How Engine review works

A practical guide to getting a slot through review on Engine (formerly Stake Engine), written from our own submissions.

Illustration of Arch, the Arcabo Games mascot, at a review desk with a magnifying glass and a rubber stamp — Arch, our mascot, reviewing a submission before it goes in.

Two gates, not one.

A game on Engine passes two separate gates. The first is automated: the maths and compliance checks in the publisher dashboard. The second is a review by people, and it is the one that decides whether the game is published.

Many first-time publishers treat a green dashboard as the finish line. It is not. A game can pass every automated check and still be held back at review, and the review is where most of the work pays off.

What the reviewers score.

In our own submissions, each game received three separate reviewer scores on a scale of 1 to 3, shown together as a total out of 9. Publication depended on that total clearing a threshold, which in our records sat at 6 out of 9. One of our games scored 5 out of 9 and was not published, with no itemised notes attached to the score.

Stake publishes its own quality guidance for publishers. Most of the risks it names are about presentation rather than maths:

Generic or AI-looking art. Assets that could belong to any game.
Inconsistent visual design. Symbols, backgrounds and interface that do not share one style.
Weak animation. Motion that feels unfinished or does not explain what happened.
Missing engaging features. Nothing that gives players a reason to keep spinning.
Shallow gameplay. The one risk on the list that is mostly about design and maths.

In our experience, presentation carries most of the weight. A coherent symbol set, finished animation and a clear interface do more for a score than an unusual mechanic.

Before you submit: a checklist.

One visual system. Every symbol, background and panel drawn in the same style, checked at real size on the real grid.
Animation for every state. Idles, wins by tier, anticipation and feature intros, all reviewed in the running game.
A feature worth talking about. Something a player would describe to a friend, not only a free spins round.
Clean maths. RTP reconciled against the target and payouts on the platform grid, so nothing distracts from the presentation.
A short quality case. A few sentences on the theme, the mechanic and what makes the game distinct, ready before you submit.

Reviewers see the build you published, not the one on your machine. Fixes that have not been uploaded do not count, so publish the version you want judged.

What goes in the quality case.

The game in one line. Theme and mechanic, for example a 7x7 cluster slot about a sunken vault.
What makes it distinct. The feature, the art direction or the character cast that sets it apart from similar games.
How it plays. The flow from base game to feature, and what the player sees at each step.
Where it belongs. The lobby section you have in mind, and why the game suits it.

Keep it short and specific. Its job is to help a reviewer see the game the way you designed it, not to repeat the game rules.

If the score is low.

A low score is not always the end. We have seen a reviewer score rise from 1 to 3 on re-review after the publisher set out a concrete case for the game. Prepare that case before you submit, because scores can arrive without notes and you will want to respond quickly.

We also treat a studio's first submission with extra care. There are signs that a debut score colours how later games are read. That is not proven, but it costs little to make the first game the most polished one.

After approval: where the game lands.

Passing review gets a game listed; it does not guarantee players. Publishers who have shared their results report that a game in a smaller, less crowded section of the lobby can hold players far longer than a similar game in the main slot catalogue, where many new titles arrive every day. Plan the concept with its likely section in mind.

On terms, Stake describes a 10% GGR revenue share on its Engine page and lists Engine games as exclusive to Stake. Check the current publisher agreement for ownership, exclusivity and revenue terms before you submit.

How we can help.

We build our own games for Engine and help other publishers do the same: art and Spine animation built to hold up at review, a web-sdk frontend, a math-sdk model with the RTP locked, and the quality case. Our Engine publishing page has the details, including an Engine starter package for smaller publishers.

Questions studios ask.

Do reviewers look at the maths?

The maths is checked automatically in the dashboard. In our experience the human review focuses on how the game looks, moves and feels.

What score do you need to be published?

In our records, publication followed a combined score of at least 6 out of 9 from three reviewers. Engine sets the rules, so treat that as our observation rather than a published rule.

Can you appeal a low score?

We have seen scores raised on re-review when the publisher made a clear, specific case for the game. Prepare it in advance.

Can Arcabo prepare our game for review?

Yes. We can review your build, fix what is likely to cost points and write the quality case, or build the game with you from the start.