Secondary analysis of loot box data: Are high-spending "whales" wealthy gamers or problem gamblers?

The Mediating Role of Problematic Use of Loot Boxes Between Internet Gaming Disorder and Online Gambling Disorder: Cross-Sectional Analytical Study

Background

The video game industry has introduced a new form of monetization through microtransactions. A controversial example has been the so-called "loot boxes" (LBs) as virtual objects, which are randomized and bought with legal money. In recent years, LBs have come to connect 2 distinct problem behaviors, namely internet gaming disorder (IGD) and online gambling disorder (OGD). Many association studies have been conducted on the 3 constructs, but few have delved into the relationship of problematic use of LBs (PU-LB) with IGD and OGD.

Objective

This study aims to explore the mediating role of the PU-LB between IGD and OGD.

Methods

This cross-sectional and analytical study used incidental sampling in 24 Spanish schools. The final sample consisted of 542 participants (male: n=523, 96.5%; age: range 11-30 y) who played video games, bought LBs, and had gambled online in the last 12 months. Participants then completed the Spanish versions of the Internet Gaming Disorder Scale-Short Form, Online Gambling Disorder Questionnaire, and PU-LB scale.

Results

IGD scores were found to be significantly associated with both PU-LB (r=0.473, P<.001) and OGD (r=0.209, P<.001). Moreover, PU-LB was significantly associated with OGD (r=0.351, P<.001). The structural equation model results indicated that IGD had no significant direct effect on OGD (P=.903). However, the indirect effect of IGD on OGD through PU-LB was significant (P<.001). Therefore, PU-LB fully mediated the relationship between IGD and OGD. Furthermore, these results were found in the subsamples of both minors (<18 y) and young adults (≥18 y).

Conclusions

It is suggested that there is a mediation effect of problematic LB use between internet gambling and online gambling problems in both minors and young adults. This has potential practical implications by providing more evidence on how LBs have become a hinge feature between 2 clinically relevant and independent issues. In this regard, adequate industry self-regulation is needed, and effective legislation for the protection of minors is necessary.

The associations between autistic characteristics and microtransaction spending

Microtransactions provide optional, virtual, video game goods that, for an additional cost to the player, provide additional game content and alter the gameplay experience. Loot boxes-a specific form of microtransaction-offer randomised rewards in exchange for payment, and are argued to be structurally and psychologically similar to gambling. Nascent research suggests that a link exists between autism and both problematic gaming and problematic gambling. Here, we investigated the relationships between autistic characteristics and experiences, and excessive video gaming and microtransaction expenditure. A sample of 1178 adults from Australia, Aotearoa, and The United States were recruited from Prolific Academic, and completed a survey measuring in-game expenditure, autistic characteristics and experiences, problematic gaming, problematic gambling, and risky loot box use. Analyses showed positive associations between autistic characteristics and experiences with problematic gaming and problem gambling symptomatology. However, results also showed a small, negative association between autistic characteristics and experiences and spending on loot boxes when problem gambling symptoms, problematic gaming, and risky loot box use were statistically controlled for. These results suggest that autistic gamers may be vulnerable to problematic gaming and gambling, but that this effect does not extend to the purchasing of microtransactions.

Loot boxes, gambling-related risk factors, and mental health in Mainland China: A large-scale survey

Loot boxes can be bought with real-world money to obtain random content inside video games. Loot boxes are viewed by many as gambling-like and are prevalently implemented globally. Previous Western and international studies have consistently found loot box spending to be positively correlated with problem gambling. Previous Western studies presented mixed results as to the correlations between loot box purchasing and gambling-related risk factors, mental wellbeing, and psychological distress. A large-scale survey of adult video game players from the People's Republic of China (PRC) (N = 2601) was conducted through Tencent Survey. The positive correlations between loot box spending and problem gambling, and between loot box spending and problem videogaming, were successfully replicated. However, other potential risk factors (i.e., impulsivity/impulsiveness; binary past-year gambling participation status; and sensation-seeking tendencies) either did not positively correlate with loot box spending or only did so weakly. Contrary to expectations, high impulsivity was negatively associated with loot box engagement. The Risky Loot Box Index (RLI) most strongly positively correlated with, and was the best predictor in multiple linear regression models for, loot box spending. The RLI may be effective at measuring loot box harms cross-culturally. A surprising weak positive correlation was found between loot box engagement and PRC players' mental wellbeing, and high psychological distress unexpectedly negatively predicted loot box purchasing. Although gambling-like, the risk and protective factors of loot boxes are seemingly different, meaning they should rightfully be treated as novel products. Cross-cultural research can contribute to a better understanding of loot box harms.

