Are Loot Boxes Gambling? Random Reward Mechanisms in Video Games

Nielsen, Rune Kristian Lundedal; Grabarczyk, Paweł

doi:10.26503/todigra.v4i3.104

Cited by 78 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…King and Delfabbro viewed loot boxes as only one type of 'predatory monetization'. This perspective is comparable to that of Nielsen and Grabarczyk (2018), who, from historical and ludological perspectives, suggested that loot boxes are only 'a particular implementation of a more general phenomenon', which they coined Random Reward Mechanisms (RRMs) (pp. 2-3).…”

Section: The Expanding Definition Of 'Predatory Monetisation' and 'Rrms'mentioning

confidence: 64%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Towards an Ethical Game Design Solution to Loot Boxes: a Commentary on King and Delfabbro

Xiao

Henderson

2019

Int J Ment Health Addiction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

King and Delfabbro (2019b) proposed the adoption of social responsibility measures to combat predatory monetisation in video games, such as loot boxes. This paper rectifies a game example mistakenly used by King and Delfabbro and provides further game examples to illustrate, critique and extend the proposed measures. This paper argues that the proposed measures are unlikely to be widely adopted by the video game industry, given the industry's economic interests in the continued unhindered implementation of predatory monetisation, their preference for continued 'self-regulation' and their past resistance against potential regulation. With reference to South Korean law, this paper explores the possibility of codifying and enforcing the proposed measures as law and argues that overly paternalistic regulations are insensible and impractical. This paper recommends the use of regulatory nudging to encourage video game companies through incentives, such as discretionary grants and tax relief schemes, to adopt the proposed social responsibility measures and develop towards an ethical game design framework.

show abstract

Section: The Expanding Definition Of 'Predatory Monetisation' and 'Rrms'mentioning

confidence: 64%

“…6-7). Nielsen and Grabarczyk (2018) argued that the classic mechanic of killing an in-game enemy for a random in-game reward of no real-world value constitutes a historical implementation of an RRM (pp. 3-4).…”

Section: Predatory Addiction-inducing Time-consumption?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards an Ethical Game Design Solution to Loot Boxes: a Commentary on King and Delfabbro

Xiao

Henderson

2019

Int J Ment Health Addiction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Taking into account the historical development of video games, Nielsen and Grabarczyk (2019) argued that loot boxes are only 'a particular implementation of a more general phenomenon,' which they coined 'Random Reward Mechanisms' (RRMs), which have been implemented in video games for decades (pp. 173-175 The 'eligibility condition' refers to how the player is able to 'trigger the random procedure.'…”

Section: Categorising Loot Boxes As Rrmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Which Implementations of Loot Boxes Constitute Gambling? A UK Legal Perspective on the Potential Harms of Random Reward Mechanisms

Xiao

2020

Int J Ment Health Addiction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Loot boxes are virtual items in video games that offer the player randomised in-game rewards of uncertain in-game and real-world value. Paid loot boxes represent a lucrative and prevalent contemporary monetisation method that encourages repeat purchase through randomisation. The psychology literature has consistently reported a relationship between loot boxes and problem gambling. However, various implementations of loot boxes have not been sufficiently differentiated and separately examined. The literature and gambling regulators have generally argued that only loot boxes that cost real-world money to buy, and offer rewards that can be transferred to other players and are consequently worth real-world money, constitute 'gambling.' This paper identifies the potential harms of two other types of loot box: one does not cost real-world money to buy and the other does not offer rewards that are worth real-world money and argues that both may constitute 'gambling' under UK law. This paper hypothesises that even loot boxes that neither cost real-world money to buy nor offer rewards that are worth real-world money may be potentially harmful as they may normalise gambling behaviours. This paper highlights that, when the game's design and economy are exploited by players, a particular implementation of loot boxes may involve real-world money, potentially contrary to the game company's intentions, and thereby effectively constitute 'gambling.' This paper recommends that future empirical research separately examine the potential harms of each type of loot box.

show abstract

“…'Loot boxes' are virtual video game items yielding randomised rewards of in-game and potential real-world value (Drummond et al, 2020;Nielsen and Grabarczyk, 2019;Rockloff et al, 2020;Xiao, 2020c). Some loot boxes can be 'opened' for free, e.g., after completing in-game tasks (Nielsen and Grabarczyk, 2019;Rockloff et al, 2020;Xiao, 2020d). However, this paper focuses on paid loot boxes that require payment of real-world money to open.…”

Section: Loot Boxes Disordered Gambling and Regulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gaming the system: sub-optimal compliance with loot box probability disclosure regulations in China

Xiao¹,

Ll²,

Yang³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Paid loot boxes yield randomised rewards in video games; their use is linked to disordered gambling and they are present in approximately half of UK video games. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) is unique in legally requiring video game companies to disclose the probabilities of obtaining loot box rewards. This study assesses the prevalence of loot boxes in the 100 highest-grossing PRC iPhone games and companies’ discretionary interpretations of these disclosure regulations. Overall, 91% of games included at least one loot box, and 90.5% of games deemed suitable for children aged 12+ contained loot boxes. For games with loot boxes, disclosure statements could not be found for 4.4% of games; website-only disclosures were found for 38.5% of games; in-game-only disclosures were found for 23.1% of games; disclosures were found at both locations for 34.1% of games. Six distinct forms of in-game disclosures were identified, as were five forms of website disclosures. Overall, 13.6% of website disclosures could be considered reasonably prominent, and 9.6% of in- game disclosures were shown automatically. Loot boxes are prevalent in the most-popular PRC video games, but only a minority of games disclose the probabilities of obtaining randomised rewards reasonably prominently.

show abstract

Are Loot Boxes Gambling? Random Reward Mechanisms in Video Games

Cited by 78 publications

References 11 publications

Towards an Ethical Game Design Solution to Loot Boxes: a Commentary on King and Delfabbro

Towards an Ethical Game Design Solution to Loot Boxes: a Commentary on King and Delfabbro

Which Implementations of Loot Boxes Constitute Gambling? A UK Legal Perspective on the Potential Harms of Random Reward Mechanisms

Gaming the system: sub-optimal compliance with loot box probability disclosure regulations in China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About