a pirate, the other in the image of a parrot.
The pirate scatter symbols reward a 7x multiplier, while the
parrot symbol rewards a 49x multiplier. It's one of the
better-reviewed five reel games put out by this company, and
it's easy to see why. It's the game with the most replay value
of all of them, and the one that has the most visual appeal.
Players love bonuses. Maybe VGT should have included more games
like this in their five-reel library?

Progressive Slots

Easy Money Jackpot

The first of Virtual Gaming's popular progressive slot
series, Easy Money Jackpot is one of the more entertaining
progressive concepts we've come across, Class II status
notwithstanding. It's actually eight games in one, all classic
titles from their three-reel classic slot series:

• 777 Bourbon Street
• Crazy Cherry
• Hot Red Ruby
• King of Coin
• Lucky Ducky
• Mr. Money Bags
• Reel Fever
• Smooth as Silk

While you play these titles, a tiny percentage of each of
your wagers is paid into a large progressive network, the
largest that Virtual Gaming runs. The progressive prize is
totally random, triggered by any max three-coin wager. Since
each game only accepts $1 per credit wagers, this tends to be a
game for medium-to-high budget players. But thanks to the single
pay line and simple rules of each game, overall winnings are
more common than on the more complex five-reel titles available
by the same company. This game's top progressive payout all-time
is just over a million dollars – impressive for a jackpot that's
only active in a single state.

Mr. Money Bags Vault

This is a local-area progressive slot with a four-tiered top
jackpot system. Because this is a local progressive, the top
prizes tend to hover in the area of $250,000. This progressive
features two classic Mr. Money Bags variants, which the player
can choose at the beginning of a session, or end at any time and
switch to the other game. This is VGT's only progressive title
that accepts credits of varying sizes – players can choose coin
sizes of either $0.25, $0.50, or $1 per credit. The top tier
progressive resets to $6,000 and moves up from there. That's a
pretty high reset value for a small-scale progressive game.
Don't expect much variation in the game play – if you've played
any of VGT's Mr. Money Bags titles, you've played both of the
games in this cabinet, The only real innovation here is the
multi-tier progressive prize.

Hot Red Ruby Progressive

Hot Red Ruby is another local-area progressive, but this one
has even fewer unique features than the recycled Mr. Money Bags
Vault game reviewed above. The Hot Red Ruby game that's set up
here to act as a progressive slot is identical to the Red Spin
Gambler game described below. It literally looks like the same
game with a progressive jackpot featured added on the top.
That's not to say it isn't fun – it is. Between free spins,
multipliers, bonus rounds, and the tempting multi-tiered
progressive top prize that resets to a value of $6,000, it's an
addictive little progressive slot-style Class II game that might
convince slot fans they're on a Vegas casino floor. It's just a
bit repetitive if you've already spent some time playing any of
the Red Spin series, reviewed in the section below.

Polar High Roller Progressive

Kudos to VGT for producing the Polar High Roller Progressive
slot, which actually adds some new features to an older title
besides the addition of a progressive top prize. This game
accepts $1 wagers only, and acts much like the Mr. Money Bags
Vault game described above, in that you can choose from two
classic Polar High Roller titles. The cool thing is, each of
these progressive games has a new bonus round and the new Red
Screen Free Spin feature to add to its replay value.

Red Spin Gambler Slots

Mr. Money Bags Deluxe

This is a video slot version
of Virtual Gaming's most popular slot-style title, Mr. Money
Bags. You can probably tell from the name that this game
includes Virtual Gaming's Red Spin Free Spins feature, which
rewards a random number of free spins (between one and five) on
about every fifth winning spin. This game's gimmick is wild
symbols. The familiar Mr. Money Bags logo pays out 2X your
winning wager, or 3x during Red Screen Free Spins features. The
game's scatter-like system is based on the popular cherry
symbols, two of which wilds pay 9X your winning combination.
Three of those scatter symbols lead to the game's top prize.
This is a five-line game that allows wagers of up to five
credits per line, for a max bet of twenty-five credits. Those
credits can be worth $0.25, $0.50, $1, $2, $5, or $10. The top
prize is 25,000 credits, for a jackpot of between $6,250 and
$250,000. That's a huge top prize for a Class II game.

