- Email: [email protected]
The convergence of gambling and monetised gaming activities
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect The convergence of gambling and monetised gaming activities Daniel L King1 and Paul H Delfabbro2 A recent innovation contributing to the massive growth and profitability of the gaming industry has been the development of in-game monetisation. In-game purchasing features (e.g. ‘loot boxes’, ‘skins’, and other microtransactions) have also generated debate in some jurisdictions as to whether some activities constitute a form of gambling. This brief review presents some academic perspectives and recent studies that have examined the validity of this claim. Evidence has focused on the nature of micro-transaction purchase behaviour, its similarity with gambling, parallel involvement in gambling, and its association with problematic gaming. Early evidence suggests that higher levels of involvement in monetised gaming activities may be associated with symptoms of problematic gaming or gambling. Addresses 1 College of Education, Psychology, & Social Work, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia 2 School of Psychology, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia Corresponding author: King, Daniel L ([email protected])
Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 2019, 31:32–36 This review comes from a themed issue on Emotion, motivation, personality and social sciences - *Gambling* Edited by Catharine Winstanley and Antonio Verdejo-Garcia
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.10.001 2352-1546/Crown Copyright ã 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
addictive behavior, normalisation of gambling) [4,5]. However, discussions of in-game monetisation have not always been straight-forward, given the conflicting interests and perspectives of various stakeholders, including views of in-game monetisation that range from harmless fun (or, mechanics to ‘surprise and delight’) to potentially harmful and similar to gambling [6]. Conceptual and practical issues that arise in discussions of in-game monetisation relate to: the complexity and diversity of digital game offerings and monetised elements; the rapid pace of technological innovation and development in this area (e.g. new products may supersede existing ones within a short time frame) and the changing technological ecosystem that develops around products (e.g. third party service providers, such as skin betting sites, that facilitate certain activities using these products). Both regulators and researchers are faced with international debates replete with varying definitions, competing perspectives, vested interests between stakeholders as well as a lack of an established research evidence base and guiding frameworks for conceptualising risks and consequences of new gaming technologies [7]. The aim of this review is threefold: to provide an analysis of the basic constituent elements of games and gambling activities; to describe some of the ways in which users engage in these technologies, particularly monetised gaming; and to provide a summary of some of the research that has examined associations between various gaming products and behaviors.
What is gaming? What is gambling? How are the two converging?
Introduction The global video gaming industry has grown steadily since its inception to become a billion-dollar industry. A recent innovation contributing to its massive growth and profitability has been the development of in-game monetisation. So-called ‘in-game purchasing’ features (e.g. ‘loot boxes’, ‘skins’, and other microtransactions; see Glossary) have also, over the last few years, generated debate on regulation in some jurisdictions as to whether these products, in certain implementations, should be considered a form of gambling [1,2,3]. In parallel, there have been concerns about the potential for monetised games to pose risks to some users (e.g. overspending, Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 2020, 31:32–36
A ‘video game’ refers broadly to an interactive playable form of digital entertainment that typically requires strategic and skilful play [8]. Video games differ by genre, platforms, modes, online connectivity, and in-game objectives. Games are constantly changing because of industry innovations in product design, gaming hardware, and online infrastructure [9]. The gaming market has changed significantly in the last decade due to expanded online connectivity options and online service elements; social media platform integration; the monetisation of virtual goods and use of player data to drive microtransactions; the introduction of gambling-like elements in game design; and hardware portability and greater uptake of smartphone as a gaming platform. Monetised games include a variety of forms, with the main distinguishing aspects including whether the game’s in-game purchases www.sciencedirect.com
Gaming-gambling convergence King and Delfabbro 33
Glossary Loot box: An in-game purchase consisting of a virtual container that awards players with items and modifications (including skins) based on chance or adjusted probabilities Skin: A virtual cosmetic item that, in some implementations, can be traded or gifted between players in an open in-game economy, thereby enabling skins to be used as a form of virtual currency. Skins can be acquired in various ways that depend on the game. In CS:GO, the two main methods of acquiring skins are: (1) playing the game and receiving them as a ‘random drop’ (i.e. prize); and (2) ‘uncrating’ them by opening CS:GO’s equivalent of loot boxes, which requires purchasing ‘keys’ (costing a few dollars) from the game store or from other players (i.e. keys cannot be earnt by simply playing the game). A typical monetisation model in games with skins involves allowing players to earn and collect containers or loot boxes but requiring the purchase of keys using real money to open these containers to reveal and acquire the contents (skins) Skin betting: The use of virtual goods, which are most commonly cosmetic elements such as ‘skins’ which have no direct influence on gameplay, as virtual currency to bet on the outcome of professional matches or on other games of chance
of virtual items (which may or may not be randomly determined) exist within a closed (i.e. ‘locked’ to the game) or open (i.e. tradeable, shareable) economy. The latter type of monetised in-game purchases may potentially operate as a surrogate currency, which has led to these currencies (often termed ‘skins’) being co-opted for gambling purposes. A ‘gambling activity’ is defined by legislation that tends to refer to the concepts of the consideration (i.e. an amount wagered that can be lost), chance-determined outcomes, and the prize (winnings) [2]. Specifically, gambling involves the act of staking something of value, usually a monetary sum, upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the person’s control or influence, with an agreement or understanding that the person or someone else will receive a monetary sum or something of value in the event of a certain outcome. The proportionate influence of skill and chance elements in determining outcomes are often considered when deciding whether certain activities should be considered a form of gambling [10]. The option to ‘cash out’ wins has been an important factor in determining whether an activity is a form of gambling and this has been particularly relevant to legal examinations of monetised games. Recent technological developments have led to some video games resembling, promoting, and/or intersecting with gambling products [11]. Some examples include: video games that realistically simulate gambling without money being directly involved (aside from being used to purchase virtual currency), such as social casino games; video games including options to acquire monetised items (e.g. skins) that enable unregulated gambling on external platforms; gambling operators promoting gambling using video games on social media; and the presence of gambling within competitive gaming events www.sciencedirect.com
and online broadcasts. In terms of product availability, a recent scoping study suggested that about 54% of games on Facebook include gambling themes [12]. A 2018 review of 22 popular video games available in Australia found that five retail games met the conventional criteria for gambling, including the option to cash out winnings [13]. The ‘loot box’ is a feature within monetised games that has received growing regulatory and research attention for its resemblance to gambling [2]. A loot box refers to an ingame reward system that can be purchased with real money (but not always necessarily), usually repeatedly, to obtain a random selection of virtual items. In some jurisdictions, such as Belgium and the Netherlands, there have been recommendations that loot boxes should be considered an illegal form of gambling when they operate in an ‘open economy’ (i.e. loot-boxed rewards have monetary value outside the source game) [14]. Recently, in the US, senator Josh Hawley has proposed a bill that would ban the inclusion of ‘pay-to-win’ microtransactions and loot boxes in games oriented to child users [15]. However, the situation in other countries remains less clear and in a state of development.
