Details on article
|Author||Xiao L.Y.; Henderson L.L.; Nielsen R.K.L.; Newall P.W.S.
|Title||Regulating Gambling-Like Video Game Loot Boxes: a Public Health Framework Comparing Industry Self-Regulation, Existing National Legal Approaches, and Other Potential Approaches|
Xiao L.Y.; Henderson L.L.; Nielsen R.K.L.; Newall P.W.S. Regulating Gambling-Like Video Game Loot Boxes: a Public Health Framework Comparing Industry Self-Regulation, Existing National Legal Approaches, and Other Potential Approaches,Current Addiction Reports 9 3
|Keywords||adult; attention; autoregulation; Belgium; child; China; consensus; consumer protection; controlled study; female; freedom; gambling; human; male; probability; public health; purchasing; randomized controlled trial; review; reward; video game
|Link to article|| https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85134793518&doi=10.1007%2fs40429-022-00424-9&partnerID=40&md5=228f45f0d33aa175353590e9f38bca19
|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. © 2022, The Author(s).