Opening Pandora's Loot Box: Weak Links Between Gambling and Loot Box Expenditure in China, and Player Opinions on Probability Disclosures and Pity-Timers

Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of Risky Loot Box Index (RLI) and cross-sectional investigation among gamers of China

Nowadays, many of the top-selling video games include options to purchase loot boxes as paid virtual items. As research progressed, loot boxes have been found to have similar characteristics to gambling, and there has been an ongoing debate as to whether loot boxes can be defined as gambling. In order to better study loot boxes, psychometrically meaningful scales are necessary. The Risky Loot Box Index (RLI) was developed by Brooks and Clark, which is the most commonly used tool to assess the use of loot boxes. This study aimed to translate the original RLI into Chinese and evaluate its psychometric properties. Two samples were recruited through online gaming forums (n = 143) and offline internet cafes (n = 236). An exploratory factor analysis of the online sample yielded a one-dimensional nine-item model, with the factor focused on risky behaviors associated with loot boxes. The confirmatory factor analysis carried out on the offline sample corroborated the results obtained from the exploratory factor analysis, and the Chinese version of the RLI displays satisfactory psychometric properties. Furthermore, the Problem Gambling Severity Index (r = 0.57, P < 0.001) and the Internet Gaming Disorder Scale-Short Form (r = 0.67, P < 0.001) were found to be significantly associated with the RLI. We also found that players with high RLI scores may have higher levels of anxiety and depression, and they were more willing to spend money on loot boxes, with some spending nearly all their earnings. Interestingly, no significant correlations between age, gender, education, or income level, and the RLI were found.

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.

Exploring the relationships between psychological variables and loot box engagement, part 2: exploratory analyses of complex relationships

In a pre-registered survey linked to this paper (Exploring the relationships between psychological variables and loot box engagement, part 1: pre-registered hypotheses), we confirmed bivariate associations between engagement with loot boxes (purchasable randomized rewards in video games) and measures of problem gambling, problem video gaming, impulsivity, gambling cognitions, experiences of game-related 'flow', psychological distress and reduced wellbeing. However, these variables have complex relationships, so to gain further insights, we analysed the dataset (1495 gamers who purchase loot boxes and 1223 purchasers of non-randomized content) in a series of Bayesian mixed-effects multiple regressions with a zero-inflation component. The results challenge some well-established results in the literature, including associations between loot box engagement and problematic gambling measures, instead suggesting that this relationship might be underpinned by shared variance with problem video gaming and gambling-related cognitions. An entirely novel discovery revealed a complex interaction between experiences of flow and loot box engagement. Distress and wellbeing are both (somewhat contradictorily) predictive of participants engaging with loot boxes, but neither correlate with increasing loot box risky engagement/spend (among those who engage). Our findings unravel some of the nuances underpinning loot box engagement, yet remain consistent with narratives that policy action on loot boxes will have benefits for harm minimization.

What are the odds? Poor compliance with UK loot box probability disclosure industry self-regulation

Loot boxes are purchased in video games to obtain randomised rewards of varying value and are thus psychologically akin to gambling. Disclosing the probabilities of obtaining loot box rewards may reduce overspending, in a similar vein to related disclosure approaches in gambling. Presently, this consumer protection measure has been adopted as law only in the People's Republic of China (PRC). In other countries, the videogaming industry has generally adopted this measure as self-regulation. However, self-regulation conflicts with commercial interests and might not maximally promote public welfare. The loot box prevalence rate amongst the 100 highest-grossing UK iPhone games was 77% in mid-2021. The compliance rate with probability disclosure industry self-regulation was only 64.0%, significantly lower than that of PRC legal regulation (95.6%). In addition, UK games generally made insufficiently prominent and difficult-to-access disclosures both in-game and on the game's official website. Significantly fewer UK games disclosed probabilities on their official websites (21.3%) when compared to 72.5% of PRC games. Only one of 75 UK games (1.3%) adopted the most prominent disclosure format of automatically displaying the probabilities on the in-game purchase page. Policymakers should demand more accountable forms of industry self-regulation or impose direct legal regulation to ensure consumer protection.