Young people’s involvement in monetised gaming Digital gaming technologies are a normal part of people’s lives across home, school, and other social domains. It is therefore important to consider individuals’ involvement in monetised gaming activities, including young people’s involvement, in this context of gaming as a highly prevalent and normative activity. Australian data indicate that, in 2017, 67% of the population played video games; 54% of video game players are male, and 23% of video game players are aged under 18 years [16]. In addition, Australian Bureau of Statistics data indicated that 97% of homes with children have video games; 60% of households have five or more screens; and 80% of game households have more than one game device. A study of 2967 Australia adolescents in 2015 reported that 4.1% of males play video games for an average of 9 hours or more on an average weekday, compared with 0.9% of females [17]. The evident popularity of online gaming among young people, particularly boys, is matched by similar observations of in-game spending habits among younger users. For example, a nationally representative study of 3017 Australian young people aged 8–17 years reported that 34% had made in-game purchases in the previous 12-month period while playing online games [18]. Such findings mirror similar results obtained within an emerging body of research that is investigating young people’s engagement in monetised gaming activities as the extent to which this might facilitate or encourage an interest in gambling. Although virtual items called ‘skins’ which are purchased or won from loot boxes in games are usually cosmetic, they can be externally traded and therefore be Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 2020, 31:32–36
34 Emotion, motivation, personality and social sciences - *Gambling*
used as a form of virtual currency for betting purposes on some third party gambling sites. To investigate this issue, a large-scale study in 2017 by the UK Gambling Commission [19] included a section in its questionnaire to investigate young people’s awareness of and participation in ‘skins betting’. Overall, 45% of 11–16 year olds were aware that it is possible to bet with in-game items when playing computer games or app-based games. Almost six in ten boys (59%) knew about this activity compared to less than a third of girls (31%). In terms of actual participation, 11% of 11–16 year olds claimed to have personally bet with in-game items. The activity was more prevalent among boys (20%) than girls (3%) and among older respondents (those aged 14–16 years old). Another recent UK study of 1001 children aged 13–18 years reported that 27% were familiar with ‘skin gambling’ (using virtual items to gamble on third party sites) and 10% had reportedly gambled using skins at least once [20].
Psychological research on loot boxes and gambling indicators Research has thus far focussed mainly on examining potential relationships between loot box spending and problematic behaviors, including problematic gambling. A study by Zendle and Cairns [21] involved a large-scale cross-sectional survey of 7422 online gamers. The authors administered a series of questionnaires that measured loot box spending, other microtransaction spending, and the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI). The authors reported that more severe PGSI scores were positively associated with loot box spending (with a small to medium effect). Zendle and Cairns noted that the association between the PGSI and loot box spending was comparable in magnitude to many other risk factors in the gambling literature, but also acknowledged that causality could not be inferred from their data. In a follow up replication study, Zendle and Cairns [22] surveyed a new sample of 1172 online gamers and administered many of the same measures. On this occasion, the authors ensured that respondents were unaware that the study related to loot boxes and that all participants did not self-select, thus reducing sources of bias that may have affected the previous study. They reported results that were consistent with the previous study, noting that the association between PGSI and loot box spending was significant with small to medium effects. Other research teams have examined loot box spending and its association with gambling-related indicators. A recent study by Brooks and Clark [23] involved a survey of two modest-sized samples recruited from MTurk (n = 144) and an undergraduate student population (n = 113). Gaming and loot box-related variables included estimated time spent gaming and monthly expenditure, measures of problematic gambling and gaming, and questions that assessed perceptions and behaviours related to loot boxes. Interestingly, most participants reported that Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 2020, 31:32–36
they believed that loot boxes were a form of gambling (68.1% and 86.2%, for each sample). The authors identified a subset of survey items that were then used to create a ‘Risky Loot-box Index’ (RLI). Consistent with Zendle and Cairns’ studies, participants’ RLI scores were significantly associated with PGSI score. In addition, RLI was associated with problematic gaming and all subscales on the Gambling Related Cognitions Scale (small to medium effects). Another study by Li et al. [24], employing a similar methodology to the aforementioned studies, surveyed 618 adult online video gamers. They reported that nearly half of the sample (44%) spent money on loot box purchases in the past year. Loot box purchasers played video games and gambled online more frequently, reported more extended gaming and online gambling sessions, and endorsed higher levels of problem video gaming and problem gambling as well as greater distress relative to those who did not buy loot boxes. Overall, the research to date in this area has reported consistent, albeit limited, relationships between loot box spending and gambling, and warrants further investigation.