Exploring the relationships between psychological variables and loot box engagement, part 2: exploratory analyses of complex relationships

In a pre-registered survey linked to this paper (Exploring the relationships between psychological variables and loot box engagement, part 1: pre-registered hypotheses), we confirmed bivariate associations between engagement with loot boxes (purchasable randomized rewards in video games) and measures of problem gambling, problem video gaming, impulsivity, gambling cognitions, experiences of game-related 'flow', psychological distress and reduced wellbeing. However, these variables have complex relationships, so to gain further insights, we analysed the dataset (1495 gamers who purchase loot boxes and 1223 purchasers of non-randomized content) in a series of Bayesian mixed-effects multiple regressions with a zero-inflation component. The results challenge some well-established results in the literature, including associations between loot box engagement and problematic gambling measures, instead suggesting that this relationship might be underpinned by shared variance with problem video gaming and gambling-related cognitions. An entirely novel discovery revealed a complex interaction between experiences of flow and loot box engagement. Distress and wellbeing are both (somewhat contradictorily) predictive of participants engaging with loot boxes, but neither correlate with increasing loot box risky engagement/spend (among those who engage). Our findings unravel some of the nuances underpinning loot box engagement, yet remain consistent with narratives that policy action on loot boxes will have benefits for harm minimization.

Exploring the relationships between psychological variables and loot box engagement, part 1: pre-registered hypotheses

Loot boxes are purchasable randomized rewards in video games that share structural and psychological similarities with gambling. Systematic review evidence has established reproducible associations between loot box purchasing and both problem gambling and problem video gaming, perhaps driven by a range of overlapping psychological processes (e.g. impulsivity, gambling-related cognitions, etc.) It has also been argued that loot box engagement may have negative influences on player financial and psychological wellbeing. We conducted a pre-registered survey of 1495 loot box purchasing gamers (LB cohort) and 1223 gamers who purchase other, non-randomized game content (nLB cohort). Our survey confirms 15 of our 23 pre-registered hypotheses against our primary outcome (risky loot box engagement), establishing associations with problem gambling, problem gaming, impulsivity, gambling cognitions, experiences of game-related 'flow' and specific 'distraction and compulsion' motivations for purchase. Results with hypotheses concerning potential harms established that risky loot box engagement was negatively correlated with wellbeing and positively correlated with distress. Overall, results indicate that any risks from loot boxes are liable to disproportionately affect various 'at risk' cohorts (e.g. those experiencing problem gambling or video gaming), thereby reiterating calls for policy action on loot boxes.

Loot box purchasing and indebtedness: The role of psychosocial factors and problem gambling

Introduction

Loot boxes are increasingly common random-reward monetization mechanisms in digital games. They are popular among gamblers and pose various risks due to their gambling-like nature, but little is known about psychosocial vulnerabilities and financial consequences of purchasing them. This article examined psychosocial associations with self-reported increase in loot box purchasing and indebtedness among past-year gamblers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

Cross-sectional survey data were collected in April 2021 from Finnish, Swedish, and British past-year gamblers aged 18 to 75 (n = 2,022). Measures of loneliness, psychological resilience, and problem gambling were studied in relation to loot box purchasing and indebtedness. Structural equation modeling was used as an analytical technique.

Results

Loneliness was positively associated with self-reported increase in loot box purchasing. No evidence was found regarding the protective role of psychological resilience in loot box purchasing. Increased loot box purchasing was associated with problem gambling. Problem gambling mediated the relationship between loot box purchasing and indebtedness.

