IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v67y2021i8p4809-4825.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Loot Box Pricing and Design

Author

Listed:
  • Ningyuan Chen

    (Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3E6, Canada)

  • Adam N. Elmachtoub

    (Department of Industrial Engineering and Operations Research and Data Science Institute, Columbia University, New York, New York 10027)

  • Michael L. Hamilton

    (Katz Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260)

  • Xiao Lei

    (Department of Industrial Engineering and Operations Research, Columbia University, New York, New York 10027)

Abstract

In the online video game industry, a significant portion of the revenue is generated from microtransactions, where a small amount of real-world currency is exchanged for virtual items to be used in the game. One popular way to conduct microtransactions is via a loot box , which is a random allocation of virtual items whose contents are not revealed until after purchase. In this work, we consider how to optimally price and design loot boxes from the perspective of a revenue-maximizing video game company and analyze customer surplus under such selling strategies. Our paper provides the first formal treatment of loot boxes, with the aim to provide customers, companies, and regulatory bodies with insights into this popular selling strategy. We consider two types of loot boxes: a traditional one where customers can receive (unwanted) duplicates and a unique one where customers are guaranteed to never receive duplicates. We show that as the number of virtual items grows large, the unique box strategy is asymptotically optimal among all possible strategies, whereas the traditional box strategy only garners 36.7% of the optimal revenue. On the other hand, the unique box strategy leaves almost zero customer surplus, whereas the traditional box strategy leaves positive surplus. Further, when designing traditional and unique loot boxes, we show it is asymptotically optimal to allocate the items uniformly, even when the item valuation distributions are heterogeneous. We also show that, when the seller purposely misrepresents the allocation probabilities, their revenue may increase significantly, and thus, strict regulation is needed. Finally, we show that, even if the seller allows customers to salvage unwanted items, then the customer surplus can only increase by at most 1.4%.

