Who actually makes zombie slots: 53 studios, 62 titles
Studio counts: 53 studios produced 62 zombie titles
The catalogue lists 62 titles and attributes them to 53 distinct studios. That arithmetic already suggests a fragmented shelf: six studios produced more than one title, while the remainder mostly contribute single entries. The immediate visual of that distribution is an extremely long tail rather than a handful of owners.
Saying the tail is long is not metaphorical here. Forty-seven of the fifty-three studios have exactly one title in the list, which is 47 of the 53 studios. Only KA Gaming has more than two titles, with five entries attributed to it; the five other multi-entry studios each have two titles apiece.
That count matters when you ask who 'owns' a theme. In a normal catalogue dominated by a few large names you expect consolidation; here you instead see near-total decentralisation. The practical consequence is that no single studio dominates the zombie shelf in either quantity or obvious numeric profile.
KA Gaming: five entries including Zombie Land and four recent releases
KA Gaming is the only studio with five zombie titles listed: Zombie Land, Zombie Siege, Chinese Zombie, Zombie Chicken, and Zombie Expert Lock 2 Spin. The list contains both an older title with published numbers and several recent entries whose RTP or maximum win are not published. Zombie Land, the 2005 title, carries the published RTP of 96.11% and volatility MED, with a 1500x maximum win.
The other KA Gaming items show many holes in the catalogue data: Zombie Siege, Chinese Zombie, Zombie Chicken and Zombie Expert Lock 2 Spin have RTPs or maximum wins marked not published or volatility N/A. Those gaps mean the studio presents an uneven numeric profile inside this niche; you can compare one fully specified old title against several under-documented newer ones.
From the catalogue data alone the visible KA Gaming story is mixed: a reliable mid-96% RTP on the oldest entry, and several recent items with unpublished RTP or max win. Where corporate intent would be relevant, the catalogue does not carry it; all we can state is what is present and what is missing in the data panels.
Pragmatic Play and Peter and Sons: two titles each with high volatility entries
Pragmatic Play appears with two titles, Zombie School Megaways and Zombie Carnival, both carrying RTP 95.5% and volatility HIGH, with maximum wins 10000x and 5000x respectively. Peter and Sons also has two titles: Zombie Road with RTP 96.56% and volatility HIGH and a 20000x max, and Zombies at the Door with RTP 96.5% and volatility LOW and a 1200x max.
Comparing these pairs illustrates how two-title studios can still present divergent product strategies. Pragmatic Play's pair are both high-volatility entries with large published maxima, whereas Peter and Sons offers both ends of the volatility scale with a high-cap blockbuster and a modest low-volatility smaller-cap title.
Again, commentary about studio strategy beyond these numbers would be speculation; the catalogue does not carry studio corporate notes. What the data does show is that having multiple entries does not force a uniform numeric profile: volatility and maximum win can differ substantially between a studio's titles.
Swintt, Endorphina and Games Global: the two-title cluster with mixed disclosure
Swintt's two entries are Pinateros Vs Zombies (RTP 96.17%, MED, max 6000x) and Zombies on Vacation (RTP 94.61%, MED, max 2480x). Endorphina contributes 100 Zombies Dice and 100 Zombies; both list RTP around 96% but have not published maximum wins for one of the pair. Games Global lists Lost Vegas Zombie Scratch with a 250x max and Alaxe in Zombieland with max not published and RTP 96.55%.
These pairs highlight two things: first, two-title studios can present clear numeric contrasts within the same volatility band; second, some titles leave holes in the catalogue, notably unpublished maximum wins. Endorphina’s pair is numerically near-identical on RTP while Games Global's pair includes a tiny-sum scratch product alongside a more conventionally documented title.
For a reader comparing studios, the takeaway in plain numbers is this: two-title studios can either be consistent around a set of figures or deliberately divergent; where numbers are missing the studio’s own info panel is the only place to check, because the catalogue marks the absence rather than guessing it.
The very long tail: 47 studios provide exactly one zombie title each
Forty-seven studios in the catalogue contribute exactly one title apiece, which is 47 of the 53 studios. Those singletons form the long tail of the distribution and are numerically varied: some publish high RTPs and large maxima, others have low RTPs or small published maxima, and several leave RTP or max win fields not published.
