IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0263567.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What’s in the box? Exploring UK players’ experiences of loot boxes in games; the conceptualisation and parallels with gambling

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah E Hodge
  • Max Vykoukal
  • John McAlaney
  • Reece D Bush-Evans
  • Ruijie Wang
  • Raian Ali

Abstract

Loot boxes are a popular mechanic within many video games, but it remains unclear if some forms of loot boxes can be seen of as gambling. However, the perspectives of players are often neglected, such as whether they see them as ‘fair’ game elements and how closely they feel this aligns with gambling. In this paper, we synthesise a conceptualisation for loot boxes through players’ actual experience and explore if there are any parallels with gambling. Twenty-one participants who played video games took part in the research through either an interview or online survey. Thematic analysis suggested that six themes were core to exploring loot boxes: Random Chance Effects, Attitudes Towards Content, Implementation, Parallels with Gambling, Game Design, and The Player. The results suggested both indirect and direct parallels with gambling from the players experiences. Implications of game design and classifying loot boxes as gambling are discussed in relation to game design and risk factors of gambling and purchasing behaviour.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah E Hodge & Max Vykoukal & John McAlaney & Reece D Bush-Evans & Ruijie Wang & Raian Ali, 2022. "What’s in the box? Exploring UK players’ experiences of loot boxes in games; the conceptualisation and parallels with gambling," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-23, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0263567
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263567
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0263567
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0263567&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0263567?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. Aaron Drummond & James D. Sauer & Lauren C. Hall & David Zendle & Malcolm R. Loudon, 2020. "Why loot boxes could be regulated as gambling," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(10), pages 986-988, October.
    2. Xiao, Leon Y. & Henderson, Laura L., 2019. "Towards an Ethical Game Design Solution to Loot Boxes: a Commentary on King and Delfabbro," LawArXiv r6z5a, Center for Open Science.
    3. David Zendle & Rachel Meyer & Nick Ballou, 2020. "The changing face of desktop video game monetisation: An exploration of exposure to loot boxes, pay to win, and cosmetic microtransactions in the most-played Steam games of 2010-2019," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-13, May.
    4. David Zendle & Paul Cairns, 2019. "Loot boxes are again linked to problem gambling: Results of a replication study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-13, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Mattinen, Topias & Macey, Joseph & Hamari, Juho, 2023. "A Ruse by Any Other Name: Comparing Loot Boxes and Collectible Card Games Using Magic Arena," OSF Preprints s9xqt, Center for Open Science.
    2. Xiao, Leon Y., 2020. "Regulating Loot Boxes as Gambling? Perspectives from Psychology, Behavioural Economics and Ludology," LawArXiv cdr69, Center for Open Science.
    3. von Meduna, Marc & Steinmetz, Fred & Ante, Lennart & Reynolds, Jennifer & Fiedler, Ingo, 2020. "Loot boxes are gambling-like elements in video games with harmful potential: Results from a large-scale population survey," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    4. Konrad Grabiszewski & Alex Horenstein, 2022. "Profiling dynamic decision-makers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-22, April.
    5. Xiao, Leon Y. & Henderson, Laura L., 2019. "Towards an Ethical Game Design Solution to Loot Boxes: a Commentary on King and Delfabbro," LawArXiv r6z5a, Center for Open Science.
    6. Higgs, James & Flowerday, Stephen, 2024. "Towards Definitive Categories for Online Video Game Money Laundering," SocArXiv ckxa8, Center for Open Science.
    7. Jean-Michel Costes & Céline Bonnaire, 2022. "Spending Money in Free-to-Play Games: Sociodemographic Characteristics, Motives, Impulsivity and Internet Gaming Disorder Specificities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-14, November.
    8. Kostić Zorana & Tomić Nenad, 2022. "Implementation of the Game as a Service Research Model: Microperspective," Economic Themes, Sciendo, vol. 60(1), pages 57-75, March.
    9. Ó Ceallaigh, Diarmaid & Timmons, Shane & Robertson, Deirdre & Lunn, Pete, 2023. "Problem gambling: A narrative review of important policy-relevant issues," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number SUSTAT119.
    10. Xiao, Leon Y., 2024. "Illegal loot box advertising on social media: an empirical study using the Meta and TikTok ad transparency repositories," OSF Preprints s92j3, Center for Open Science.
    11. D. Leahy, 2022. "Rocking the Boat: Loot Boxes in Online Digital Games, the Regulatory Challenge, and the EU’s Unfair Commercial Practices Directive," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 561-592, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0263567. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.