Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
To the Editor:
Loot boxes represent a popularly implemented randomised monetisation method in video games, which offers purchasing players virtual rewards of varying value (Zendle et al. 2020). Multiple popular implementations of loot boxes have been argued to be structurally and psychologically similar to gambling (Drummond and Sauer 2018). The potential gambling-related harms of loot boxes and the relationship between loot boxes and gambling have been identified and established in the literature to a limited extent (Brooks and Clark 2019; Drummond and Sauer 2018; King and Delfabbro 2018, 2019; Kristiansen and Severin 2019; Larche et al. 2019; Li et al. 2019; Nielsen and Grabarczyk 2019; Xiao and Henderson 2019; Zendle et al. 2019a, b; Zendle and Cairns 2018, 2019). These remain areas of active academic research and debate. National gambling regulators have considered whether or not loot boxes constitute gambling under their national laws (Autorité de regulation des jeux en ligne [ARJEL; Regulatory Authority for Online Games] (France) 2018; Belgische Kansspelcommissie [Belgian Gaming Commission] 2018; Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee of the House of Commons [DCMS Committee] (UK) 2019; Federal Trade Commission (US) 2019; Kansspelautoriteit [The Netherlands Gaming Authority] 2018; Senate Environment and Communications References Committee (Australia) 2018; UK Gambling Commission 2017). China has restricted the sale of loot boxes to children by imposing maximum monthly spending limits (Xiao 2020). Regulatory policies on loot boxes remain forthcoming in many countries and are presently being considered and debated by policy-makers (e.g. in the UK see Prime Minister’s Office 2019).
A conceptual gap in the literature which misleads academics and regulators alike, and which prevents them from evaluating the issue comprehensively, must be clarified. The conceptualisation of the loot box transaction as a gamble has not yet been specified by the literature. The participating parties to this gamble have not been explicitly identified: it is unclear whether it is a gamble between various players, or between a player and the game company. Papers in the literature would generally cite Drummond and Sauer (2018) to assert that loot boxes are structurally similar to gambling (e.g. Zendle 2019, p. 2; Zendle et al. 2019a, p. 184, 2019b, pp. 2–3; Zendle and Cairns 2018, p. 2, 2019, p. 2). However, the criteria presented in Drummond and Sauer’s preliminary paper (2018), if applied presently, in light of subsequent research, would be more restrictive than necessary and potentially misleading.
Academics and regulators currently working on this issue would benefit from being informed by a more inclusive perspective, which specifies that the loot box transaction should be conceptualised as a gamble between the purchasing player and the video game company, rather than conceptualised using the overly restrictive criteria applied by Drummond and Sauer (2018) which included in-game ‘Competitive Advantage’ as a criterion. The unnecessary consideration of this additional criterion had meant that only loot boxes which provided the purchasing player with some ‘competitive advantage’ over other players (in multiplayer games), or over a hypothetical comparative version of the purchasing player who did not purchase the loot boxes (in single-player games), were determined to be structurally similar to gambling.
The more inclusive conceptualisation of the loot box transaction as a gamble adheres more to and does not adapt Griffiths’ definitional framework for gambling (1995, pp. 1–2), and explicitly identifies the participating parties of the gamble as the player purchasing the loot box and the video game company offering it for sale. The player is risking losing money (when they obtain worthless in-game items) for a chance to obtain rare and valuable items at very little cost, whilst the company is risking having to immediately provide the player with rare and valuable items at an undervalue, and losing out on additional potential sales, for a chance to instead provide the player with worthless in-game items even though they have paid money.
Loot boxes remain the subject of ongoing research and academic debate and prospective regulation. The more inclusive conceptualisation presented by this letter does not require a ‘competitive advantage’ to be provided to the purchasing player by the game company for a gamble to be identified. Accordingly, it would conclude that a higher proportion of loot boxes is structurally similar to gambling, thus allowing academics and regulators to fully assess the true extent of the potential consumer harms caused by loot boxes.
References
Autorité de regulation des jeux en ligne [ARJEL; Regulatory Authority for Online Games] (France). (2018). Rapport d’activité 2017–2018 [Activity Report 2017–2018]. Retrieved 1 May 2020, from http://www.arjel.fr/IMG/pdf/rapport-activite-2017.pdf
Belgische Kansspelcommissie [Belgian Gaming Commission]. (2018). Onderzoeksrapport loot boxen [Research Report on Loot Boxes]. Retrieved 1 May 2020, from https://www.gamingcommission.be/opencms/export/sites/default/jhksweb_nl/documents/onderzoeksrapport-loot-boxen-final-publicatie.pdf
Brooks, G. A., & Clark, L. (2019). Associations between loot box use, problematic gaming and gambling, and gambling-related cognitions. Addictive Behaviors, 96, 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.04.009
Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee of the House of Commons [DCMS Committee] (UK). (2019). Immersive and Addictive Technologies: Fifteenth Report of Session. 2017–19 (HC 1846). Retrieved 1 May 2020, from https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcumeds/1846/1846.pdf
Drummond, A., & Sauer, J. D. (2018). Video game loot boxes are psychologically akin to Gambling. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(8), 530–532. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0360-1
Federal Trade Commission (US). (2019). Inside the Game: Unlocking the Consumer Issues Surrounding Loot Boxes. Public Workshop, Washington, DC, US. Retrieved 1 May 2020, from https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/inside-game-unlocking-consumer-issues-surrounding-loot-boxes
Griffiths, M. D. (1995). Adolescent Gambling. Routledge.
