Introduction
Prevalence and Deemed Suitability to Children
Conceptual Similarities with Gambling
Differing Interpretations of the Loot Box ‘Harm’ Evidence Base: Allusions to Longstanding Debates on the Evidence Base of Gambling Harms
Loot Boxes and Gambling Both Show a Trend Toward Pre-emptive Industry ‘Self-Regulation’
What Does Taking a Public Health Approach Mean?
Range of intervention options | Examples of specific measures | As adopted by or as recommended by… |
---|---|---|
Eliminate choice Regulate in such a way as to entirely eliminate choice, for example, through compulsory isolation of patients with infectious diseases | Prohibit the sale and, by extension, the purchase of loot boxes to all players Or less restrictively, prohibit the sale and, by extension, the purchase of loot boxes to underage players | Belgium, which has effectively ‘banned’ the sale and purchase of both the third and fourth categories of loot boxes through applying existing gambling law [13] |
Restrict choice Regulate in such a way as to restrict the options available to people with the aim of protecting them, for example, removing unhealthy ingredients from foods, or unhealthy foods from shops or restaurants | Maximum spending limits on loot boxes: i.e., that a player is only allowed to spend up to a predetermined sum during a specified period [115, 116•] Less directly, maximum gameplay time limits: i.e., that a player is only allowed to spend up to a predetermined length of time on video games during a specified period, which might dissuade purchase of loot boxes given that less time can be spent on enjoying their content | China, which only permits underage players to spend a certain amount of money in online video games per month [120] |
Prohibit the implementation of specific types of loot boxes deemed to be particularly problematic | Japan, which prohibits the implementation of kompu gacha, which is a type of loot boxes that provide a particularly valuable extra reward only after the player collects all other ‘regular’ potential rewards from the loot box (i.e., after the player spends a substantial sum of money) [98(pp. 314–315)] | |
Guide choice through disincentives Fiscal and other disincentives can be put in place to influence people not to pursue certain activities, for example through taxes on cigarettes, or by discouraging the use of cars in inner cities through charging schemes or limitations of parking spaces | Institute an extra tax that is payable by players when purchasing loot boxes, above and beyond usual sales taxes (if any) Require video game companies to obtain and pay for a specific (non-gambling) licence in order to sell loot boxes, which represents a cost that is likely to be shifted onto the player-consumers | None |
Guide choices through incentives Regulations can be offered that guide choices by fiscal and other [positive] incentives, for example, offering tax-breaks for the purchase of bicycles that are used as a means of travelling to work | Require video game companies to provide players with the choice to obtain all potential loot box rewards through direct purchase or some other form of non-randomised monetisation method at a price that would, on average, be lower than had the player attempted to obtain those rewards through purchasing loot boxes. (That it is generally cheaper to obtain the rewards through direct purchase should also be required to be prominently disclosed because ‘incentive’ in this context is difficult to control given that the randomisation could mean that some players might still be tempted to purchase loot boxes for a chance at obtaining all potential rewards even more cheaply.) | None |
Provide discretionary grants and tax relief to video game companies based on their implementation of more ethical loot boxes or their decision not to implement loot boxes at all. These financial benefits may also be shifted onto the player-consumers and make more ethically designed video games more widely available | Not yet, but governmental funding is already available for the video game industry in many countries: these could be redirected, withheld and awarded on a basis that focuses on social responsibility in relation to loot boxes, rather than on, e.g., the employment of citizens belonging to certain countries [119] | |
Guide choices through changing the default policy For example, in a restaurant, instead of providing chips as a standard side dish (with healthier options available), menus could be changed to provide a more healthy option as standard (with chips as an option available) | Require video game companies to offer potential loot box rewards through direct purchase or some other form of non-randomised monetisation method at a reasonable and comparable price by default, such that the player must undertake extra effort in order to find the alternative option of attempting to obtain the rewards through purchasing loot boxes | None |
Enable choice Enable individuals to change their behaviours, for example, by offering participation in an NHS ‘stop smoking’ programme, building cycle lanes, or providing free fruit in schools | Require video game companies to provide players with the choice of either (a) purchasing loot boxes or (b) obtaining all potential loot box rewards through direct purchase or some other form of non-randomised monetisation method at a reasonable and comparable price | Some video games (e.g., Brawl Stars (Supercell, 2017)) currently offer the option to purchase some potential loot box rewards directly, but this is often confined to opportunities that are time-limited and do not include all possible rewards [22(p. 43)]. This option should be provided for all items on demand |
Promote ethical game design measures that are likely to minimise potential loot box harms: (i) encourage video game companies to adopt them and (ii) encourage players to play and only spend money on games adopting them | ||
Provide information Inform and educate the public, for example as part of campaigns to encourage people to walk more or eat five portions of fruit and vegetables per day | Require the expected, average real-world monetary cost of obtaining potential rewards to be calculated and published by companies for the player’s benefit | The UK advertising regulator attempted to require this [122], but has since decided not to do so following consultation citing difficulties that companies would face in calculating this value given the complexity of in-game economies [123(pp. 9–10)] (which were arguably intentionally designed by companies to be that way and so the companies should be liable for any costs-related consequences thereof) |
Require probability disclosures as to the likelihood of obtaining potential rewards to be published | China by law [26] Nearly all other countries by industry self-regulation [24] | |
Do nothing or simply monitor the current situation | Continue to allow loot boxes to be sold without intervening | In practice, the current position in Denmark, the UK and many other countries, given that existing gambling laws have not been enforced as interpreted and therefore no actions has been taken against the fourth category of loot boxes |