Study finds that loot boxes target players who exhibit addictive gambling behaviors

AlexanderDeLarge

Shocking title, I know but I'm glad there's more and more evidence piling up on the subject.
Link to the study: https://psyarxiv.com/a3kp2/
Twitter thread explaining things pretty well:

https://twitter.com/davidzendle/status/1136216907554721792

Strong evidence to suggest that lootbox MTX draws players in with the same mechanisms as other gambling, such as casino games. Loot boxes act as predatory gambling mechanisms that are baked into otherwise, normal games. This needs to change, not just to protect children, but to protect people who may be susceptible to problem gambling behaviors.

In my opinion, as with Casino games, if your game has lootboxes it should not be alongside the other video games and existing gambling restrictions should apply. In the US this means gambling commission oversight, disclosure of odds and restrictions to persons under the age of 21. In the UK this means not only should these titles have an 18+ rating, but they also require socially responsible advertising. In my view placing these games alongside games without gambling mechanisms simply isn't socially responsible and it's going to be a train wreck when we're dealing with a whole generation of children and teenagers that were exposed to mechanisms that were literally designed by former slot machine designers and casino executives because the law didn't catch up monetization practices in video games.

Gambling is accepting, recording, or registering bets, or carrying on a policy game or any other lottery, or playing any game of chance, for money or other thing of value. Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 1955, makes it a federal crime or offense for anyone to conduct an 'illegal gambling business.'

Combine this with the fact that several studies have linked a predisposition to gambling addiction to hereditary genetics and yeah.... It'd be nice if ZOS would stop exploiting people's genetic flaws for (massive and unprecedented) financial gain. Not cool.
https://www.nhs.uk/news/genetics-and-stem-cells/gambling-addiction-linked-to-genes/

Solid_Metal

shocking title ?, not really, its already "public secret" so to speak, but this is the first time i see precise study on it, awesome post !

i wonder what will happen if the new loot box legislation got a green light, is it applicable for everyone or just certain group.

LennoxPoodle

So, people who are susceptible to gambling finance the game I play without these issues. Where's the problem? ;-)

VaranisArano

I appreciate the study! There so much fear mongering it's nice to have actual research being done.

Now to go read the research study...

...okay, now I've read it.

Very interesting study! To summarize, when gambling-styled lootboxes where removed, only the problem gamblers (22 out of 125 gamers who made it past the screening questions, which are hilarious) had a significant drop in their spending habits. Therefore, that drop is due to the removal of the gambling mechanism, and not due to the documented impulsivity issues problen gamblers also have, since they did not continue to spend money on other in game things.

This study really only proves that it happened, and disproves generally increased impulsivity as a cause. It doesnt really delve into why beyond that, though it uses other research that correlates problem gambling with likehood to buy gambling loot crates - and that was correlation only: "If you are a problem gambler, you are also likely to buy crates", that sort of thing.

While the study mentions speculation about causation, and the fear that loot boxes cause problem gambling, I did not think that this portion was well substantiated enough to support the OP's fears for the next generation...yet. From the study, the loot boxes seem to have similar effects as gambling for people who already have characteristics of Problem Gamblers, but the study itself doesnt try to prove that the loot boxes themselves creates problem gambling. I'd say that more research needs to be done to support that conclusion as this study alone doesn't prove that...but it seems probable to me that future studies that actually focus on causation might, if someone is doing a longer term study on whether loot boxes increase problem gambling tendencies for previously non-problem gamblers. But this study doesn't do that, so tht's speculation.


My takeaway: Loot Boxes generate most of their extra profit (the money people spend on loot boxes that they wouldnt otherwise spend on the game) from players that have measurable problems with gambling. And how businesses deal with Problem Gambling is something that can be and often is generally regulated. More studies are needed to pinpoint any causation risks like whether loot boxes leads to increased gambling tendencies in previously non-problem gamblers.

GimpyPorcupine

If you're suggesting that I be bothered that addicts are funding my habit, sorry to disappoint.

Pevey

GimpyPorcupine wrote: »

If you're suggesting that I be bothered that addicts are funding my habit, sorry to disappoint.

Wow, I just don’t get some people. If ZOS were selling heroin to fund the video game you love, you would be okay with that? Smh

DoonerSeraph

LennoxPoodle wrote: »

So, people who are susceptible to gambling finance the game I play without these issues. Where's the problem? ;-)

GimpyPorcupine wrote: »

If you're suggesting that I be bothered that addicts are funding my habit, sorry to disappoint.

"Welcome to the internet, leave empathy and basic human decency at the door if you want to be the tough keyboard warrior around here."

Knootewoot

Isn't it logical, that if you remove lootboxes from a game (and thus one cannot buy them anymore) they spent less money on the game?

I mean, i buy coffee from the Poeiz supermarker. They remove coffee from their stock. Of course i spent less money on that store as i have to buy my coffee elsewyr.

Duh

GimpyPorcupine

DoonerSeraph wrote: »

LennoxPoodle wrote: »

So, people who are susceptible to gambling finance the game I play without these issues. Where's the problem? ;-)

GimpyPorcupine wrote: »

If you're suggesting that I be bothered that addicts are funding my habit, sorry to disappoint.

"Welcome to the internet, leave empathy and basic human decency at the door if you want to be the tough keyboard warrior around here."