Kansspelautoriteit [The Netherlands Gaming Authority]. (2018). Onderzoek naar loot boxes: Een buit of een last? [Study into Loot Boxes: A Treasure or a Burden?]. Retrieved 1 May 2020, from https://www.kansspelautoriteit.nl/publish/library/6/onderzoek_naar_loot_boxes_-_een_buit_of_een_last_-_nl.pdf
King, D. L., & Delfabbro, P. H. (2018). Predatory monetization schemes in video games (e.g. ‘loot boxes’) and internet gaming disorder. Addiction, 113(11), 1967–1969. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14286
King, D. L., & Delfabbro, P. H. (2019). Video game monetization (e.g., ‘loot boxes’): A Blueprint for Practical Social Responsibility Measures. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 17(1), 166–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-018-0009-3
Kristiansen, S., & Severin, M. C. (2019). Loot box engagement and problem gambling among adolescent gamers: Findings from a national survey. Addictive Behaviors, 103, 25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.106254
Larche, C. J., Chini, K., Lee, C., Dixon, M. J., & Fernandes, M. (2019). Rare loot box rewards trigger larger arousal and reward responses, and greater urge to open more loot boxes. Journal of Gambling Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-019-09913-5
Li, W., Mills, D., & Nower, L. (2019). The relationship of loot box purchases to problem video gaming and problem gambling. Addictive Behaviors, 97, 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.05.016
Nielsen, R. K. L., & Grabarczyk, P. (2019). Are loot boxes Gambling? Random Reward Mechanisms in Video Games. Transactions of the Digital Games Research. Association, 4(3), 171–207. https://doi.org/10.26503/todigra.v4i3.104
Prime Minister’s Office. (2019). Queen’s Speech December 2019—Background briefing notes. Retrieved 1 May 2020, from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/853886/Queen_s_Speech_December_2019_-_background_briefing_notes.pdf
Senate Environment and Communications References Committee (Australia). (2018). Gaming Micro-Transactions for Chance-based Items. Retrieved 1 May 2020, from https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Gamingmicro-transactions/Report
UK Gambling Commission. (2017). Virtual Currencies, eSports and Social Gaming— Position Paper. Retrieved 1 May 2020, from http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/PDF/Virtual-currencies-eSports-and-social-casino-gaming.pdf
Xiao, L. Y. (2020). People’s Republic of China legal update: the notice on the prevention of online gaming addiction in juveniles (published October 25, 2019, effective November 1, 2019). Gaming Law Review, 24(1), 51–53. https://doi.org/10.1089/glr2.2019.0002
Xiao, L. Y., & Henderson, L. L. (2019). Towards an ethical game design solution to loot boxes: a commentary on King and Delfabbro. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-019-00164-4
Zendle, D. (2019). Problem gamblers spend less money when loot boxes are removed from a game: a before and after study of heroes of the storm. PeerJ, 7, e7700. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7700
Zendle, D., & Cairns, P. (2018). Video game loot boxes are linked to problem gambling: results of a large-scale survey. PLoS One, 13(11), E0206767. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206767
Zendle, D., & Cairns, P. (2019). Loot boxes are again linked to problem gambling: results of a replication study. PLoS One, 14(3), E0213194. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213194
Zendle, D., Cairns, P., Barnett, H., & McCall, C. (2019a). Paying for loot boxes is linked to problem gambling, regardless of specific features like cash-out and pay-to-win. Computers in Human Behavior, 102, 181–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.07.003
Zendle, D., Meyer, R., Cairns, P., Waters, S., & Ballou, N. (2020). The prevalence of loot boxes in mobile and desktop games. Addiction. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14973
Zendle, D., Meyer, R., & Over, H. (2019b). Adolescents and loot boxes: links with problem gambling and motivations for purchase. Royal Society Open Science, 6, 190049. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.190049
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Xiao, L.Y. Conceptualising the Loot Box Transaction as a Gamble Between the Purchasing Player and the Video Game Company. Int J Ment Health Addiction 19, 2355–2357 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-020-00328-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-020-00328-7