Problem gamblers spend less money when loot boxes are removed from a game: a before and after study of Heroes of the Storm

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.

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.

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.

No effect of short term exposure to gambling like reward systems on post game risk taking

Is engaging with gambling-like video game rewards a risk factor for future gambling? Despite speculation, there are no direct experimental tests of this “gateway hypothesis”. We test a mechanism that might support this pathway: the effects of engaging with gambling-like reward mechanisms on risk-taking. We tested the hypothesis that players exposed to gambling-like rewards (i.e., randomised rewards delivered via a loot box) would show increased risk-taking compared to players in fixed and no reward control conditions. 153 participants (M_age = 25) completed twenty minutes of gameplay—including exposure to one of the three reward conditions—before completing a gamified, online version of the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Self-reports of gambling and loot box engagement were collected via the Problem Gambling Severity Index, and Risky Loot-Box Index. Bayesian t-tests comparing BART scores across reward conditions provided moderate to strong evidence for a null effect of condition on risk-taking (BF = 4.05–10.64). Null effects were not moderated by players’ problem gambling symptomatology. A Spearman correlation between past loot box engagement and self-reported gambling severity (r_s = 0.35) aligned with existing literature. Our data speak against a “gateway” hypothesis, but add support to the notion that problem gambling symptoms might make players vulnerable to overspending on loot boxes.

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.

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.

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

Loot boxes are purchasable randomised reward mechanisms in video games. Due to structural and psychological similarities with gambling, there are fears that loot box purchasing may be associated with problematic gambling. Whilst monthly expenditure is typically modest (i.e. < $20), the distribution is highly skewed, with a small number of high-level spenders, sometimes referred to as "whales". It is not known what proportion of industry profits are derived from such players, and whether they are typically wealthy individuals and/or problem gamblers.

METHODS

We used structured literature searches to identify surveys of gamers with open-access loot box data. The resulting datasets were aggregated, and correlations between loot box expenditure, problem gambling and earnings investigated using Spearman's rho correlations.

RESULTS

The combined open-access data comprised 7,767 loot box purchasers (5,933 with self-report earnings). Secondary analysis of this self-report data confirmed that disproportionate revenue appears to be generated from high-level spenders: the top 5% of spenders (> $100/month) represent half of loot box revenue. Previously reported correlations between problem gambling and loot box expenditure were confirmed, with an aggregate correlation of ρ = 0.34, p < .001. In contrast, there was no significant correlation between loot box spend and earnings ρ = 0.02, p = .10.

CONCLUSION

Our secondary analysis suggests that games developers (unwittingly or not) are disproportionately profiting from moderate and high-risk gamblers, rather than high earning customers. Such patterns of spending mirror those observed with gambling revenues, and have implications for harm minimisation and ongoing policy debates around loot boxes.

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

Loot boxes are digital containers of randomised rewards present in some video games which are often purchasable for real world money. Recently, concerns have been raised that loot boxes might approximate traditional gambling activities, and that people with gambling problems have been shown to spend more on loot boxes than peers without gambling problems. Some argue that the regulation of loot boxes as gambling-like mechanics is inappropriate because similar activities which also bear striking similarities to traditional forms of gambling, such as collectable card games, are not subject to such regulations. Players of collectible card games often buy sealed physical packs of cards, and these 'booster packs' share many formal similarities with loot boxes. However, not everything which appears similar to gambling requires regulation. Here, in a large sample of collectible card game players (n = 726), we show no statistically significant link between in real-world store spending on physical booster and problem gambling (p = 0.110, η2 = 0.004), and a trivial in magnitude relationship between spending on booster packs in online stores and problem gambling (p = 0.035, η2 = 0.008). Follow-up equivalence tests using the TOST procedure rejected the hypothesis that either of these effects was of practical importance (η2 > 0.04). Thus, although collectable card game booster packs, like loot boxes, share structural similarities with gambling, it appears that they may not be linked to problem gambling in the same way as loot boxes. We discuss potential reasons for these differences. Decisions regarding regulation of activities which share structural features with traditional forms of gambling should be made on the basis of definitional criteria as well as whether people with gambling problems purchase such items at a higher rate than peers with no gambling problems. Our research suggests that there is currently little evidence to support the regulation of collectable card games.

Effects of self-isolation and quarantine on loot box spending and excessive gaming-results of a natural experiment

COVID-19 has prompted widespread self-isolation and citywide/countrywide lockdowns. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has encouraged increased digital social activities such as video game play to counteract social isolation during the pandemic. However, there is active debate about the potential for video game overuse, and some video games contain randomised purchases (loot boxes) that may psychologically approximate gambling. In this pre-registered study, we examined the effects of self-isolation and quarantine on excessive gaming and loot box spending. We recruited 1,144 (619 male, 499 female, 26 other) Australian, Aotearoa New Zealand, and US residents who self reported being quarantined or self-isolating (n = 447) or not (n = 619) during the COVID-19 pandemic to a cross-sectional natural experiment. We compared the associations between problem gambling symptomology, excessive gaming and loot box spending for isolated and non-isolated participants. Participants completed the Kessler-10 Psychological Distress Scale, Problem Gambling Severity Index, Internet Gaming Disorder Checklist, a measure of risky engagement with loot boxes, concern about contamination, and reported money spent on loot boxes in the past month, as well as whether they were quarantined or under self-isolation during the pandemic. Although, in our data, excessive gaming and loot box spending were not higher for isolated (self-isolated/ quarantined) compared to non-isolated gamers, the established association between problem gambling symptomology and loot box spending was stronger among isolated gamers than those not isolated. Concerns about being contaminated by germs was also significantly associated with greater excessive gaming and, to a lesser extent, loot box spending irrespective of isolation status. Gamers might be managing concerns about the pandemic with greater video game use, and more problem gamblers may be purchasing loot boxes during the pandemic. It is unclear whether these relationships may represent temporary coping mechanisms which abate when COVID-19 ends. Re-examination as the pandemic subsides may be required. More generally, the results suggest that social isolation during the pandemic may inflate the effect size of some media psychology and gaming effects. We urge caution not to generalise psychological findings from research conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic to be necessarily representative of the magnitude of relationships when not in a pandemic.

Beyond loot boxes: a variety of gambling-like practices in video games are linked to both problem gambling and disordered gaming

A variety of practices have recently emerged which relate to both video games and gambling. These range from opening loot boxes, to esports betting, real-money video gaming, token wagering, and social casino spending. It is unknown either how harmful or how widespread many of these activities are. A sample of 1,081 adults from the UK aged 18+ was therefore recruited. This sample was purposively recruited via quota sampling to represent the UK population in terms of sex, age, and ethnicity. Engagement in all forms of gaming-related practices were significantly associated with both problem gambling and disordered gaming. A total of 18.5% of the sample had engaged in these activities at least once in the new year. These results suggest a convergent ecosystem of practices that relate to both video games and gambling. Engagement in each of these activities is linked to problem gambling. However, it remains unclear whether engagement in these activities causes problem gambling.