Game UX Notes

Explaining RTP and volatility inside the UI without a lecture

A simple info card with a five-step scale in front of blurred reels — explaining volatility in the interface

The RTP has to be in the game — in Great Britain that is a technical standard, not a courtesy — but nothing requires it to be understood, and most implementations make sure it is not. "RTP 96.21%" in a help screen, three menus deep, in the same type size as the copyright line, satisfies the rule and teaches nothing.

Last reviewed: 21 September 2026 · Author: Rory Finch

What the rule asks for, and what the player needs

The Gambling Commission's RTS 3C requires that, before committing to gamble, a customer has "information that may reasonably be expected to enable the customer to make an informed decision about his or her chances of winning" — for slots, the return-to-player percentage. The requirement is about availability. The player's need is different: they want to know whether this game is going to feel stingy or generous, and how long their money is likely to last. The number answers a question they are not asking.

The design task is to present the mandatory fact in a way that also answers the real question.

Where the number should live

What should not happen: the number appearing only in a PDF of the rules, or only in the lobby's tile detail and not in the game.

Turning volatility into something felt

Volatility is a distribution. Players do not think in distributions; they think in stories — "it goes quiet for ages then pays big" or "it dribbles". The UI can tell that story with three devices, none of which needs a statistics lesson:

  1. A labelled scale with a sentence. Not just "High", but "High — long gaps between wins, bigger bonus payouts". The sentence is the explanation; the label is the anchor.
  2. A contrast, not a lecture. "Compared with a low-volatility game, expect fewer wins and larger ones." One line, and the player has the concept.
  3. A bonus frequency, where the studio publishes one. "Bonus roughly 1 in 200 spins" is the single most useful number for setting expectations, and it is almost never surfaced.

Review sites have started doing some of this work outside the game. The better ones put the RTP range and a plain-language volatility line above the fold, ahead of the screenshots — which is exactly where a game's own info screen should put them.

What not to do

A worked info panel

How this game pays Return to player: 96.2% (this version). Over a very large number of spins the game returns about 96p of every £1 staked. Any single session can be far above or below this. Volatility: High — long gaps between wins; most of the value is in the bonus round. Bonus round: roughly 1 in 180 spins on average. Maximum win: 10,000× stake, extremely rare.

Five lines. Everything the rule requires, and the story a player actually needs. The figures are placeholders; the shape is the point.

Quick answers

Should the panel show hit frequency? If the studio publishes it, yes, with a sentence: "About 1 in 4 spins pays something — often less than the stake."

Does explaining volatility reduce play? In my experience it reduces complaints, and it moves players toward games that suit them. Both are good outcomes for a product that intends to be used for years.

Is any of this required? Only the RTP disclosure. The rest is what a product does when it respects the person using it.

Source for the rule: Gambling Commission, RTS 3: rules, game descriptions and the likelihood of winning. Panel figures are illustrative.