Regulating Gambling-Like Video Game Loot Boxes: a Public Health Framework Comparing Industry Self-Regulation, Existing National Legal Approaches, and Other Potential Approaches
Регулирование лутбоксов в видеоиграх, напоминающих азартные игры: рамки общественного здравоохранения с сопоставлением саморегулирования отрасли, существующих национальных правовых подходов и других возможных мер
2022-07-26
SCID: 54.1/7wpm6uxf
Discuss with AI
gambling-like monetisationindustry self-regulationloot boxesnational legal approachespublic health framework
Figures from the paper
Abstract (AI)
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.
Key Findings
1
Belgium has effectively banned paid loot boxes, prohibiting their sale to both children and adults.
2
China requires disclosure of probabilities for potential rewards, aiming to increase transparency and informed purchasing.
3
Industry self-regulation exists but shows lower compliance rates than comparable national legal regulations.
4
International regulation of loot boxes lacks consensus, with countries adopting widely varying approaches.
5
Loot boxes are gambling-like video game monetisation mechanics purchased for randomized in-game rewards and raise public-health concerns.
6
Many countries (e.g., the UK) follow a 'wait-and-watch' approach, neither regulating loot box sales nor providing dedicated consumer protections.
7
Public health approaches such as expenditure limits and harm-reducing loot box design modifications merit further attention and evaluation.
8
The international variation in regulation creates opportunities to compare the compliance and clinical benefits of different interventions over time.
Research Object
Video game loot boxes (gambling-like monetisation mechanics)
Research Subject
Public-health–oriented regulatory approaches and their trade-offs, compliance, and potential harm-reduction effects (comparing industry self-regulation, national legal frameworks, and other interventions such as expenditure limits and design modifications)
Publication Details
Publication Date
2022-07-26
Journal
Publisher
ISSN
Cited by
81
Open access PDF
Access Type
Author Information
Download PDF
Subscribe to digest