Academic perspectives on risk Academic commentary on monetised gaming has included some reflection on aspects of monetised gaming activities that may present certain risks, including problems that may resemble excessive gambling behavior. To date, much of this discussion has centred on games that structurally resemble gambling activities (e.g. roulette, poker, or electronic gaming machines), sometimes referred to as ‘simulated gambling’ activities. A commonly proposed risk of simulated gambling has been the so-called ‘gateway effect’ [25,26]. This refers to the potential for simulated gambling to entice people to gamble with money that then may lead to problem gambling or gambling-related harm [4,27,28]. Simulated gambling has also been proposed to ‘normalise’ gambling for young people, referring to gambling being more readily perceived as positive, safe, normal or socially accepted, and/or legitimate [29,30]. It is thought that simulated gambling may increase an individual’s confidence in gambling due to the relative ease of winning in these activities. From a behavioral economics perspective, these artificial gambling situations may alter the basic gain versus loss aversion function [31], given that players do not experience the disutility of losses because virtual currency is free and unlimited and yet players may still experience the pleasure of making gains (i.e. acquiring more virtual currency, unlocking other rewards). Other concerns include: (1) facilitating entry into a gambling subculture with avenues for progression to financial gambling; (2) enabling interaction with a social network of peers and experienced gamblers that provide incentives to gamble, and; (3) enabling covert and www.sciencedirect.com
Gaming-gambling convergence King and Delfabbro 35
excessive use of these activities [32]. Another risk is that gambling features in video games may make video gaming more problematic or addictive for some users [33]. Recent commentary on monetised gaming has drawn attention to the design of games that govern microtransactions, specifically the ways in which features may encourage repeated spending. A review by King et al. [34] examined utility patents for microtransactions registered by gaming companies. They reported that some technical systems may be potentially exploitative because they involve the collection of player data and analytics to present individually tailored offers or purchasing opportunities. Behavioral data are used to optimize the type and delivery of purchasing offers in order to incentivize players to make continuous in-game purchases within the context of a game service that can be continually updated and thus has uncertain and ever-changing long-term costs.
many of the commercial relationships and corporate strategies at play appear to operate independently of each other. For example, the companies that develop and publish online games with monetised goods (skins) are independent of the operators that offer gambling products involving skins. These relationships may be considered a ‘corporate synergy’, where the popularity and success of one party affects that of another party but where these parties are, by legal definition, otherwise distinct and separate. The relative risks and potential harms arising from involvement in monetised games for some users are currently not well understood [40,41], with most available data derived from studies of a limited selfreport and cross-sectional nature. Further research is needed to examine the impacts of monetised gaminggambling hybrid products [42], including the identification of users who are more vulnerable to these products, and to develop useful regulatory and other responses to reduce gaming and gambling-related harm.
The dynamics of some monetised games may be considered through the lens of behavioural economics. For example, ‘information asymmetry’ [35] may be applied to understand how players experience uncertainty across various types of purchasing situations and how some transactions may exploit this uncertainty. Information asymmetry in the context of in-game purchasing refers to a relationship between the game and the player whereby the game system has significantly more information about the player than the player has (or is able to acquire) about the game. Such information enables the game system to anticipate and respond to the actions of the player and push in-game offers.
Funding
Some players may overspend in monetised games due to a sense of ‘entrapment’ [36] (i.e. the belief that one has invested too much to quit). In some gaming situations, players may spend an escalating amount of money that begets further spending on the game. The investment of an irretrievable sum of money in pursuit of desirable virtual items may be perceived as an investment to the extent that it will increase the likelihood of obtaining these items [37]. In this connection, spending more and more money on loot boxes may have a ‘sunk cost’ effect that serves to justify continued expenditure. Entrapment by microtransactions may occur because the costs are less salient because these transactions are represented as virtual credits or credit card debt [38] and many others (i.e. proximal online players) may be making similar purchasing decisions [39].
1.
This work received financial support from a Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DECRA) DE170101198 funded by the Australian Research Council (ARC).
Conflict of interest statement Nothing declared.
References and recommended reading Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as: of special interest of outstanding interest Dreier M, Wo¨lfling K, Duven E, Giralt S, Beutel ME, Mu¨ller KW: Free-to-play: about addicted Whales, at risk Dolphins and healthy Minnows. Monetarization design and internet gaming disorder. Addict Behav 2017, 64:328-333. This is one of the largest studies examining young people’s use of monetised games, with interesting analyses that consider different payment levels in relation to symptoms of gaming disorder.
2.
Griffiths MD: Is the buying of loot boxes in video games a form of gambling or gaming? Gam Law Rev 2018, 22:1.
3.
Macey J, Hamari J: eSports, skins and loot boxes: participants, practices, and problematic behaviour associated with emergent forms of gambling. New Media Soc 2018, 21:20-41.
4.
Hayer T, Kalke J, Meyer G, Brosowski T: Do simulated gambling activities predict gambling with real money during adolescence? Empirical findings from a longitudinal study. J Gambl Stud 2018, 34:929-947.
5.
King DL, Delfabbro PH: Predatory monetization features in video games (e.g., ‘loot boxes’) and internet gaming disorder. Addiction 2018, 113:1967-1969.
6.
Environment and Communications References Committee: Gaming Micro-transactions for Chance-Based Items. . Retrieved online: The Senate: Commonwealth of Australia; 2018 https:// www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/ Environment_and_Communications/Gamingmicro-transactions.
Conclusions Research on monetised games and gambling is still developing and there are multiple gaps in our current understanding of the ways in which gaming-gambling crossover activities and promotions influence users. While some gaming and gambling products appear to overlap, www.sciencedirect.com
7.
McCaffrey M: The macro problem of microtransactions: the self-regulatory challenges of video game loot boxes. Bus Horiz 2019, 62:483-495. This paper provides a clear overview of policy development in the area of microtransactions, with analysis between different regions. This is a Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 2020, 31:32–36
36 Emotion, motivation, personality and social sciences - *Gambling*
valuable resource for readers exploring the policy approaches related to in-game monetisation. 8.
Esposito N: A short and simple definition of what a videogame is. . Retrieved online: 2005 http://summit.sfu.ca/item/258.
9.
Hamari J, Keronen L: Why do people play games? A metaanalysis. Int J Info Manage 2017, 37:125-141.