Conclusions

The findings bring valuable insight into the psychosocial vulnerabilities and financial consequences in loot box purchasing. Loot box purchasing can add to one's financial strain particularly among vulnerable individuals such as problem gamblers, making it crucial to regulate such monetization practices.

What are the odds? Poor compliance with UK loot box probability disclosure industry self-regulation

Loot boxes are purchased in video games to obtain randomised rewards of varying value and are thus psychologically akin to gambling. Disclosing the probabilities of obtaining loot box rewards may reduce overspending, in a similar vein to related disclosure approaches in gambling. Presently, this consumer protection measure has been adopted as law only in the People's Republic of China (PRC). In other countries, the videogaming industry has generally adopted this measure as self-regulation. However, self-regulation conflicts with commercial interests and might not maximally promote public welfare. The loot box prevalence rate amongst the 100 highest-grossing UK iPhone games was 77% in mid-2021. The compliance rate with probability disclosure industry self-regulation was only 64.0%, significantly lower than that of PRC legal regulation (95.6%). In addition, UK games generally made insufficiently prominent and difficult-to-access disclosures both in-game and on the game's official website. Significantly fewer UK games disclosed probabilities on their official websites (21.3%) when compared to 72.5% of PRC games. Only one of 75 UK games (1.3%) adopted the most prominent disclosure format of automatically displaying the probabilities on the in-game purchase page. Policymakers should demand more accountable forms of industry self-regulation or impose direct legal regulation to ensure consumer protection.

Opening Pandora's Loot Box: Weak Links Between Gambling and Loot Box Expenditure in China, and Player Opinions on Probability Disclosures and Pity-Timers

Loot boxes are quasi-gambling virtual products in video games that provide randomised rewards of varying value. Previous studies in Western contexts have identified a positive correlation between loot box purchasing and problem gambling severity. A preregistered survey of People's Republic of China (PRC) video game players (N = 879) failed to replicate this correlation. We observed statistically significant but weak positive correlations between loot box expenditure and past-year gambling participation, and between loot box expenditure and impulsiveness. This study cannot prove that loot boxes are not disproportionately purchased by people with problem gambling symptomatology in the PRC or that PRC players are not potentially at risk of loot box-related harms. Instead, the evidence suggests that the relationship between loot boxes and gambling might be weaker in the PRC than in Western countries. We identified multiple unique factors about the PRC that might be affecting this relationship. For example, the lotteries are the only legally permitted form of gambling. More gamified electronic gambling products are unavailable. The limited availability of gambling meant that a low level of gambling participation (n = 87) was observed, which is a limitation of this study. Additionally, the PRC is presently the only country to legally require loot box probability disclosures as a consumer protection measure. Most loot box purchasers (84.6%) reported seeing loot box probability disclosures, but only 19.3% of this group reported consequently spending less money. Most loot box purchasers (86.9%) thought that pity-timers, which increase the winning probabilities of obtaining rarer rewards, are appropriate for implementation. Future loot box research should give greater consideration to differing cultural contexts and novel consumer protection measures.

Gaming disorder: A summary of its characteristics and aetiology

The emergence, development, and maintenance of gaming disorder (GD) is the result of an interplay between gaming-related factors, individual factors, and environmental factors. None of these alone are sufficient to cause a disordered state, but it is the interactive co-occurrence of all these factors, which in some cases leads to GD. The goal of the present paper is to discuss in detail these three factors based on relevant and recent findings of the literature. Among gaming-related factors, we discuss online vs. offline videogames, the role of game genres, structural characteristics, game design elements, as well as some important monetization techniques. Among individual factors demographic risk factors, personality traits, motivational factors, comorbid psychopathology, genetic predisposition, and neurobiological processes are considered. Finally, among environmental factors we discuss family factors, early life experiences, the role of peers and school-related factors, as well as the broader context of culture including the popularity of esports.