This long tail contains extremes on both ends of published numbers: the highest published RTPs and the lowest published RTPs both sit among single-title studios, as do some of the largest and smallest published maximum wins. The fragmentation therefore contains both outliers and modest, ordinary entries.
Because most studios appear only once, the shelf feels like a collection of one-offs rather than a curated series by a few proprietors. That observation is strictly about the catalogue’s attribution and numeric fields; the catalogue does not carry any corporate context to explain why that pattern exists.
Which studios publish least: RTP and max win holes across the list
Data holes are visible: nine titles have no published RTP and nineteen have no published maximum win. Many of the titles with missing figures come from studios that otherwise appear only once in the catalogue, and several of the KA Gaming entries also lack published numbers. The volatility field contains 27 N/A entries, which the catalogue marks as not published rather than low or high.
Studios that supply fewer published metrics are not automatically small or new according to the catalogue; they simply did not publish those fields in their game panels. For example, the catalogue marks Plants vs. Zombies: Wild Gargantuar with a published maximum win but volatility N/A and an RTP of 91.56% while its release date is not published, so gaps can appear in every direction.
If you are judging which studios are most transparent on the shelf, the plain metric to inspect is how many of a studio’s titles list RTP and maximum win. The catalogue shows that missing fields are common and concentrated in the long tail, but it does not record studio reasons or public statements about disclosure choices.
High-cap versus low-cap titles among the singletons
Maximum wins among the catalogue range from small figures like 200x up to extraordinary published numbers such as 3,608,855x for Chicken vs Zombies, which the catalogue marks as ADJUSTED. Single-title studios occupy both ends: some singletons list tiny maxima such as 200x for Zombie's Fortune, others list monster caps such as 1,000,000x for Plants vs. Zombies: Wild Gargantuar.
Because singletons are so common, the high-cap and low-cap examples are broadly distributed across different studios rather than concentrated among the multi-title names. That means a player scanning for a particular numeric profile—very large theoretical upside or a compact capped game—will find options in many studios, but must inspect each game's published numbers individually.
The catalogue’s treatment of ADJUSTED maxima is important: Chicken vs Zombies is marked ADJUSTED, and the note in the catalogue cautions that ADJUSTED uses the provider's own scale and is not directly comparable with other published maxima. That caveat prevents naive comparisons across certain titles.
RTP extremes: 97.67% down to 90.13% among the shelf
Published RTPs in the catalogue run from 90.13% up to 97.67%. The highest published RTP belongs to Zombie Queen at 97.67%, while the lowest published RTP is Zombie Town at 90.13%. Those extremes sit within the same theme, which illustrates the numerical diversity present on the zombie shelf.
High RTPs appear on titles from a variety of studios, including singletons and multi-entry vendors, so a high published RTP is not exclusive to the studios that have more than one zombie title. Conversely, some multi-title studios sit around the mid-96% band while singletons populate both above and below that band.
For a reader comparing RTPs across the shelf, the catalogue lists 53 of 62 titles with published RTP figures and 18 titles that provide an RTP range as a feature. Where an RTP is not published the catalogue marks it as not published and the game's own info panel is the place to look for any later updates.
Mechanics and volatility: hold-and-win appears eight times, HIGH volatility common
Mechanics labelled as hold-and-win, respin or lock appear in eight titles listed explicitly by the catalogue. Examples of these mechanics are distributed across both multi-title and single-title studios. The presence of those mechanics tends to correlate with higher published maximum wins in a few cases but not universally; the catalogue presents each game's features alongside its numerical fields for direct comparison.
Volatility labels are uneven: the catalogue carries 15 HIGH, 11 MED, 4 MED-HIGH, 2 LOW-MED, 2 LOW and 1 ADJUSTED, with 27 entries marked N/A. HIGH volatility is therefore well-represented among zombie-titled games, and many of the largest published maxima sit behind HIGH volatility tags, but several MED and LOW entries demonstrate the full spread.
If you want to form an impression of how a niche theme behaves as a session, the catalogue numbers indicate variety rather than a single behavioural pattern. The distribution of mechanics, volatility labels and maximum wins shows that zombie-titled products are numerically diverse rather than uniformly high-risk or low-risk.