10. Mindell R: Context matters: luck and the paradox of skill. Gam Law Rev 2018, 22:270-272. 11. King DL, Delfabbro PH: Internet Gaming Disorder: Theory, Assessment, Treatment, And Prevention. Cambridge, MA: Elsevier Academic Press; 2018. A comprehensive resource on gaming disorder from a clinical perspective. The first book to be published on the disorder, which is now included in the ICD-11. 12. Jacques C, Fortin-Guichard D, Bergeron PY, Boudreault C, Le´vesque D, Giroux I: Gambling content in Facebook games: a common phenomenon? Comput Hum Behav 2016, 57:48-53. 13. Drummond A, Sauer JD: Video game loot boxes are psychologically akin to gambling. Nature Hum Behav 2018, 2:530-532. A thorough examination of so-called ‘AAA’ (i.e. blockbuster: high development budget) games that converge with features of gambling. The authors outline a compelling argument that these games have significant features in common with gambling activities. 14. BBC News: Video game loot boxes declared illegal under Belgium gambling laws. Retrieved online 30/12/2018 from: http://www. bbc.com/news/technology-43906306. 15. Kelly M: Bill to ban the sale of loot boxes to children presses forward with bipartisan support. . Retrieved online: 2019 In: https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/23/18636535/loot-boxesjosh-hawley-markey-blumenthal-privacy-video-games. 16. Brand J, Todhunter S, Jervis J: Digital Australia. . Retrieved online 30/12/2018 from NSW, Eveleigh: IGEA; 2018 In: http://www.igea. net/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/ Digital-Australia-2018-DA18-Final-1.pdf. 17. Lawrence D, Johnson S, Hafekost J, Boterhoven de Haan K, Sawyer M, Ainley J, Zubrick SR: The mental health of children and adolescents: Report on the second Australian child and adolescent survey of mental health and wellbeing. . Retrieved online 30/12/ 2018 from: 2015 In: https://research.acer.edu.au/well_being/1/. 18. Office of the eSafety Commissioner: State of Play – Youth and Online Gaming in Australia. Australian Government; 2018. 19. UK Gambling Commission: Young People and Gambling: A Study Among 11-16 year Olds in Great Britain. 2017. Birmingham, United Kingdom. One of the few large-scale prevalence studies that has examined young people’s exposure and involvement in gambling activities, including monetised gaming activities. 20. Parent Zone: Skin Gambling: Teenage Britain’s Secret Habit. UK: Parent Zone; 2018. 21. Zendle D, Cairns P: Video game loot boxes are linked to problem gambling: Results of a large-scale survey. PLoS One 2018, 13:e0206767. One of the first studies conducted on loot boxes in connection with risky play behaviors. Although this is cross-sectional work, this study is quite instructive to researchers on ways to consider the relationship between loot box spending and gambling. 22. Zendle D, Cairns P: Loot boxes are again linked to problem gambling: Results of a replication study. PLoS One 2019, 14: e0213194. 23. Brooks GA, Clark L: Associations between loot box use, problematic gaming and gambling, and gambling-related cognitions. Addict Behav 2019, 96:26-34. 24. Li W, Mills D, Nower L: The relationship of loot box purchases to problem video gaming and problem gambling. Addict Behav 2019, 97:27-34. This is another large and important study of loot boxes and their potential association with symptoms of addictive behavior.
Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 2020, 31:32–36
25. Dussault F, Brunelle N, Kairouz S, Rousseau M, Leclerc D, Tremblay J et al.: Transition from playing with simulated gambling games to gambling with real money: A longitudinal study in adolescence. Int Gambl Stud 2017, 17:386-400. 26. Gainsbury SM, Russell AM, King DL, Delfabbro PH, Hing N: Migration from social casino games to gambling: motivations and characteristics of gamers who gamble. Comput Hum Behav 2016, 63:59-67. 27. Molde H, Holmøy B, Merkesdal AG, Torsheim T, Mentzoni RA, Hanns D et al.: Are video games a gateway to gambling? A longitudinal study based on a representative Norwegian sample. J Gambl Stud 2018, 35(2):545-557 http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s10899-018-9781-z. 28. Wohl MJ, Salmon MM, Hollingshead SJ, Kim HS: An examination of the relationship between social casino gaming and gambling: the bad, the ugly, and the good. J Gambl Iss 2017, 35 http://dx.doi.org/10.4309/jgi.2017.35.1. This paper provides a very accessible review of the area of social casino games, highlighting different research streams and the variable quality of evidence. 29. Derevensky JL, Gainsbury SM: Social casino gaming and adolescents: Should we be concerned and is regulation in sight? Int J Law Psychiatr 2016, 44:1-6. 30. Hing N, Breen H: Risk and protective factors relating to gambling by employees of gaming venues. Int Gambl Stud 2008, 8:1-23. 31. Levy JS: An introduction to prospect theory. Polit Psychol 1992, 13:171-186. 32. King DL, Delfabbro PH: Early exposure to digital simulated gambling: a review and conceptual model. Comput Hum Behav 2016, 55:198-206. 33. Armstrong T, Rockloff M, Browne M, Li E: An exploration of how simulated gambling games may promote gambling with money. J Gamb Stud 2018, 34:1165-1184. 34. King DL, Delfabbro PH, Gainsbury SM, Dreier M, Greer N, Billieux J: Unfair play? Video games as exploitative monetized services: an examination of game patents from a consumer protection perspective. Comput Hum Behav 2019, 101:131-143. This paper presents a review of emerging design elements in monetised games that appear to exploit players to engage in continual spending. The paper also contains a summary of consumer protection measures and outlines some of the risks and implications for vulnerable players. 35. Aboody D, Lev B: Information asymmetry, R&D, and insider gains. J Finance 2000, 55:2747-2766. 36. Brockner J, Shaw MC, Rubin JZ: Factors affecting withdrawal from an escalating conflict: quitting before it’s too late. J Exp Soc Psychol 1979, 15:492-503. 37. Rubin JZ, Brockner J: Factors affecting entrapment in waiting situations: the Rosencrantz and Guildenstern effect. J Pers Soc Psychol 1975, 31:1054. 38. King DL, Russell A, Gainsbury SM, Delfabbro PH, Hing N: The cost of virtual wins: an examination of gambling-related risks in youth who spend money on social casino games. J Behav Addict 2016, 5:401-409. 39. Gunia BC, Sivanathan N, Galinsky AD: Vicarious entrapment: your sunk costs, my escalation of commitment. J Exp Soc Psychol 2009, 45:1238-1244. 40. Drummond A, Sauer JD, Hall LC: Loot box limit-setting: a potential policy to protect video game users with gambling problems? Addiction 2019, 114:935-936. 41. King DL, Delfabbro PH: Loot box limit-setting is not sufficient on its own to prevent players from overspending: a reply to Drummond, Sauer & Hall. Addiction 2019, 114:1324-1325. 42. King DL, Koster E, Billieux J: Study what makes games addictive. Nature 2019, 573:346.