Beneath the label: unsatisfactory compliance with ESRB, PEGI and IARC industry self-regulation requiring loot box presence warning labels by video game companies

Loot boxes in video games are a form of in-game transactions with randomized elements. Concerns have been raised about loot boxes' similarities with gambling and their potential harms (e.g. overspending). Recognizing players' and parents' concerns, in mid-2020, the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) and PEGI (Pan-European Game Information) announced that games containing loot boxes or any forms of in-game transactions with randomized elements will be marked by a new label stating 'In-Game Purchases (Includes Random Items)'. The same label has also been adopted by the International Age Rating Coalition (IARC) and thereby assigned to games available on digital storefronts, e.g. the Google Play Store. The label is intended to provide more information to consumers and allow them to make more informed purchasing decisions. This measure is not legally binding and has been adopted as industry self-regulation or corporate social responsibility. Previous research has suggested that industry self-regulation might not be effectively complied with due to conflicting commercial interests. Compliance with the ESRB's, PEGI's and IARC's loot box presence warning label was assessed in two studies. The first study found that 60.6% of all games labelled by either the ESRB or PEGI (or 16.1% using a more equitable methodology) were not labelled by the other. The majority of the inconsistencies were caused by the ESRB refusing to apply the measure retroactively. Five instances where one age rating organization culpably failed to accurately identify loot box presence were identified (although only two cases were admitted by the relevant organization). Generally, with newly released games, consumers can rely on the PEGI and ESRB labels. PEGI has retroactively labelled many older games, meaning that consumers can expect the labelling to be accurate. However, due to the ESRB's policies (which it has refused to improve), North American consumers cannot rely on the label for many older games containing loot boxes, unlike their European counterparts. The data suggest that the loot box issue is far more pressing on mobile platforms than console/PC platforms. The second study found that 71.0% of popular games containing loot boxes on the Google Play Store (whose age rating system is regulated through IARC) did not display the label and were therefore non-compliant. The IARC's current policy on the Google Play Store is that only games submitted for rating after February 2022 are required to be labelled. This policy (which the IARC has refused to improve) means that most popular and high-grossing games can be, and presently are, marketed without the label, thus significantly reducing the measure's scope and potential benefit. The Apple App Store still does not allow loot box presence to be disclosed. At present, consumers and parents cannot rely on this self-regulatory measure to provide accurate information as to loot box presence for mobile games. Due to their immense scale, the mobile markets pose regulatory and enforcement challenges that PEGI admits are not yet resolved. The mere existence of this measure cannot be used to justify the non-regulation of loot boxes by governments, given the poor compliance and doubtful efficacy (even if when complied with satisfactorily). Improvements to the existing age rating systems are proposed. Preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/E6QBM (date of in-principle acceptance: 12 January 2023).

The relationship between psycho-environmental characteristics and wellbeing in non-spending players of certain mobile games

Revenue generation in modern digital games is often dependent on in-game continuous player spending. This brings concerns that games may be including features which drive player spending in potentially harmful ways. Moreover, it is unknown what types of individuals may be vulnerable to these design-driven harms. We used player-donated, objective data of playtime and in-game spending from a sample of 295 players of games previously identified as 'designed to drive spending'. We combined this with psycho-environmental characteristics and wellbeing measures administered to the players. Quantile regression analyses did not show an interaction between player characteristics and playtime/spend as predictors of wellbeing outcomes; nor did we find a difference in wellbeing between players of these games and games with alternative monetization models. This is discussed in light of a low proportion of spenders in the sample, which may affect results pertaining to the moderating role of spend. However, it suggests that while design features in games aiming to drive player spend may be unethical and problematic, they may not necessarily cause harm to the normative player.

Do Gamers Play for Money? A Moderated Mediation of Gaming Motives, Relative Deprivation, and Upward Mobility

Past research indicates strong monetary motives for gambling often elevate an individual's risk of experiencing symptoms of gambling disorder, with personal relative deprivation (PRD) and upward mobility (UM) identified as key factors in this relationship. Nevertheless, few studies have examined how financial motives, PRD, and UM might interact for people playing modern video games-many of which offer financial incentives to encourage participation. Due to the overlap between gambling and (video) gaming, evidence suggests disordered gambling and disordered gaming might also share similarities. Therefore, the present study explored whether PRD influences associations between playing video games for financial motives, symptoms of Internet gaming disorder (IGD), and UM in two samples: 797 college students (Study 1) and 179 adult gamers over 25 years old (Study 2). Results from Study 1 revealed more PRD predicted more IGD symptoms, with higher financial gaming motives mediating the relationship. In Study 2, PRD also predicted IGD severity, but only coping motives appeared to mediate the positive association between PRD and IGD severity. In both samples, perceived UM inversely moderated the effect of PRD on one's financial or coping gaming motives. These findings suggest financial motives for video games might lead to more problematic forms of participation for younger adults and negative perceptions of PRD and UM might interact, similar to gambling, to elevate a gamer's vulnerability for IGD.

Understanding the mechanics and consumer risks associated with play-to-earn (P2E) gaming

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Play-to-earn (P2E) gaming is a newly emerging form of gaming increasingly based on blockchain technology. In this paper, we examine the mechanics and business model of these games and their potential benefits and risks for players.

METHODS

The paper draws upon and critically synthesises the developing published literature on predatory monetization in gaming as well as objective market data drawn from credible online sources.

RESULTS

P2E gaming blurs the boundaries between gaming and trading and may not yield many of the benefits promoted to consumers or otherwise conveyed through marketing and social media messaging. Particular risks include the deflationary nature of reward currencies and the asymmetric reward structures that heavily favour early investors and exploit late adopters.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This paper highlights the need for greater consumer awareness of the mechanics and risks of these new gaming models. It will be important for business models to be more transparent and designed so as to encourage more equitable game outcomes, sustainable returns, a balance between intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, and protection for potentially vulnerable players.

Loot box engagement: relationships with educational attainment, employment status and earnings in a cohort of 16 000 United Kingdom gamers

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Loot boxes are purchasable randomised rewards in video games that share structural and psychological similarities with gambling. Systematic review evidence has established reproducible associations between loot box purchasing and both problem gambling and problem video gaming. We aimed to measure the association between loot box engagement and socioeconomic correlates.

DESIGN

The study was a cross-sectional online survey using the recruitment platform, Prolific.

SETTING

United Kingdom (UK).

PARTICIPANTS

A cohort of 16 196 UK adults (18 + years) self-reporting as video gamers.

MEASUREMENTS

Respondents were asked about their game-related purchasing behaviour (including loot boxes), recent monthly spend on loot boxes and gambling engagement (gambling in any form; gambling online; playing 'social casino' games). A range of demographic variables were simultaneously captured, including age, sex, ethnicity, earnings, employment and educational attainment.

FINDINGS

Overall, 17.16% of gamers in our cohort purchased loot boxes, with a mean self-reported monthly spend of £29.12. These loot box purchasers are more likely to gamble (45.97% gamble) than people who make other types of game-related purchases (on aggregate, 28.13% of non-loot box purchasers gamble), and even greater still than those who do not make any game related purchases (24.38% gamble P < 0.001). Loot box engagement (as binary yes/no or as monthly spend normalised to earnings) was significantly associated with younger age (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001; respectively, for binary yes/no and monthly spend, adjusted for false discovery rate correction), male sex (P < 0.001 and P = 0.025), non-university educational attainment (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001) and unemployment (P = 0.003 and P = < 0.001). Lower earners spent a higher proportion of monthly earnings on loot boxes (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The demographic associations of video game loot box engagement (younger age, male sex, non-university educational attainment and unemployment) mirror those of other addictive and problematic behaviours, including disordered gambling, drug and alcohol misuse.

