Cash drawers very similar to “problem gambling” to avoid regulation, says the report

We have a lot to say about video game loot boxes and, in the wake of our own analysis and complaints about their growing prominence, regulations and public scrutiny followed. The researchers also joined the conversation in droves, but a new report published by researchers on Friday seeks to answer a key question that it claims has been left untouched by other academics: Because do players buy reward boxes?

In attempting to answer that question, the report, commissioned by the defense game defense group BeGambleAware, suggests that the motivations for purchasing the loot box are directly related to “problematic game” behaviors. This data leads to the conclusion of the report: regulators must apply to the stack boxes the same rules that apply to other forms of gambling, because, despite the apparent differences, they have enough in common to deserve stricter controls.

From Skinner boxes to FIFA cards

Much of the study, co-authored by four British universities and a private gambling research firm, summarizes and describes the story of the cashbox monetization and the subsequent greenhouse effect, whether from fans, critics or regulators. The report also describes the amount of internal regulation made by gaming companies in response. (Ars was not contacted before the publication of this study, so we only learned today that we are among the vehicles mentioned.)

The study touches on many of the usual cashier discussion points. As the classic Skinner box scenario demonstrated, “variable ratio reinforcement schemes” (VRR, or the expectation that rewards are random) have a different psychological impact than if a player knew what he was buying immediately (a characteristic cash drawer). In addition, game makers made a point of making it clear that the aesthetic similarities of these boxes to real-world slot machines (such as flashing lights and satisfying sound effects) are not accidental.

But these piles of stories and newspapers rarely explore “motivations for buying cashiers,” says today’s report, which surprised its authors. “This is in contrast to gambling research, where we know that gambling is driven by a multitude of overlapping motivations,” write the researchers. Therefore, the report’s biggest findings are in two tables. The first, which combines data from several existing studies around the English-speaking world, totaling 7,771 adults and children, “establishes a significant correlation between spending on withdrawals and scores with gambling problems”.

An additional table goes further, sending a survey to 441 British players, whose responses are as verbose as single-sentence responses; this was followed by a detailed analysis of 28 of those interviewed with one-hour interviews. The researchers analyzed the interview responses through reflective thematic analysis to discover the motivations for spending money on video game loot boxes.

The image summarized above is followed by specific quotes that support each reasoning. Among them, a quote suggests that a “cosmetic” purchase comes with a perceived competitive advantage: “You want to compete with other players, not just in the game, but with your skin.” A series of quotes pointed to the social pressure associated with potential loot box purchases, such as, “Could you brag about the guys at work, like, ‘I put so-and-so last night'” or deciding with friends in a session online to buy withdrawal boxes simultaneously.

“Existing criteria for regulation of gambling”

Although this table of potential reasons varies across the psychological spectrum, today’s report points to a key unifying factor: perceived value. That is, loot boxes are not easily discarded as worthless points in a game.

A notion of value “has been consistently associated with [in-game] rarity of the item, “says the report.” The rarer the haul, the higher the value. This may even have direct financial implications, as some participants expected to get lucky and unpack items that were available for immediate purchase at the item store, but were usually very expensive. In some cases, this is the only way that players can have to purchase the item. In other cases, they hoped to later negotiate any happy victory for an overall profit. This type of observation suggests that many cashiers meet the existing criteria for regulating gambling. “

This statement came with the clarification that “no single dominant motivation” can be attributed to the reason why players are able to buy loot boxes. Even so, value is a factor, and the authors determine that buying a loot box has a statistically significant link with problematic gambling behaviors (“similar or stronger than those between problematic gambling and well-established comorbidities, including depression. , drug use and current alcohol dependence “). The report emphasizes the authors’ position that regulators should intervene quickly.

They came to that conclusion for a number of reasons. First, the authors of this report take great care to dispel the assumed notion that the small percentage of players who buy large amounts of microtransactions as loot boxes (often called “whales”) are necessarily wealthy. Your data he does they seem to show that somewhere between 33% and 50% of users who spend more, who pay more than $ 100 a month, demonstrate “problematic gambling” patterns. In other words, the data seems to say that large cashier spenders are more likely to be gambling-oriented than high wages.

“The distortion in loot box buyers – particularly in relation to younger people and males – is particularly worrying when framed alongside the discovery that high-spending loot box whales tend to be problematic players, rather than wealthy individuals, “continues the report. “These demographic trends tend to overlap with psychological motivators, such as impulsivity and gambling-related cognitions. This relationship can result in disproportionate risks for specific groups and cohorts of players, suggesting that laws or controls on cashiers may be useful for minimizing damage. “

“It is not beyond the reach of the national powers”

The exploration of the report on the measures that regulators can take is a little more obscure, partly because it shows not only the inconsistency of European loot box legislation (where games like FIFA have been regulated, but similar market activity in Valve’s Steam store has not been), but also the stealthy steps that game makers can take in the face of increased regulatory scrutiny.

“Whatever form the policy may take, we need to be aware that there is now a whole box of psychological tricks available to unscrupulous developers,” says the report. “Long-term risk mitigation, as suggested above, will require more research, new education approaches and updated consumer protection structures. Such recommendations, however, do not prevent political action on loot boxes.”

Therefore, the report tends to start with a total ban on cashiers paid in software – as in the easily defined practice of “any game-related purchase with a result based on chance” – or at least requiring “probability” statements more fully transparent about the probability of game-specific items in these reward boxes (instead of saying that a “legendary” prize has a very low percentage chance of appearing, all legendary items are the same).

Applying these rules would not be an instant regulatory blow, the report admits. “At first glance, these observations suggest that regulating all cashiers as gambling may be a viable solution to avoid the problem of conflicting policy. This would place all cashiers under the umbrella of gambling regulation. existing strategy – and it is the preferred strategy by many, including more than 40,000 signatories to a recent petition in the UK. Such an approach, however, would be a radical overhaul of the gambling law – but, again, life is not so easy when it comes to legislative small print. “In fact, a 2019 call from the UK Parliament to ban cash drawers so far has failed to generate widespread action.

Despite the potential pitfalls, the report argues that such regulations would at least address specific statements of “money value” by game makers and provide more formal provisions for public research and education on manipulative economies in the game. Better regulation could also remind gaming companies that “when left with few other options (when an industry does not effectively self-regulate), these types of predatory monetization strategies are not beyond the reach of national powers.”