www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect The convergence of gambling and monetised gaming activities Daniel L King1 and Paul H Delfabbro2 A recent innovation contributing to the massive growth and profitability of the gaming industry has been the development of in-game monetisation. In-game purchasing features (e.g. ‘loot boxes’, ‘skins’, and other microtransactions) have also generated debate in some jurisdictions as to whether some activities constitute a form of gambling. This brief review presents some academic perspectives and recent studies that have examined the validity of this claim. Evidence has focused on the nature of micro-transaction purchase behaviour, its similarity with gambling, parallel involvement in gambling, and its association with problematic gaming. Early evidence suggests that higher levels of involvement in monetised gaming activities may be associated with symptoms of problematic gaming or gambling. Addresses 1 College of Education, Psychology, & Social Work, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia 2 School of Psychology, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia Corresponding author: King, Daniel L ([email protected])
Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 2019, 31:32–36 This review comes from a themed issue on Emotion, motivation, personality and social sciences - *Gambling* Edited by Catharine Winstanley and Antonio Verdejo-Garcia
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.10.001 2352-1546/Crown Copyright ã 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
addictive behavior, normalisation of gambling) [4,5]. However, discussions of in-game monetisation have not always been straight-forward, given the conflicting interests and perspectives of various stakeholders, including views of in-game monetisation that range from harmless fun (or, mechanics to ‘surprise and delight’) to potentially harmful and similar to gambling [6]. Conceptual and practical issues that arise in discussions of in-game monetisation relate to: the complexity and diversity of digital game offerings and monetised elements; the rapid pace of technological innovation and development in this area (e.g. new products may supersede existing ones within a short time frame) and the changing technological ecosystem that develops around products (e.g. third party service providers, such as skin betting sites, that facilitate certain activities using these products). Both regulators and researchers are faced with international debates replete with varying definitions, competing perspectives, vested interests between stakeholders as well as a lack of an established research evidence base and guiding frameworks for conceptualising risks and consequences of new gaming technologies [7]. The aim of this review is threefold: to provide an analysis of the basic constituent elements of games and gambling activities; to describe some of the ways in which users engage in these technologies, particularly monetised gaming; and to provide a summary of some of the research that has examined associations between various gaming products and behaviors.
What is gaming? What is gambling? How are the two converging?
Introduction The global video gaming industry has grown steadily since its inception to become a billion-dollar industry. A recent innovation contributing to its massive growth and profitability has been the development of in-game monetisation. So-called ‘in-game purchasing’ features (e.g. ‘loot boxes’, ‘skins’, and other microtransactions; see Glossary) have also, over the last few years, generated debate on regulation in some jurisdictions as to whether these products, in certain implementations, should be considered a form of gambling [1,2,3]. In parallel, there have been concerns about the potential for monetised games to pose risks to some users (e.g. overspending, Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 2020, 31:32–36
A ‘video game’ refers broadly to an interactive playable form of digital entertainment that typically requires strategic and skilful play [8]. Video games differ by genre, platforms, modes, online connectivity, and in-game objectives. Games are constantly changing because of industry innovations in product design, gaming hardware, and online infrastructure [9]. The gaming market has changed significantly in the last decade due to expanded online connectivity options and online service elements; social media platform integration; the monetisation of virtual goods and use of player data to drive microtransactions; the introduction of gambling-like elements in game design; and hardware portability and greater uptake of smartphone as a gaming platform. Monetised games include a variety of forms, with the main distinguishing aspects including whether the game’s in-game purchases www.sciencedirect.com
Gaming-gambling convergence King and Delfabbro 33
Glossary Loot box: An in-game purchase consisting of a virtual container that awards players with items and modifications (including skins) based on chance or adjusted probabilities Skin: A virtual cosmetic item that, in some implementations, can be traded or gifted between players in an open in-game economy, thereby enabling skins to be used as a form of virtual currency. Skins can be acquired in various ways that depend on the game. In CS:GO, the two main methods of acquiring skins are: (1) playing the game and receiving them as a ‘random drop’ (i.e. prize); and (2) ‘uncrating’ them by opening CS:GO’s equivalent of loot boxes, which requires purchasing ‘keys’ (costing a few dollars) from the game store or from other players (i.e. keys cannot be earnt by simply playing the game). A typical monetisation model in games with skins involves allowing players to earn and collect containers or loot boxes but requiring the purchase of keys using real money to open these containers to reveal and acquire the contents (skins) Skin betting: The use of virtual goods, which are most commonly cosmetic elements such as ‘skins’ which have no direct influence on gameplay, as virtual currency to bet on the outcome of professional matches or on other games of chance
of virtual items (which may or may not be randomly determined) exist within a closed (i.e. ‘locked’ to the game) or open (i.e. tradeable, shareable) economy. The latter type of monetised in-game purchases may potentially operate as a surrogate currency, which has led to these currencies (often termed ‘skins’) being co-opted for gambling purposes. A ‘gambling activity’ is defined by legislation that tends to refer to the concepts of the consideration (i.e. an amount wagered that can be lost), chance-determined outcomes, and the prize (winnings) [2]. Specifically, gambling involves the act of staking something of value, usually a monetary sum, upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the person’s control or influence, with an agreement or understanding that the person or someone else will receive a monetary sum or something of value in the event of a certain outcome. The proportionate influence of skill and chance elements in determining outcomes are often considered when deciding whether certain activities should be considered a form of gambling [10]. The option to ‘cash out’ wins has been an important factor in determining whether an activity is a form of gambling and this has been particularly relevant to legal examinations of monetised games. Recent technological developments have led to some video games resembling, promoting, and/or intersecting with gambling products [11]. Some examples include: video games that realistically simulate gambling without money being directly involved (aside from being used to purchase virtual currency), such as social casino games; video games including options to acquire monetised items (e.g. skins) that enable unregulated gambling on external platforms; gambling operators promoting gambling using video games on social media; and the presence of gambling within competitive gaming events www.sciencedirect.com
and online broadcasts. In terms of product availability, a recent scoping study suggested that about 54% of games on Facebook include gambling themes [12]. A 2018 review of 22 popular video games available in Australia found that five retail games met the conventional criteria for gambling, including the option to cash out winnings [13]. The ‘loot box’ is a feature within monetised games that has received growing regulatory and research attention for its resemblance to gambling [2]. A loot box refers to an ingame reward system that can be purchased with real money (but not always necessarily), usually repeatedly, to obtain a random selection of virtual items. In some jurisdictions, such as Belgium and the Netherlands, there have been recommendations that loot boxes should be considered an illegal form of gambling when they operate in an ‘open economy’ (i.e. loot-boxed rewards have monetary value outside the source game) [14]. Recently, in the US, senator Josh Hawley has proposed a bill that would ban the inclusion of ‘pay-to-win’ microtransactions and loot boxes in games oriented to child users [15]. However, the situation in other countries remains less clear and in a state of development.
Young people’s involvement in monetised gaming Digital gaming technologies are a normal part of people’s lives across home, school, and other social domains. It is therefore important to consider individuals’ involvement in monetised gaming activities, including young people’s involvement, in this context of gaming as a highly prevalent and normative activity. Australian data indicate that, in 2017, 67% of the population played video games; 54% of video game players are male, and 23% of video game players are aged under 18 years [16]. In addition, Australian Bureau of Statistics data indicated that 97% of homes with children have video games; 60% of households have five or more screens; and 80% of game households have more than one game device. A study of 2967 Australia adolescents in 2015 reported that 4.1% of males play video games for an average of 9 hours or more on an average weekday, compared with 0.9% of females [17]. The evident popularity of online gaming among young people, particularly boys, is matched by similar observations of in-game spending habits among younger users. For example, a nationally representative study of 3017 Australian young people aged 8–17 years reported that 34% had made in-game purchases in the previous 12-month period while playing online games [18]. Such findings mirror similar results obtained within an emerging body of research that is investigating young people’s engagement in monetised gaming activities as the extent to which this might facilitate or encourage an interest in gambling. Although virtual items called ‘skins’ which are purchased or won from loot boxes in games are usually cosmetic, they can be externally traded and therefore be Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 2020, 31:32–36
34 Emotion, motivation, personality and social sciences - *Gambling*
used as a form of virtual currency for betting purposes on some third party gambling sites. To investigate this issue, a large-scale study in 2017 by the UK Gambling Commission [19] included a section in its questionnaire to investigate young people’s awareness of and participation in ‘skins betting’. Overall, 45% of 11–16 year olds were aware that it is possible to bet with in-game items when playing computer games or app-based games. Almost six in ten boys (59%) knew about this activity compared to less than a third of girls (31%). In terms of actual participation, 11% of 11–16 year olds claimed to have personally bet with in-game items. The activity was more prevalent among boys (20%) than girls (3%) and among older respondents (those aged 14–16 years old). Another recent UK study of 1001 children aged 13–18 years reported that 27% were familiar with ‘skin gambling’ (using virtual items to gamble on third party sites) and 10% had reportedly gambled using skins at least once [20].
Psychological research on loot boxes and gambling indicators Research has thus far focussed mainly on examining potential relationships between loot box spending and problematic behaviors, including problematic gambling. A study by Zendle and Cairns [21] involved a large-scale cross-sectional survey of 7422 online gamers. The authors administered a series of questionnaires that measured loot box spending, other microtransaction spending, and the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI). The authors reported that more severe PGSI scores were positively associated with loot box spending (with a small to medium effect). Zendle and Cairns noted that the association between the PGSI and loot box spending was comparable in magnitude to many other risk factors in the gambling literature, but also acknowledged that causality could not be inferred from their data. In a follow up replication study, Zendle and Cairns [22] surveyed a new sample of 1172 online gamers and administered many of the same measures. On this occasion, the authors ensured that respondents were unaware that the study related to loot boxes and that all participants did not self-select, thus reducing sources of bias that may have affected the previous study. They reported results that were consistent with the previous study, noting that the association between PGSI and loot box spending was significant with small to medium effects. Other research teams have examined loot box spending and its association with gambling-related indicators. A recent study by Brooks and Clark [23] involved a survey of two modest-sized samples recruited from MTurk (n = 144) and an undergraduate student population (n = 113). Gaming and loot box-related variables included estimated time spent gaming and monthly expenditure, measures of problematic gambling and gaming, and questions that assessed perceptions and behaviours related to loot boxes. Interestingly, most participants reported that Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 2020, 31:32–36
they believed that loot boxes were a form of gambling (68.1% and 86.2%, for each sample). The authors identified a subset of survey items that were then used to create a ‘Risky Loot-box Index’ (RLI). Consistent with Zendle and Cairns’ studies, participants’ RLI scores were significantly associated with PGSI score. In addition, RLI was associated with problematic gaming and all subscales on the Gambling Related Cognitions Scale (small to medium effects). Another study by Li et al. [24], employing a similar methodology to the aforementioned studies, surveyed 618 adult online video gamers. They reported that nearly half of the sample (44%) spent money on loot box purchases in the past year. Loot box purchasers played video games and gambled online more frequently, reported more extended gaming and online gambling sessions, and endorsed higher levels of problem video gaming and problem gambling as well as greater distress relative to those who did not buy loot boxes. Overall, the research to date in this area has reported consistent, albeit limited, relationships between loot box spending and gambling, and warrants further investigation.
