Links between problem gambling and spending on booster packs in collectible card games: A conceptual replication of research on loot boxes

The potential relationship between loot box spending, problem gambling, and obsessive-compulsive gamers

Background and Aims

Loot boxes are digital containers of randomised rewards available in many video games. Individuals with problem gambling symptomatology spend more on loot boxes than individuals without such symptoms. This study investigated whether other psychopathological symptomatology, specifically symptoms of obsessive-compulsive behaviour and hoarding may also be associated with increased loot box spending.

Methods

In a large cross-sectional, cross-national survey (N = 1,049 after exclusions), participants recruited from Prolific, living in Aotearoa New Zealand, Australia, and the United States, provided self-reported loot box spending, obsessive-compulsive and hoarding symptomatology, problem gambling symptomatology, and consumer regret levels.

Results

There was a moderate positive relationship between loot box spending and obsessive-compulsive symptoms and hoarding. Additionally, greater purchasing of loot boxes was associated with increased consumer regret.

Discussion and Conclusion

Results identified that those with OCD and hoarding symptomatology may spend more on loot boxes than individuals without OCD and hoarding symptomatology. This information helps identify disproportionate spending to more groups of vulnerable players and may assist in helping consumers make informed choices and also aid policy discussions around the potentialities of harm.

Surprisingly high prevalence rates of severe psychological distress among consumers who purchase loot boxes in video games

Loot boxes are randomised rewards available in some video games, often purchasable for real-world money. Loot boxes have been likened to conventional forms of gambling and may satisfy legal requirements to be considered bona fide gambling in some jurisdictions. Research has consistently shown that people with problem gambling symptoms report spending more on these mechanisms than people without such symptoms. However, a significant gap in our current understanding is whether engaging with these mechanisms is associated with harm. Here we examine the prevalence rates of severe psychological distress among purchasers of loot boxes relative to non-purchasers. A reanalysis of two cross-sectional surveys collected online via online collection platforms. Participants were 2432 Aotearoa New Zealand, Australian, and United States residents recruited through online survey. Our results show that purchasers of loot boxes are at approximately 1.87 times higher risk of severe psychological distress on a standardised clinical screening tool than people who do not purchase loot boxes. These relative risk rates are not due to gender, age, spending on other video game related purchases, or problem gambling symptoms. Individuals who purchased loot boxes appeared to also have higher risk of severe psychological distress irrespective of demographic characteristics or problem gambling status. Loot boxes appear to be associated with significantly higher risk of experiencing psychological harm even for players without problem gambling symptoms.

Blind box over-engagement and suicide risk among adolescents and young adults: Results of a large-scale survey

BACKGROUND

Gambling appears to be an independent risk factor for suicide among the young population worldwide. Blind boxes are collectable toys packed randomly in the box, which share certain similarities with gambling and are popular among the young population. This is the first study that examined the association between blind box engagement and suicide risk in the young population, the leading consumption group of blind boxes.

METHODS

This study is part of a large-scale, cross-sectional study using convenience sampling conducted Oct 26 to Nov 18, 2021, which covered all the university and college students in the Jilin province, China. A total of 73,206 participants completed the survey with valid data for the current study (male: N = 28,762; female: N = 44,444; Mean age = 19·59). Participants' blind box engagement, suicide risk, depression, anxiety, alcohol use, smoking habit, and sociodemographic characteristics were assessed. First, we used univariate and multivariable binary logistic regression models to examine the relationship between blind box engagement and suicide risk in all participants. Second, we tested whether depression and anxiety would mediate the association between blind box engagement and suicide risk. Third, we analysed the association between "Frequency (i.e., frequency of blind box engagement)," "Bet (i.e., expenditure on the blind box that exceeds affordability)," "Tolerance (i.e., level of addiction)," "Borrowed (i.e., the amount of money borrowed for blind box engagement)," and suicide risk in the group with blind box engagement history.

FINDINGS

4,195 participants (5·73%) have engaged in blind boxes, with 3,255 females (77·59%) and 940 males (22·41%). In the univariate models, binary logistic regression showed that blind box engagement was associated with suicide risk in both male and female participants (male: OR = 2·21, 95% CI = 1·86-2·63; female: OR = 1·64, 95% CI = 1·50-1·78). In the multivariable models, after controlling age, subjective socioeconomic status, per capita disposable income, alcohol use, and smoking habit, blind box engagement still was associated with suicide risk across genders (male: OR = 2·25, 95% CI = 1·89-2·68; female: OR = 1·58, 95% CI = 1·45-1·73). Depression (male: indirect effect = 0·31, SE = 0·04, p < 0·001; female: indirect effect = 0·20, SE = 0·02, p < 0·001) and anxiety (male: indirect effect = 0·26, SE = 0·03, p < 0·001; female: indirect effect = 0·13, SE = 0·02, p < 0·001) mediate the association between blind box engagement and suicide risk. Within the blind box engagement group, forward binary logistic regression revealed that "Tolerance" was associated with participants' suicide risk in both males (p = 0·001) and females (p < 0·001); "Borrowed" (p = 0·019) alone was associated with the male participants' suicide risk.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings showed that blind box over-engagement is positively associated with suicide risk in both young males and females, and this association persisted after adjusting for influencing factors. In spite of the limitations in this study (e.g., cross-sectional, convenience sampling), current findings can assist policymakers in developing regulations for such a prosperous youth-dominant consumption industry while protecting youth's mental health worldwide.

FUNDING

None.

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.

What’s in the box? Exploring UK players’ experiences of loot boxes in games; the conceptualisation and parallels with gambling

Loot boxes are a popular mechanic within many video games, but it remains unclear if some forms of loot boxes can be seen of as gambling. However, the perspectives of players are often neglected, such as whether they see them as ‘fair’ game elements and how closely they feel this aligns with gambling. In this paper, we synthesise a conceptualisation for loot boxes through players’ actual experience and explore if there are any parallels with gambling. Twenty-one participants who played video games took part in the research through either an interview or online survey. Thematic analysis suggested that six themes were core to exploring loot boxes: Random Chance Effects, Attitudes Towards Content, Implementation, Parallels with Gambling, Game Design, and The Player. The results suggested both indirect and direct parallels with gambling from the players experiences. Implications of game design and classifying loot boxes as gambling are discussed in relation to game design and risk factors of gambling and purchasing behaviour.