Loot boxes and problem gambling: Investigating the "gateway hypothesis"

Loot boxes are purchasable items in video games with a chance-based outcome. They have attracted substantial attention from academics and legislators over recent years, partly because of associations between loot box engagement and problem gambling. Some researchers have suggested that loot boxes may act as a gateway into subsequent gambling and/or problem gambling. However, such "gateway effects" have not been formally investigated. Using a survey of 1102 individuals who both purchase loot boxes and gamble, we found that 19.87% of the sample self-reported either "gateway effects" (loot boxes causally influencing subsequent gambling) or "reverse gateway effects" (gambling causally influencing subsequent loot box engagement). Both subsets of participants had higher scores for problem gambling, problem video gaming, gambling-related cognitions, risky loot boxes engagement, and impulsivity. These individuals also had a tendency for higher loot box and gambling spend; suggesting that potential gateway effects are related to measurable risks and harms. Moreover, the majority of participants reporting gateway effects were under 18 when they first purchased loot boxes. Content analysis of free text responses revealed several reasons for self-reported gateway effects, the most frequent of which were sensation-seeking, normalisation of gambling-like behaviours, and the addictive nature of both activities. Whilst the cross-sectional nature of our findings cannot conclusively establish directions of causality, thus highlighting the need for longitudinal research, we conclude that there is a case for legislation on loot boxes for harm minimisation purposes.

Exploring the association between loot boxes and problem gambling: Are video gamers referring to loot boxes when they complete gambling screening tools?

Concerns regarding the similarities between video game 'loot boxes' and gambling have been supported by correlations in survey studies between loot box engagement and problem gambling scores. It is generally noted that this correlation could reflect loot box users migrating to conventional gambling, and/or people with gambling problems being attracted to loot boxes when they play video games. We describe a third possibility, that when gamers complete problem gambling screens they may be referring to harms incurred from their loot box use. Using three secondary datasets from cross-sectional online surveys, we explore this account in two ways. First, in participants who do not endorse any participation in conventional forms of gambling, we compare rates of positive (i.e. non-zero) scores on the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) in participants with and without loot box use. Second, noting that some PGSI items have less relevance to loot box use versus gambling, we compare endorsement rates of individual PGSI items, in gamers versus gamblers, and loot box users vs non-loot box users (focusing on item 3 "going back another day to win back the money you lost"). In analysis 1, positive PGSI scorers among non-gamblers were significantly elevated in loot box users vs non-loot box users, although absolute numbers were low overall. In analysis 2, there were no reliable differences (gamers vs gamblers, loot box users vs non-loot box users) in PGSI item 3 endorsement rates. We conclude that these results provide partial support for this third option, and highlight a need for future studies to consider this possibility more directly.

Regulating Gambling-Like Video Game Loot Boxes: a Public Health Framework Comparing Industry Self-Regulation, Existing National Legal Approaches, and Other Potential Approaches

Purpose of Review

Loot boxes are gambling-like monetisation mechanics in video games that are purchased for opportunities to obtain randomised in-game rewards. Gambling regulation is increasingly being informed by insights from public health. Despite conceptual similarities between loot boxes and gambling, there is much less international consensus on loot box regulation. Various approaches to regulating loot boxes are reviewed via a public health framework that highlights various trade-offs between individual liberties and harm prevention.

Recent Findings

Many countries have considered regulation, but as yet only a few countries have taken tangible actions. Existing regulatory approaches vary greatly. More restrictively, Belgium has effectively ‘banned’ paid loot boxes and prohibits their sale to both children and adults. In contrast, more liberally, China only requires disclosure of the probabilities of obtaining potential rewards to provide transparency and perhaps help players to make more informed purchasing decisions. Most other countries (e.g., the UK) have adopted a ‘wait-and-watch’ approach by neither regulating loot box sales nor providing any dedicated consumer protection response. Industry self-regulation has also been adopted, although this appears to elicit lower rates of compliance than comparable national legal regulation.

Summary

Many potential public health approaches to loot box regulation, such as expenditure limits or harm-reducing modifications to loot box design (e.g., fairer reward structures), deserve further attention. The compliance and clinical benefits of existing interventions (including varying degrees of regulation, as adopted by different countries, and industry self-regulation) should be further assessed. The current international variation in loot box regulation presents opportunities to compare the merits of different approaches over time.

