Drawers are similar to ‘problem gambling’ to avoid regulation, the report states

We had a lot to say about outdoor cabinets in video games, and in the wake of our own reviews and outbursts about their increasing fame, regulation and public inquiry followed. Researchers have also entered the outside discussion in large crowds, but a new report published by researchers on Friday wants to answer a key question that, according to other academics, was left untouched: why gamers buy outdoor cabinets?

In an effort to answer the question, the report, commissioned by advocacy group BeGambleAware on gambling protection, suggests that motivations for buying outside boxes are directly linked to ‘problem gambling’ behavior. This data drives the report’s conclusion: regulators should apply the same rules to looting boxes they do on other forms of gambling, because despite apparent differences, they have enough in common to earn tighter control.

From Skinner boxes to FIFA cards

Much of the study, co-authored with four UK universities and one private gambling research firm, summarizes and describes the history of foreign exchange earnings and the subsequent setback, whether by supporters, critics or regulators. The report also outlines the amount of internal regulations that have been done by gaming companies. (Ars was not contacted prior to the publication of this study, so we only learned today that we are one of the outlets.)

The study hits many of the common outposts. As evidenced by the classic Skinner-box scenario, variable ratio reinforcement schedules (VRR, or the expectation that rewards are random) have a different psychological impact than if a player knows what he is buying straight (a classic outdoor boxing trait). In addition, game makers like to point out that the aesthetic similarities of these boxes with real-world slot machines (such as flickering lights and satisfying sound effects) are not accidental.

But these heaps of stories and articles have rarely explored the “motivations for buying outdoor chests,” reads today’s report that surprised the authors. “This contrasts with gambling research, where we know that gambling is driven by a multitude of overlapping motivations,” researchers write. The biggest findings of the report therefore lie in two tables. The first, which combines data from various existing studies on the English-speaking world of a total of 7,771 adults and children, “establishes a significant link between spending on outdoor boxes and problem dosages.”

An additional table digs deeper by sending a survey to 441 UK gamers, whose answers are just as extensive as one-sentence answers; this was followed by conducting 28 of these respondents with one-hour interviews. Researchers assessed the answers through reflective thematic analysis to break down the motivations for spending money on outdoor closets in video games.

The above summary image is followed by specific quotes that support each reasoning. Below, one quote suggests that a “cosmetic” purchase has the competitive advantage: “You want to compete with the other players, not only in the game, but also with your skin.” A number of quotes have pointed to the social pressure associated with potential purchases of outdoor cupboards, such as: “You can brag to the young people at work, such as: ‘I packed so and so in a suit last night’,” or to decide with friends in an online session to buy outdoor cabinets at the same time.

“Existing criteria for gambling regulation”

Although the table with possible reasons varies according to the psychological spectrum, today’s report points to one important unifying factor: perceived value. That is, outfielders cannot easily be written off as worthless points in a match.

An understanding of value “is constantly linked to [in-game] rarity of items, “reads the report.” The rarer the draw, the higher the value. It can even have direct financial consequences, as some participants hoped to get lucky items that were available to buy straight into the store, but were usually too expensive. In some cases, this is the only way players can afford the item. In other cases, they hoped to later exchange happy profits for an overall profit. These types of observations indicate that many outliers meet the existing criteria for regulating gambling. ‘

This statement comes with the explanation that ‘no single overriding motivation’ can be attributed to why players can buy outside cupboards. Nevertheless, value is a factor, and the authors state that the purchase of outer coffins has a statistically significant association with problem behavior (“similar or stronger than that between problem gambling and established co-morbidities, including depression, drug use, and current alcohol dependence”). report emphasizes the author’s view that regulators should intervene quickly.

They come to this conclusion for several reasons. First, the authors of this report are very careful to dispel the idea that the small percentage of players who buy large quantities of microtransactions, such as loot boxes (often called “whales”) are necessarily rich. Their data do it appears that somewhere between 33% and 50% of the best-spending users, who pay more than $ 100 a month, show ‘problematic gambling patterns’. In other words, the data seem to say that spending on large outdoor cabinets is more likely to have gambling-like tendencies than having high salaries.

“The distortion of buyers of coffins – especially towards young people and young people – is particularly worrying when combined with the discovery that outdoor qualifications with a large spending boat ‘are’ problematic ‘rather than affluent individuals,’ the report said. demographic trends are likely to overlap with psychological drivers, such as impulsivity and cognition associated with gambling. This relationship can result in excessive risk for specific groups and groups of gamers. This suggests that legislation or controls on outdoor buses may be helpful in reducing damage. “

“Not beyond the reach of national powers”

The investigation into the steps that regulators can take is a bit more obscure, in part because it paints a picture of inconsistent European legislation on out-of-doors (where games like FIFA is regulated, but similar market activities on Valve’s Steam store window), but also the scam steps that game makers may take in light of increased regulatory scrutiny.

“Whatever policy may be adopted, we must note that there is now a whole box of psychological tricks available to unscrupulous developers,” the report reads. “The mitigation of longer-term risks, as suggested above, will require more research, new education approaches and updated consumer protection frameworks. However, such recommendations do not preclude outside policy policies.”

Therefore, the report tends to start with a direct ban on paid out-of-bounds in software – as in the easily defined practice of ‘any game-related purchase with a chance-based outcome’ – or at least require more transparent ‘chance’ statements about the likelihood of specific in-game items in those outboxes (instead of saying that a ‘legendary’ prize has a very low percentage chance of appearing, yet omits prize-specific sub-percentages, as not all legendary items are equal ).

The report concedes that enforcing such rules is not immediately a slam dunk. “At first glance, such observations suggest that regulating all lobbies as gambling could be a viable solution to avoid the problem of conflict policy. It would bring all loops under the umbrella of existing gambling regulation – and this is the strategy that benefiting many people, including more than 40,000 signatories to a recent petition in the UK, but such an approach would be a radical overhaul of the gambling law – but again, life is not that easy when it comes to the legal fine print. “Indeed, a 2019 call by the British Parliament to ban coffins has so far not led to widespread action.

Despite potential pitfalls, the report argues that such regulations would at least address specific monetary value judgments by game makers and provide more formal provisions for public research and education on manipulative economies in the game. Better regulation can also remind gaming companies that ‘these kinds of predatory monetization strategies do not stay out of the reach of national powers, if there are few other options (if an industry does not effectively self-regulate).’