Academic perspectives on risk Academic commentary on monetised gaming has included some reflection on aspects of monetised gaming activities that may present certain risks, including problems that may resemble excessive gambling behavior. To date, much of this discussion has centred on games that structurally resemble gambling activities (e.g. roulette, poker, or electronic gaming machines), sometimes referred to as ‘simulated gambling’ activities. A commonly proposed risk of simulated gambling has been the so-called ‘gateway effect’ [25,26]. This refers to the potential for simulated gambling to entice people to gamble with money that then may lead to problem gambling or gambling-related harm [4,27,28]. Simulated gambling has also been proposed to ‘normalise’ gambling for young people, referring to gambling being more readily perceived as positive, safe, normal or socially accepted, and/or legitimate [29,30]. It is thought that simulated gambling may increase an individual’s confidence in gambling due to the relative ease of winning in these activities. From a behavioral economics perspective, these artificial gambling situations may alter the basic gain versus loss aversion function [31], given that players do not experience the disutility of losses because virtual currency is free and unlimited and yet players may still experience the pleasure of making gains (i.e. acquiring more virtual currency, unlocking other rewards). Other concerns include: (1) facilitating entry into a gambling subculture with avenues for progression to financial gambling; (2) enabling interaction with a social network of peers and experienced gamblers that provide incentives to gamble, and; (3) enabling covert and www.sciencedirect.com
Gaming-gambling convergence King and Delfabbro 35
excessive use of these activities [32]. Another risk is that gambling features in video games may make video gaming more problematic or addictive for some users [33]. Recent commentary on monetised gaming has drawn attention to the design of games that govern microtransactions, specifically the ways in which features may encourage repeated spending. A review by King et al. [34] examined utility patents for microtransactions registered by gaming companies. They reported that some technical systems may be potentially exploitative because they involve the collection of player data and analytics to present individually tailored offers or purchasing opportunities. Behavioral data are used to optimize the type and delivery of purchasing offers in order to incentivize players to make continuous in-game purchases within the context of a game service that can be continually updated and thus has uncertain and ever-changing long-term costs.
many of the commercial relationships and corporate strategies at play appear to operate independently of each other. For example, the companies that develop and publish online games with monetised goods (skins) are independent of the operators that offer gambling products involving skins. These relationships may be considered a ‘corporate synergy’, where the popularity and success of one party affects that of another party but where these parties are, by legal definition, otherwise distinct and separate. The relative risks and potential harms arising from involvement in monetised games for some users are currently not well understood [40,41], with most available data derived from studies of a limited selfreport and cross-sectional nature. Further research is needed to examine the impacts of monetised gaminggambling hybrid products [42], including the identification of users who are more vulnerable to these products, and to develop useful regulatory and other responses to reduce gaming and gambling-related harm.
The dynamics of some monetised games may be considered through the lens of behavioural economics. For example, ‘information asymmetry’ [35] may be applied to understand how players experience uncertainty across various types of purchasing situations and how some transactions may exploit this uncertainty. Information asymmetry in the context of in-game purchasing refers to a relationship between the game and the player whereby the game system has significantly more information about the player than the player has (or is able to acquire) about the game. Such information enables the game system to anticipate and respond to the actions of the player and push in-game offers.
Funding
Some players may overspend in monetised games due to a sense of ‘entrapment’ [36] (i.e. the belief that one has invested too much to quit). In some gaming situations, players may spend an escalating amount of money that begets further spending on the game. The investment of an irretrievable sum of money in pursuit of desirable virtual items may be perceived as an investment to the extent that it will increase the likelihood of obtaining these items [37]. In this connection, spending more and more money on loot boxes may have a ‘sunk cost’ effect that serves to justify continued expenditure. Entrapment by microtransactions may occur because the costs are less salient because these transactions are represented as virtual credits or credit card debt [38] and many others (i.e. proximal online players) may be making similar purchasing decisions [39].
1.
This work received financial support from a Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DECRA) DE170101198 funded by the Australian Research Council (ARC).
Conflict of interest statement Nothing declared.
References and recommended reading Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as: of special interest of outstanding interest Dreier M, Wo¨lfling K, Duven E, Giralt S, Beutel ME, Mu¨ller KW: Free-to-play: about addicted Whales, at risk Dolphins and healthy Minnows. Monetarization design and internet gaming disorder. Addict Behav 2017, 64:328-333. This is one of the largest studies examining young people’s use of monetised games, with interesting analyses that consider different payment levels in relation to symptoms of gaming disorder.
2.
Griffiths MD: Is the buying of loot boxes in video games a form of gambling or gaming? Gam Law Rev 2018, 22:1.
3.
Macey J, Hamari J: eSports, skins and loot boxes: participants, practices, and problematic behaviour associated with emergent forms of gambling. New Media Soc 2018, 21:20-41.
4.
Hayer T, Kalke J, Meyer G, Brosowski T: Do simulated gambling activities predict gambling with real money during adolescence? Empirical findings from a longitudinal study. J Gambl Stud 2018, 34:929-947.
5.
King DL, Delfabbro PH: Predatory monetization features in video games (e.g., ‘loot boxes’) and internet gaming disorder. Addiction 2018, 113:1967-1969.
6.
Environment and Communications References Committee: Gaming Micro-transactions for Chance-Based Items. . Retrieved online: The Senate: Commonwealth of Australia; 2018 https:// www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/ Environment_and_Communications/Gamingmicro-transactions.
Conclusions Research on monetised games and gambling is still developing and there are multiple gaps in our current understanding of the ways in which gaming-gambling crossover activities and promotions influence users. While some gaming and gambling products appear to overlap, www.sciencedirect.com
7.
McCaffrey M: The macro problem of microtransactions: the self-regulatory challenges of video game loot boxes. Bus Horiz 2019, 62:483-495. This paper provides a clear overview of policy development in the area of microtransactions, with analysis between different regions. This is a Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 2020, 31:32–36
36 Emotion, motivation, personality and social sciences - *Gambling*
valuable resource for readers exploring the policy approaches related to in-game monetisation. 8.
Esposito N: A short and simple definition of what a videogame is. . Retrieved online: 2005 http://summit.sfu.ca/item/258.
9.
Hamari J, Keronen L: Why do people play games? A metaanalysis. Int J Info Manage 2017, 37:125-141.