How can the potential harms of loot boxes be minimised?: Proposals for understanding and addressing issues at a national level

Background and aims

Loot boxes are in-game items which distribute rewards to players via random-number generation; many games require players to make in-game payments to access their contents. The combination of financial outlay and random rewards has raised concern about similarities to gambling. This debate paper presents a series of themes identified by an inter-institutional working group in Finland, alongside suggested actions, and are presented with the intention of stimulating debate among stakeholders.

Methods

This work uses an exploratory research approach to gather data from a range of sources, including state-of-the-art reports from several fields and qualitative content analysis of invited presentations from a range of stakeholders, including affected individuals, practitioners, and field-specific experts.

Results and Discussion

Several significant themes emerged from the work and are presented alongside a series of proposed action points. Based on this preliminary exploration we propose a series of, non-exhaustive, actions for both primary and secondary prevention. Furthermore, the group identified the potential for responsible gaming practices to be adopted which would help to minimize the harm from overspending in gaming activities. Finally, we identified the need for further research in the field, for example the use of player data and both longitudinal and qualitative studies.

Conclusions

The emergent themes are discussed in relation to both the views of the presenters and existing research in the field and are intended to promote discussion concerning the viability of context-specific approaches to an issue of global reach and significance.

Loot box purchasing is linked to problem gambling in adolescents when controlling for monetary gambling participation

Background and aims

Purchasing loot boxes in digital games is akin to gambling as it involves risking money for a chance-based reward of uncertain value. Research has linked buying loot boxes to problem gambling amongst adolescents, but has not examined co-occurring gambling participation. This study examined links between loot box purchasing and problem gambling amongst adolescents while controlling for monetary gambling participation.

Methods

Two survey samples of Australians aged 12-17 years were recruited through advertisements (n = 843) and online panels (n = 826). They included n = 421 and n = 128 adolescents, respectively, who met criteria for problem gambling.

Results

Past-month loot box purchasing was significantly related to gambling problems in bivariate analyses. When including age, gender and past-month monetary gambling, loot box purchases were still associated with at-risk and problem gambling in both samples. As expected, these other predictors attenuated the predictive value of recent loot box purchases in relation to gambling problems. The odds-ratios, nevertheless, were still in the predicted direction and remained significant. When controlling for monetary gambling, age and gender, recent loot box purchasing increased the odds of problem gambling 3.7 to 6.0 times, and at-risk gambling 2.8 to 4.3 times.

Discussion and conclusions

While causal relationships between loot box purchasing and problem gambling remain unclear, the results indicate that loot boxes disproportionately attract adolescents experiencing gambling problems, adding to the financial stress already caused by gambling. Consumer protection measures, youth and parental education, and age restrictions on loot box games are needed to protect young people.

Loot box engagement: A scoping review of primary studies on prevalence and association with problematic gaming and gambling

Background

Loot boxes are an increasingly common type of random microtransaction in videogames. There is some concern about their expansion and entailed risks, especially among adolescents. The actual prevalence of engagement with loot boxes among child and adult population is uncertain, and there is still controversy over the nature of their relationship with problematic gaming and gambling.

Objectives

The aims of this scoping review are to summarize the characteristics and findings of published primary empirical studies about the prevalence of engagement with loot boxes and/or their relationship with problematic gaming and gambling, taking in account the type of sample, time frame and measured variables.

Methods

This study follows the Joanna Briggs Institute’s “Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews” and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Three academic databases provided 299 articles.

Results

Sixteen primary empirical studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. All studies used cross-sectional designs, and most used convenience samples. Twelve study samples were comprised exclusively of gamers, and two were comprised of gamers and/or gamblers. Only six studies included adolescents. The annual prevalence rate of loot box purchases was higher for adult gamers than for adolescents (22.7%–44.2% and 20%–33.9%, respectively), but in studies with general population samples, the opposite was true (24.9% for players aged 13–14 versus 7.8% for adults). In general, the studies suggested a significant positive relationship between engagement with loot boxes and problematic gaming and gambling, but this may be related to the type of engagement (open/purchase/sell), and the characteristics of the study participants (male/female, adolescents/adults, gamers/gamers-gamblers/general population).