Video Gaming Technologies Inc

Polar High Roller Multipliers

The Polar High Roller
in the game's title is a hip polar bear character who spends his
time spinning records and dancing behind a turntable. Okay, so
it's a weird theme for a five reel video slot, but at least it's
unique. This is a special video bonus version of the company's
classic Polar High Roller five-reel game. The game's top prize
is 50,000 credits, higher than the average video slot from
Virtual Gaming. Since credits go up to $10 apiece, that's a top
prize of $500,000, one of the company's largest non-progressive
prizes. During the bonus game, a multiplier is added to each of
up to five free spins, starting at 1x and moving up to 5x. This
bonus game also rewards more free spins, and all the game's
features can be retriggered.

Ruby's Red Spin Wilds

Ruby's Red Spin Wilds includes the Red
Screen Free Spins game that VGT is adding to just about all
their new titles – but that's not this game's gimmick. Ruby's
Red is the company's first title to use both traditional stacked
and special nudging stacked wild symbols. This allows multiple
stacked wild symbols to form into a block of wild symbols,
rewarding large prizes more often than traditional wild setups
on VGT titles. Ruby's Red follows VGT's standard credit size and
payout system, accepting wagers between $0.10 and $10, accepting
bets on up to twenty lines for a maximum wager of 100 credits
per spin. The theme of the game is pretty difficult to pin down
– VGT doesn't always obsess about cool immersive themes.
Instead, they hope the nudging wild system and more-frequent
bonus wins and multipliers will keep players coming back.

Video Slots

Cats In Action

Cats In Action is a popular video slot
featuring the character Special Agent Felina. The game follows
her attempts to capture a criminal known as Ratsy Rizzo. The
game offers two special features – a free spins round, a bonus
round called Wild Reels, and a random multiplier system that
pops up on all five reels. The Free Spins game is basic – click
an image and you win a set number of spins, between one and
five. The bonus round sees Felina and Ratsy randomly swatting at
the reels, turning symbols wild and forming additional winning
combinations. All the features in the game can be retriggered.
Cats in Action is an attractive game that wouldn't be out of
place in a bank of video slots in a traditional Class III
casino.

Cameloot

Cameloot is based on the imagery and myth of
Camelot. Cameloot's main gimmick is its three bonus rounds:
Juggles the Jester, The Wizard's Wheel, and Newton the Nudger.
Each game is unique – in one, you try to grab a ball from a
juggler, which randomly rewards you a number of credits. In
another, the magician Merlin appears to spin a magic wheel and
reward a random multiplier and number of free spins. In the
final bonus game, a weird-looking goblin creature will pop up
and turn any losing spin into a decent-sized winner. The top
prize is a majestic 25,000 credits, a little above average for
this company's video slot games. Available credit sizes are one
cent, five cents, and twenty-five cents, and players can wager
up to five credits on nine lines. That gives you a total wager
range of between one and forty-five coins, or $0.01 to $11.45
wagered per spin. That's a very affordable range for a game that
rewards as much as $6,250.

Charmed Destiny

One of VGT's newer slot offerings, Charmed
Destiny tells the story of a young magician in training. It's a
pretty clear nod to Harry Potter fandom, which may be another
smart move on the part of VGT, with new material from the Harry
Potter universe set to hit the big screen. There's a cool
Wizarding bonus game that involves a slight skill element,
testing your ability to hit a virtual target. This game rewards
both free spins and a multiplier for the triggering win. Charmed
Destiny is a bit of a letdown in terms of its pay structure –
this nine line game allows up to forty-five credits per wager,
but thanks to a limited wager range ($1 and up, all the way to
$25), it's not really a fit for budget-minded gamblers. The top
prize of 25,000 credits is a big part of its appeal, but the
cost per spin might prohibit some VGT fans from giving it a
spin.