10. Mindell R: Context matters: luck and the paradox of skill. Gam Law Rev 2018, 22:270-272. 11. King DL, Delfabbro PH: Internet Gaming Disorder: Theory, Assessment, Treatment, And Prevention. Cambridge, MA: Elsevier Academic Press; 2018. A comprehensive resource on gaming disorder from a clinical perspective. The first book to be published on the disorder, which is now included in the ICD-11. 12. Jacques C, Fortin-Guichard D, Bergeron PY, Boudreault C, Le´vesque D, Giroux I: Gambling content in Facebook games: a common phenomenon? Comput Hum Behav 2016, 57:48-53. 13. Drummond A, Sauer JD: Video game loot boxes are psychologically akin to gambling. Nature Hum Behav 2018, 2:530-532. A thorough examination of so-called ‘AAA’ (i.e. blockbuster: high development budget) games that converge with features of gambling. The authors outline a compelling argument that these games have significant features in common with gambling activities. 14. BBC News: Video game loot boxes declared illegal under Belgium gambling laws. Retrieved online 30/12/2018 from: http://www. bbc.com/news/technology-43906306. 15. Kelly M: Bill to ban the sale of loot boxes to children presses forward with bipartisan support. . Retrieved online: 2019 In: https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/23/18636535/loot-boxesjosh-hawley-markey-blumenthal-privacy-video-games. 16. Brand J, Todhunter S, Jervis J: Digital Australia. . Retrieved online 30/12/2018 from NSW, Eveleigh: IGEA; 2018 In: http://www.igea. net/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/ Digital-Australia-2018-DA18-Final-1.pdf. 17. Lawrence D, Johnson S, Hafekost J, Boterhoven de Haan K, Sawyer M, Ainley J, Zubrick SR: The mental health of children and adolescents: Report on the second Australian child and adolescent survey of mental health and wellbeing. . Retrieved online 30/12/ 2018 from: 2015 In: https://research.acer.edu.au/well_being/1/. 18. Office of the eSafety Commissioner: State of Play – Youth and Online Gaming in Australia. Australian Government; 2018. 19. UK Gambling Commission: Young People and Gambling: A Study Among 11-16 year Olds in Great Britain. 2017. Birmingham, United Kingdom. One of the few large-scale prevalence studies that has examined young people’s exposure and involvement in gambling activities, including monetised gaming activities. 20. Parent Zone: Skin Gambling: Teenage Britain’s Secret Habit. UK: Parent Zone; 2018. 21. Zendle D, Cairns P: Video game loot boxes are linked to problem gambling: Results of a large-scale survey. PLoS One 2018, 13:e0206767. One of the first studies conducted on loot boxes in connection with risky play behaviors. Although this is cross-sectional work, this study is quite instructive to researchers on ways to consider the relationship between loot box spending and gambling. 22. Zendle D, Cairns P: Loot boxes are again linked to problem gambling: Results of a replication study. PLoS One 2019, 14: e0213194. 23. Brooks GA, Clark L: Associations between loot box use, problematic gaming and gambling, and gambling-related cognitions. Addict Behav 2019, 96:26-34. 24. Li W, Mills D, Nower L: The relationship of loot box purchases to problem video gaming and problem gambling. Addict Behav 2019, 97:27-34. This is another large and important study of loot boxes and their potential association with symptoms of addictive behavior.
Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 2020, 31:32–36
25. Dussault F, Brunelle N, Kairouz S, Rousseau M, Leclerc D, Tremblay J et al.: Transition from playing with simulated gambling games to gambling with real money: A longitudinal study in adolescence. Int Gambl Stud 2017, 17:386-400. 26. Gainsbury SM, Russell AM, King DL, Delfabbro PH, Hing N: Migration from social casino games to gambling: motivations and characteristics of gamers who gamble. Comput Hum Behav 2016, 63:59-67. 27. Molde H, Holmøy B, Merkesdal AG, Torsheim T, Mentzoni RA, Hanns D et al.: Are video games a gateway to gambling? A longitudinal study based on a representative Norwegian sample. J Gambl Stud 2018, 35(2):545-557 http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s10899-018-9781-z. 28. Wohl MJ, Salmon MM, Hollingshead SJ, Kim HS: An examination of the relationship between social casino gaming and gambling: the bad, the ugly, and the good. J Gambl Iss 2017, 35 http://dx.doi.org/10.4309/jgi.2017.35.1. This paper provides a very accessible review of the area of social casino games, highlighting different research streams and the variable quality of evidence. 29. Derevensky JL, Gainsbury SM: Social casino gaming and adolescents: Should we be concerned and is regulation in sight? Int J Law Psychiatr 2016, 44:1-6. 30. Hing N, Breen H: Risk and protective factors relating to gambling by employees of gaming venues. Int Gambl Stud 2008, 8:1-23. 31. Levy JS: An introduction to prospect theory. Polit Psychol 1992, 13:171-186. 32. King DL, Delfabbro PH: Early exposure to digital simulated gambling: a review and conceptual model. Comput Hum Behav 2016, 55:198-206. 33. Armstrong T, Rockloff M, Browne M, Li E: An exploration of how simulated gambling games may promote gambling with money. J Gamb Stud 2018, 34:1165-1184. 34. King DL, Delfabbro PH, Gainsbury SM, Dreier M, Greer N, Billieux J: Unfair play? Video games as exploitative monetized services: an examination of game patents from a consumer protection perspective. Comput Hum Behav 2019, 101:131-143. This paper presents a review of emerging design elements in monetised games that appear to exploit players to engage in continual spending. The paper also contains a summary of consumer protection measures and outlines some of the risks and implications for vulnerable players. 35. Aboody D, Lev B: Information asymmetry, R&D, and insider gains. J Finance 2000, 55:2747-2766. 36. Brockner J, Shaw MC, Rubin JZ: Factors affecting withdrawal from an escalating conflict: quitting before it’s too late. J Exp Soc Psychol 1979, 15:492-503. 37. Rubin JZ, Brockner J: Factors affecting entrapment in waiting situations: the Rosencrantz and Guildenstern effect. J Pers Soc Psychol 1975, 31:1054. 38. King DL, Russell A, Gainsbury SM, Delfabbro PH, Hing N: The cost of virtual wins: an examination of gambling-related risks in youth who spend money on social casino games. J Behav Addict 2016, 5:401-409. 39. Gunia BC, Sivanathan N, Galinsky AD: Vicarious entrapment: your sunk costs, my escalation of commitment. J Exp Soc Psychol 2009, 45:1238-1244. 40. Drummond A, Sauer JD, Hall LC: Loot box limit-setting: a potential policy to protect video game users with gambling problems? Addiction 2019, 114:935-936. 41. King DL, Delfabbro PH: Loot box limit-setting is not sufficient on its own to prevent players from overspending: a reply to Drummond, Sauer & Hall. Addiction 2019, 114:1324-1325. 42. King DL, Koster E, Billieux J: Study what makes games addictive. Nature 2019, 573:346.
www.sciencedirect.com