Conclusions

This scoping review summarizes the results of recent empirical studies on engagement with loot boxes and discusses how methodological issues may affect their results and interpretation. Recommendations for future research are also provided.

Development and Validation of the RAFFLE: A Measure of Reasons and Facilitators for Loot Box Engagement

Qualitative studies have identified a diverse array of motivations for purchasing items within video games through chance-based mechanisms (i.e., "loot boxes"). Given that some individuals-particularly those at risk of disordered gaming and/or gambling-are prone to over-involvement with loot box purchasing, it is important to have a reliable, valid means of measuring the role of different motivations in driving purchasing behaviour. Building on prior qualitative research, this paper reports the development and validation of the "RAFFLE" scale, to measure the Reasons and Facilitators for Loot box Engagement. A 23-item, seven-factor scale was developed through cognitive interviews (n = 25) followed by two surveys of UK-based gamers who purchase loot boxes; analysed via exploratory (n = 503) and confirmatory (n = 1495) factor analysis, respectively. Subscales encompassed "enhancement'; "progression'; "social pressure'; "distraction/compulsion'; "altruism'; "fear of missing out'; and "resale". The scale showed good criterion and construct validity (correlating well with measures of loot box engagement; the risky loot box index (r = 0.63) and monthly self-reported spend (r = 0.38)), and good internal validity (Cronbach's alpha = 0.84). Parallels with, and divergence from, motivations for related activities of gaming and gambling, and alignment with broader theoretical models of motivation, are discussed.

Characteristics of Gamers who Purchase Loot Box: a Systematic Literature Review

Purpose of Review

Research has indicated that loot boxes are risky gaming components that could exacerbate Internet gaming disorder due to a link between loot box purchasing and gambling. We conducted a systematic review to identify the characteristics of people who purchase loot boxes with real money, focusing on the relationships (a) between loot boxes and gaming, (b) between loot boxes and gambling, and (c) between loot boxes and other variables.

Recent Findings

Of the 201 studies examined for eligibility, we reviewed 20 studies that met the predefined criteria, which were extracted by searching electronic databases (PsycINFO, PubMed, Ovid, EBSCO, and Web of Science) and the reference lists of included studies, and that were published up to March 27, 2021. Overall, this review identified positive relationships among Internet gaming disorder–related symptoms, disordered gambling symptoms, and engagement with, or investment in, loot boxes. In addition to gaming and gambling, the relationships among some variables, such as mood, gender, physiological state, motivation, and loot box engagement, were examined.

Summary

The present review clarified relationships between loot box engagement, gaming, gambling, and other variables, such as mood, gender, physiological state, and motivation, and partially identified the characteristics of people who purchase loot boxes using real money. Specifically, those who spend more money in-game on loot boxes exhibit Internet gaming–related and/or disordered gambling symptoms and behaviors. Finally, we discussed future directions for clinical psychological studies on loot boxes.

"It's the Attraction of Winning That Draws You in"-A Qualitative Investigation of Reasons and Facilitators for Videogame Loot Box Engagement in UK Gamers

Excessive engagement with (increasingly prevalent) loot boxes within games has consistently been linked with disordered gambling and/or gaming. The importance of recognising and managing potential risks associated with loot box involvement means understanding contributing factors is a pressing research priority. Given that motivations for gaming and gambling have been informative in understanding risky engagement with those behaviours, this qualitative study investigated motivations for buying loot boxes, through in-depth interviews with 28 gamers from across the UK. A reflexive thematic analysis categorised reasons for buying into seven “themes”; opening experience; value of box contents; game-related elements; social influences; emotive/impulsive influences; fear of missing out; triggers/facilitators. These themes are described in detail and discussed in relation to the existing literature and motivation theories. This study contributes to understanding ways in which digital items within loot boxes can be highly valued by purchasers, informing the debate around parallels with gambling. Findings that certain motivations were disproportionately endorsed by participants with symptoms of problematic gambling has potential implications for policy and warrants further study.