James Close1, Stuart Gordon Spicer2, Laura Louise Nicklin3, Maria Uther4, Joanne Lloyd5, Helen Lloyd6. 1. School of Psychology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth Devon PL4 8AA, UK. Electronic address: james.close@plymouth.ac.uk. 2. School of Psychology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth Devon PL4 8AA, UK. Electronic address: stuart.spicer@plymouth.ac.uk. 3. Cyberpsychology Research Group, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Education, Health and Wellbeing, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton WV1 1LY, UK. Electronic address: laura.nicklin@wlv.ac.uk. 4. Department of Psychology, Faculty of Education, Health and Wellbeing, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton WV1 1LY, UK. Electronic address: m.uther@wlv.ac.uk. 5. Cyberpsychology Research Group, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Education, Health and Wellbeing, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton WV1 1LY, UK. Electronic address: joanne.lloyd@wlv.ac.uk. 6. Psychology, Room A206 Portland Square, Plymouth, PL6 8BX, United Kingdom. Electronic address: helen.lloyd-1@plymouth.ac.uk.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Loot boxes are purchasable randomised reward mechanisms in video games. Due to structural and psychological similarities with gambling, there are fears that loot box purchasing may be associated with problematic gambling. Whilst monthly expenditure is typically modest (i.e. < $20), the distribution is highly skewed, with a small number of high-level spenders, sometimes referred to as "whales". It is not known what proportion of industry profits are derived from such players, and whether they are typically wealthy individuals and/or problem gamblers. METHODS: We used structured literature searches to identify surveys of gamers with open-access loot box data. The resulting datasets were aggregated, and correlations between loot box expenditure, problem gambling and earnings investigated using Spearman's rho correlations. RESULTS: The combined open-access data comprised 7,767 loot box purchasers (5,933 with self-report earnings). Secondary analysis of this self-report data confirmed that disproportionate revenue appears to be generated from high-level spenders: the top 5% of spenders (> $100/month) represent half of loot box revenue. Previously reported correlations between problem gambling and loot box expenditure were confirmed, with an aggregate correlation of ρ = 0.34, p < .001. In contrast, there was no significant correlation between loot box spend and earnings ρ = 0.02, p = .10. CONCLUSION: Our secondary analysis suggests that games developers (unwittingly or not) are disproportionately profiting from moderate and high-risk gamblers, rather than high earning customers. Such patterns of spending mirror those observed with gambling revenues, and have implications for harm minimisation and ongoing policy debates around loot boxes.
INTRODUCTION: Loot boxes are purchasable randomised reward mechanisms in video games. Due to structural and psychological similarities with gambling, there are fears that loot box purchasing may be associated with problematic gambling. Whilst monthly expenditure is typically modest (i.e. < $20), the distribution is highly skewed, with a small number of high-level spenders, sometimes referred to as "whales". It is not known what proportion of industry profits are derived from such players, and whether they are typically wealthy individuals and/or problem gamblers. METHODS: We used structured literature searches to identify surveys of gamers with open-access loot box data. The resulting datasets were aggregated, and correlations between loot box expenditure, problem gambling and earnings investigated using Spearman's rho correlations. RESULTS: The combined open-access data comprised 7,767 loot box purchasers (5,933 with self-report earnings). Secondary analysis of this self-report data confirmed that disproportionate revenue appears to be generated from high-level spenders: the top 5% of spenders (> $100/month) represent half of loot box revenue. Previously reported correlations between problem gambling and loot box expenditure were confirmed, with an aggregate correlation of ρ = 0.34, p < .001. In contrast, there was no significant correlation between loot box spend and earnings ρ = 0.02, p = .10. CONCLUSION: Our secondary analysis suggests that games developers (unwittingly or not) are disproportionately profiting from moderate and high-risk gamblers, rather than high earning customers. Such patterns of spending mirror those observed with gambling revenues, and have implications for harm minimisation and ongoing policy debates around loot boxes.
Authors: Nerilee Hing; Matthew Rockloff; Alex M T Russell; Matthew Browne; Philip Newall; Nancy Greer; Daniel L King; Hannah Thorne Journal: J Behav Addict Date: 2022-04-05 Impact factor: 7.772
Authors: Laura Louise Nicklin; Stuart Gordon Spicer; James Close; Jonathan Parke; Oliver Smith; Thomas Raymen; Helen Lloyd; Joanne Lloyd Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Joanne Lloyd; Laura Louise Nicklin; Stuart Gordon Spicer; Chris Fullwood; Maria Uther; Daniel P Hinton; Jonathan Parke; Helen Lloyd; James Close Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-12-18 Impact factor: 4.241