Which Implementations of Loot Boxes Constitute Gambling? A UK Legal Perspective on the Potential Harms of Random Reward Mechanisms
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 15440542 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Leon Y Xiao (0000-0003-0709-0777, The Honourable Society of Lincoln's Inn, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2020 |
| Volume | 20 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 437-454 |
| Publication date | 2020-08-24 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1557-1874 • E-ISSN: 1557-1882 |
| Publisher | Springer Science+Business Media (PUBLISHER • DE) |
| DOI | 10.1007/s11469-020-00372-3 |
| OpenAlex | W3080724584 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 7 |
| References cited | 14 |
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
Advertising · Business · Economics · Implementation · Perspective (graphical · Value (mathematics · Art History and Market Analysis · Computer Science · Gambling Behavior and Treatments · Sexuality, Behavior, and Technology · Artificial Intelligence · Marketing
Reserve your judgment on “Draconian” Chinese video gaming restrictions on children
Why do young people engage with gambling features in videogames
Risky loot box behaviors and gambling disorder among Chinese adult purchasers
Esports between the Sports and Entertainment Industry
Gaming the system
A Perspective on Age Restrictions and Other Harm Reduction Approaches Targeting Youth Online Gambling, Considering Convergences of Gambling and Videogaming
The experiential value of gambling in f2p gamespaces
Science and Human Behavior
Associations between loot box use, problematic gaming and gambling, and gambling-related cognitions
Predatory monetization schemes in video games (e.g. ‘loot boxes’) and internet gaming disorder
Adolescents and loot boxes
Video game loot boxes are linked to problem gambling
Paying for loot boxes is linked to problem gambling, regardless of specific features like cash-out and pay-to-win
The Convergence of Gambling and Digital Media
Video Game Monetization (e.g., ‘Loot Boxes’)
ESRB’s and Pegi’s Self-Regulatory ‘Includes Random Items’ Labels Fail to Ensure Consumer Protection
Conceptualising the Loot Box Transaction as a Gamble Between the Purchasing Player and the Video Game Company
Towards an Ethical Game Design Solution to Loot Boxes
ESports, skins and loot boxes
Why loot boxes could be regulated as gambling
Video game loot boxes are psychologically akin to gambling
| Citations per year | 1.4 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2021 - 2026 (6) |
| Highly cited | No |