To be clear, it's not just the internet where I'm a callous, indecent human.

People with gambling problems also disproportionately buy lottery tickets and scratch-offs, which have an incredibly low payout, and large portions of those revenues go to fund schools.

Smokers and drinkers pay high "sin taxes" on their addiction, or at least where I live.

I'm not really bothered by either of those.

Tan9oSuccka

Emmagoldman

Interesting study.

And what the hell is wrong with some people. "They fund my habit" which sounds more like "their addiction feeds my addiction."

LennoxPoodle

@DoonerSeraph and @Emmagoldman
And here I thought the ";-)" smiley was sufficient to indicate my ironic intend.

No seriously it's a big issue I can imagine and should definetly be treated as gambling. That was kind of obvious from the beginning on. That Battlefront II was needed for the right people to notice it it paints a sad (but still kind of funny) picture of our society or at least certain decision making processes.

Cazzy

Countries are rolling out laws against loot boxes now. You need to keep on requesting it's looked at by you local MP or equivalent.

I'm a Forensic Psych student but my degree at the moment is in social science. So I find this incredibly interesting and disturbing. I'm so glad you done some research on it. Once I have a spare moment to go over it I'd love to share my thoughts and have a conversation/debate about it

Reverb

The gaming industry already knows this. In fact it’s the entire purpose of some titles, where the game itself is just the vehicle to sell gambling boxes.

Salvas_Aren

LennoxPoodle wrote: »

So, people who are susceptible to gambling finance the game I play without these issues. Where's the problem? ;-)

The problem is, that this way a company can become a casino without paying casino-ish income taxes.

I know, that is the least expected answer to that question.

ManwithBeard9

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

(snipped a bit)

Gambling is accepting, recording, or registering bets, or carrying on a policy game or any other lottery, or playing any game of chance, for money or other thing of value. Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 1955, makes it a federal crime or offense for anyone to conduct an 'illegal gambling business.'

Thank you for posting the legal statute that proves ESO Crown Crates are not legally considered gambling.

SidraWillowsky

VaranisArano wrote: »

While the study mentions speculation about causation, and the fear that loot boxes cause problem gambling, I did not think that this portion was well substantiated enough to support the OP's fears for the next generation...yet. From the study, the loot boxes seem to have similar effects as gambling for people who already have characteristics of Problem Gamblers, but the study itself doesnt try to prove that the loot boxes themselves creates problem gambling. I'd say that more research needs to be done to support that conclusion as this study alone doesn't prove that...but it seems probable to me that future studies that actually focus on causation might, if someone is doing a longer term study on whether loot boxes increase problem gambling tendencies for previously non-problem gamblers. But this study doesn't do that, so tht's speculation.

Actual addict here (alcohol, not gambling, but there are definitely similarities) and I absolutely agree. Obviously I can't infer any sort of empirical conclusions based on my own subjective experience with my own addiction and the recovery community in general, but based on what I personally have seen, there tends to be a predisposition that helps nudge things along. I have a hard time believing that loot boxes cause gambling problems in people who have zero predisposition to that kind of behavior. I feel like they kind of nudge it along and push a person into an addition who may be inherently at-risk for that type of behavior but otherwise may not have been in situations to "activate" it.

This is somewhat tangential, but the single biggest issue for me has not been lootboxes but the MMO factor in this game. This is my first MMO and I knew from the outset that they're designed to be as addictive as possible, but I still started playing. I feel like this type of game can also cause problems and for a while felt a lot like I did when I was drinking- agitated when unable to play, letting myself start playing at a certain time and then not stopping, etc. Don't even get me starting on those f*cking Elsweyr dragons "one more, maybe this time I'll get something worthwhile!!!"

Anyway. Unfortunately, it's not really possible and certainly not ethical to conduct a randomized control trial to determine the direction of causation here, and I guess that doesn't even need to be done in this specific context- just get rid of loot boxes entirely.

Coggage

Hardly news, is it. The weak-willed will always be with us, merely the focus of choice is different.

Benzux

I thought the point of gambling was that you could get something "actually worth something" out of it, no? Crown Crates are literally pixels on a screen - you can't profit from them in any way, so I don't think it's right to call them gambling. Sure, some people might develop a gambling addiction later in life because they used to play (or still play) video games with loot box systems, but by the same definition, some people who play psychotic murderhobo games filled with blood and gore might turn out as serial killers later in life, but that doesn't make the games themselves bad.
What someone uses their money on is their own thing. If they suffer from a mental disorder or addiction that "makes" them spend money on such things, professional help is always available.

And before you shove a bag of peas into your nasal cavity, I'm not saying that gambling is good, or that we shouldn't do anything about addictions. All I'm saying is that it's not entirely correct to call Crown Crates gambling, especially given that legally, they literally aren't gambling.

SidraWillowsky

Benzux wrote: »

All I'm saying is that it's not entirely correct to call Crown Crates gambling, especially given that legally, they literally aren't gambling.

I can't actually find an operationalized legal definition of gambling. I don't think the actual reward (money, material goods, or pixels) is as important as the mechanism that's generating the reward (or lack thereof)

Coggage wrote: »

Hardly news, is it. The weak-willed will always be with us, merely the focus of choice is different.

...sigh

ZOS_RogerJ

Greetings! We've closed this thread as it violates our community rules around baiting and bashing as well as being generally non-constructive.