Frankenstein

At thirty lines and a max bet of ten credits per
line, Frankenstein is not one of VGT's more affordable titles.
In order to gain access to the game's 30,000 credit top prize,
you have to wager 300 credits per spin. Even at one, two, or
five cents per credit, you're looking at a bankroll-draining
$3-per-spin, for a top prize not that much higher than other
more affordable Virtual Gaming video slots. Why did they set the
cost so high? Frankenstein is part of their new XSpin system, an
updated bingo-style decision engine that is faster, allowing for
improved graphics and higher replay value. In other words, this
one's state of the art, and it has a lot of player appeal, with
some of the best-looking graphics and spookiest audio effects
we've heard outside a Vegas gambling floor. Frankenstein
features expanding wilds, random wilds, a system similar to
traditional slot scatter symbols, and a win multiplier that's
randomly triggered and increases your pay out by up to 5x.

Jewels and Gems

A first for Virtual Gaming that they're sure
to repeat, Jewels and Gems is actually ten mini-games in a
single case. This style of game is designed for smaller
properties that want to cram a lot of variety in a smaller floor
size. This Class II multi-game terminal is just starting to
become popular at Virtual Gaming's major Oklahoma tribal spots.
Included is everything from a single-line classic slot to a
Keno-style contest, and traditional eight-liner simulation
games. All games include the company's Red Screen Free-Spin
feature, and most casinos have added Bonus Blast features, to
give the games even more of a video game feel. Virtual Gaming is
at their best when they're trying to hook players for replay
value, and Jewels and Gems is the first in a long line of
planned multi-game releases. Some commenters suggested that the
Jewels and Gems system is what Aristocrat was going after when
they made their billion dollar bid for VGT. We can't confirm
that, but it makes for good copy.

Lizards on the Loose

Based on the company's popular Loose
Lizards single-line slot, Lizards on the Loose is like that
simple game's cooler older brother. Like Frankenstein described
above, Lizards on the Loose requires a lot of credits for a max
bet, thanks to its forty lines and ten credits per line setup. A
max bet of 400 coins is high, even when the game is only set up
to accept one, two, or five-penny wagers. There's a payoff,
though – a literal one. The game's top prize is worth 50,000
credits, the highest of all of Virtual Gaming's video slots.

VGT Slots: A Summary

Class II tribal gaming isn't the world's sexiest topic.
Researching and discussing the merits of an electronic bingo
game designer that mainly services a single state's gaming
industry isn't exactly a cherry assignment. Then again, when
that little Class II designer from Oklahoma attracts the
interest of a major multinational company like Aristocrat, it
makes you sit up and take notice.

Video Gaming Technologies Inc. Vgt Address

What is VGT doing that makes it so attractive to an industry
leader? Besides all the design, customer service, and innovation
accolades they've racked up since entering the Oklahoma tribal
market in 2001, they're doing one thing that will always make a
company successful. They understand their audience.

Yes, game manufacturers have to work within existing federal
and state regulations. Yes, small markets like Oklahoma or the
other tribal gaming areas of the United States struggle to
compete with Las Vegas, Atlantic City, and the Internet. VGT
does both of those things, AND they produce games that their
customers are interested in playing over and over again.

Vgt Gaming Jobs

To us, it looks like Aristocrat saw a talented design firm
following a similar trajectory that they followed, and were
interested in adding that level of innovation and customer
understanding to their own skill set. Clearly, there was no
threat to Aristocrat's holdings, since VGT works mainly with
Native American groups in the American Midwest and South. No,
Aristocrat is looking to improve the replay value of their
titles – and perhaps to enter new restricted markets in
Australia and parts of Asia. Though VGT continues to operate as
an independent entity, we expect Aristocrat to begin releasing
titles influence by Virtual Gaming Technology over the next few
years.