Abstract
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.
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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 163-178 |
| Number of pages | 16 |
| Journal | Current Addiction Reports |
| Volume | 9 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| Early online date | 26 Jul 2022 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Sept 2022 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:L.Y.X. is supported by a PhD Fellowship funded by the IT University of Copenhagen (IT-Universitetet i København), which is publicly funded by the Kingdom of Denmark.
Funding Information:
L.Y.X. was employed by LiveMe, a subsidiary of Cheetah Mobile (NYSE:CMCM) as an in-house counsel intern from July to August 2019 in Beijing, People’s Republic of China. L.Y.X. was not involved with the monetisation of video games by Cheetah Mobile or its subsidiaries. L.Y.X. was the recipient of an AFSG (Academic Forum for the Study of Gambling) Postgraduate Research Support Grant that was derived from ‘regulatory settlements applied for socially responsible purposes’ received by the UK Gambling Commission and administered by Gambling Research Exchange Ontario (GREO) (March 2022). L.Y.X. has accepted conference travel and attendance grants from the Socio-Legal Studies Association (February 2022), the Current Advances in Gambling Research Conference Organising Committee with support from Gambling Research Exchange Ontario (GREO) (February 2022) and the International Relations Office of the Jagiellonian University, the Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange (NAWA; Narodowa Agencja Wymiany Akademickiej) and the Republic of Poland (Rzeczpospolita Polska) with co-financing from the European Social Fund of the European Commission of the European Union under the Knowledge Education Development Operational Programme (May 2022). L.Y.X. was supported by academic scholarships awarded by The Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn and The City Law School, City, University of London. L.L.H. and R.K.L.N. declare no conflict of interest. P.W.S.N. is a member of the Advisory Board for Safer Gambling – an advisory group of the Gambling Commission in Great Britain, and in 2020 was a special advisor to the House of Lords Select Committee Enquiry on the Social and Economic Impact of the Gambling Industry. In the last 5 years, P.W.S.N. has contributed to research projects funded by the Academic Forum for the Study of Gambling, Clean Up Gambling, GambleAware, Gambling Research Australia, NSW Responsible Gambling Fund and the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation. P.W.S.N. has received travel and accommodation funding from the Spanish Federation of Rehabilitated Gamblers, and received open access fee grant income from Gambling Research Exchange Ontario.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, The Author(s).
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Regulating Gambling‑Like Video Game Loot Boxes: a Public Health Framework Comparing Industry Self‑Regulation, Existing National Legal Approaches, and Other Potential Approaches'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver