Links between problem gambling and spending on booster packs in collectible card games: A conceptual replication of research on loot boxes.

David Zendle,Aaron Drummond,Paul Cairns,Lukasz Walasek,Rachel Meyer,Stefano Triberti

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0247855

David Zendle, Aaron Drummond + Show 4 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247855

Copy DOI

Abstract

Loot boxes are digital containers of randomised rewards present in some video games which are often purchasable for real world money. Recently, concerns have been raised that loot boxes might approximate traditional gambling activities, and that people with gambling problems have been shown to spend more on loot boxes than peers without gambling problems. Some argue that the regulation of loot boxes as gambling-like mechanics is inappropriate because similar activities which also bear striking similarities to traditional forms of gambling, such as collectable card games, are not subject to such regulations. Players of collectible card games often buy sealed physical packs of cards, and these 'booster packs' share many formal similarities with loot boxes. However, not everything which appears similar to gambling requires regulation. Here, in a large sample of collectible card game players (n = 726), we show no statistically significant link between in real-world store spending on physical booster and problem gambling (p = 0.110, η2 = 0.004), and a trivial in magnitude relationship between spending on booster packs in online stores and problem gambling (p = 0.035, η2 = 0.008). Follow-up equivalence tests using the TOST procedure rejected the hypothesis that either of these effects was of practical importance (η2 > 0.04). Thus, although collectable card game booster packs, like loot boxes, share structural similarities with gambling, it appears that they may not be linked to problem gambling in the same way as loot boxes. We discuss potential reasons for these differences. Decisions regarding regulation of activities which share structural features with traditional forms of gambling should be made on the basis of definitional criteria as well as whether people with gambling problems purchase such items at a higher rate than peers with no gambling problems. Our research suggests that there is currently little evidence to support the regulation of collectable card games.

Highlights

There has been a surge in public policy interest in the incorporation of gambling-like mechanics in video games [1,2]
Chief among the key differences between the case for regulating loot boxes and the case for regulating Collectable Card Games (CCGs) is the mounting evidence that players with higher problem gambling symptomology spend more on loot boxes than players with fewer problem gambling symptoms, suggesting that people with gambling problems may engage with them in a similar manner to traditional gambling activities [2,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]
A description of spending on booster physical booster packs in both real-world and digital stores, split by problem gambling severity, is given below as Table 1

Summary

Introduction

There has been a surge in public policy interest in the incorporation of gambling-like mechanics in video games [1,2]. Chief among the key differences between the case for regulating loot boxes and the case for regulating CCGs is the mounting evidence that players with higher problem gambling symptomology spend more on loot boxes than players with fewer problem gambling symptoms, suggesting that people with gambling problems may engage with them in a similar manner to traditional gambling activities [2,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]. This may imply that a discussion about whether CCGs require regulation is needed If they are not purchased disproportionately by people with gambling problems, this may imply that CCGs are not engaged with in a similar manner to traditional forms of gambling, and that regulators should not treat CCGs as equivalent to loot boxes

Objectives

Results

Discussion

Conclusion