Suggested Citation

  • Ningyuan Chen & Adam N. Elmachtoub & Michael L. Hamilton & Xiao Lei, 2021. "Loot Box Pricing and Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(8), pages 4809-4825, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:67:y:2021:i:8:p:4809-4825
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2020.3748
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2020.3748
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2020.3748?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xiao Huang & Greys Sošić & Gregory Kersten, 2017. "Selling through Priceline? On the impact of name-your-own-price in competitive market," IISE Transactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(3), pages 304-319, March.
    2. Yongbo Xiao & Jian Chen, 2014. "Evaluating the potential effects from probabilistic selling of similar products," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 61(8), pages 604-620, December.
    3. Rachel R. Chen & Esther Gal-Or & Paolo Roma, 2014. "Opaque Distribution Channels for Competing Service Providers: Posted Price vs. Name-Your-Own-Price Mechanisms," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 62(4), pages 733-750, August.
    4. , & , J., 2015. "Maximal revenue with multiple goods: nonmonotonicity and other observations," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 10(3), September.
    5. Yannis Bakos & Erik Brynjolfsson, 1999. "Bundling Information Goods: Pricing, Profits, and Efficiency," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(12), pages 1613-1630, December.
    6. Sergiu Hart & Noam Nisan, 2014. "How Good Are Simple Mechanisms for Selling Multiple Goods?," Discussion Paper Series dp666, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    7. Dmitry Shapiro & Xianwen Shi, 2008. "Market Segmentation: The Role of Opaque Travel Agencies," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(4), pages 803-837, December.
    8. Guillermo Gallego & Robert Phillips, 2004. "Revenue Management of Flexible Products," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 6(4), pages 321-337, January.
    9. Kinshuk Jerath & Serguei Netessine & Senthil K. Veeraraghavan, 2010. "Revenue Management with Strategic Customers: Last-Minute Selling and Opaque Selling," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(3), pages 430-448, March.
    10. Scott Fay & Jinhong Xie, 2008. "Probabilistic Goods: A Creative Way of Selling Products and Services," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 674-690, 07-08.
    11. Guillermo Gallego & Anran Li & Van-Anh Truong & Xinshang Wang, 2020. "Approximation Algorithms for Product Framing and Pricing," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 68(1), pages 134-160, January.
    12. Aaron Drummond & James D. Sauer, 2018. "Video game loot boxes are psychologically akin to gambling," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(8), pages 530-532, August.
    13. Gallego, Guillermo & Li, Anran & Truong, Van-Anh & Wang, Xinshang, 2020. "Approximation algorithms for product framing and pricing," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 101983, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yunke Mai & Bin Hu, 2023. "Optimizing Free-to-Play Multiplayer Games with Premium Subscription," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(6), pages 3437-3456, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Adam N. Elmachtoub & Michael L. Hamilton, 2021. "The Power of Opaque Products in Pricing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(8), pages 4686-4702, August.
    2. Zhang, Yi & Hua, Guowei & Cheng, T.C.E. & Zhang, Juliang & Fernandez, Vicenc, 2020. "Risk pooling through physical probabilistic selling," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 295-311.
    3. Guang Yang & Ying Wang & Mulin Liu, 2023. "Optimal Policy for Probabilistic Selling with Three-Way Revenue Sharing Contract under the Perspective of Sustainable Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-22, February.
    4. Fu, Qi & Wang, Qifei & Xu, Xiaoya & Lian, Zhaotong, 2017. "A two-product newsvendor system with a flexible product," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 590-601.
    5. Yeu-Shiang Huang & Tzu-Yi Wu & Chih-Chiang Fang & Tzu-Liang (Bill) Tseng, 2021. "Decisions on Probabilistic Selling for Consumers with Different Risk Attitudes," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 121-138, June.
    6. Ruomeng Cui & Hyoduk Shin, 2018. "Sharing Aggregate Inventory Information with Customers: Strategic Cross-Selling and Shortage Reduction," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 381-400, January.
    7. Zhang, Zihao & Zhang, Mengying, 2024. "Pricing and Capacity Allocation in Opaque Selling," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 318(1), pages 230-241.
    8. Yifan Wu & Shibo Jin, 2022. "Joint pricing and inventory decision under a probabilistic selling strategy," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 1209-1233, April.
    9. Qing Li & Christopher S. Tang & He Xu, 2020. "Mitigating the Double‐Blind Effect in Opaque Selling: Inventory and Information," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(1), pages 35-54, January.
    10. David Sayah & Stefan Irnich, 2019. "Optimal booking control in revenue management with two substitutable resources," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 89(2), pages 189-222, April.
    11. Feng, Bo & Mao, Zhaofang & Li, Hui, 2021. "Choices for competing service providers with heterogeneous customers: Traditional versus opaque sales modes," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    12. Övünç Yılmaz & Pelin Pekgün & Mark Ferguson, 2017. "Would You Like to Upgrade to a Premium Room? Evaluating the Benefit of Offering Standby Upgrades," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 1-18, February.
    13. Xufeng Yang & Juliang Zhang & Wen Jiao & Hong Yan, 2023. "Optimal Capacity Rationing Policy for a Container Leasing System with Multiple Kinds of Customers and Substitutable Containers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(3), pages 1468-1485, March.
    14. Guo, Xiaolong & Bian, Junsong & Wu, Peiyan & Shi, Victor & Chen, Huangen, 2023. "Probabilistic product design with regret-anticipated consumers," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 263(C).
    15. Anderson, Simon P. & Celik, Levent, 2020. "Opaque selling," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    16. Tingliang Huang & Yimin Yu, 2014. "Sell Probabilistic Goods? A Behavioral Explanation for Opaque Selling," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(5), pages 743-759, September.
    17. Scott Fay & Jinhong Xie, 2015. "Timing of Product Allocation: Using Probabilistic Selling to Enhance Inventory Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(2), pages 474-484, February.
    18. Courty, Pascal & Liu, Wenyu, 2013. "Opaque Selling: Static or Inter-Temporal Price Discrimination?," CEPR Discussion Papers 9463, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    19. Yong Chao & Lin Liu & Dongyuan Zhan, 2016. "Vertical Probabilistic Selling under Competition: the Role of Consumer Anticipated Regret," Working Papers 16-14, NET Institute.
    20. Mao, Zhaofang & Liu, Wei & Feng, Bo, 2019. "Opaque distribution channels for service providers with asymmetric capacities: Posted-price mechanisms," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 215(C), pages 112-120.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:67:y:2021:i:8:p:4809-4825. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.