Loot box limit‐setting is not sufficient on its own to prevent players from overspending: a reply to Drummond, Sauer & Hall

In their recent letter, Drummond, Sauer & Hall 1 argue that policymakers should consider the introduction of limit-setting for ‘loot boxes’ (i.e. a type of in-game purchasing option found in popular online video games) to prevent vulnerable players from overspending. We share the authors’ concerns that there are striking similarities between loot box spending and continuous forms of gambling 2, and that some vulnerable users, including underage players, could experience financial harms (to themselves and/or others) and other problems due to overspending 3. However, we believe that there are some elements of their arguments which could be qualified. In our view, drawing direct comparisons between the act of overspending on loot boxes and problem gambling, which has also been the focus of some recent research 4, 5, might be extending the analogy too strongly. For example, an important difference between in-game purchasing in gaming and bets placed in gambling is that gaming purchases typically do not involve the possibility of a positive financial return to the player, which is a strong motivation for persistent behaviour. Instead, we argue that overspending on video game-related purchases (including ‘loot boxes’) is perhaps better positioned as a form of problematic video gaming behaviour and has a stronger affinity with gaming disorder (i.e. as a behavioural indicator of an escalating prioritization and commitment to gaming pursuits). The only exception to this might be when virtual items and currency operate in an ‘open economy’ and can be used as a currency for gambling (e.g. ‘skin gambling’) outside the principal game containing the loot box. Thus, while we share Drummond et al.’s concerns about the potential harms associated with loot boxes, such features create risks that differ in their nature. We believe that loot box spending may be well accounted for with reference to principles in behavioural economics. Rather than encouraging chasing losses as in the case of gambling, loot boxes may operate to increase expenditure by exploiting player commitments to long-term games (i.e. a sunk cost effect) rather than a desire to recover costs or pay off debts. For this reason, such features as loot boxes may provide a timely avenue to re-examine the behavioural criteria that are used to capture proposed definitions of gaming disorder (e.g. in the DSM-5 6), and how this might differ from gambling. Such a modification would recognize that in-game purchasing has become a central feature of many types of video games, particularly mobile games, and that there are emerging reports of young players who have acquired massive debts from these transactions 7-9. Drummond et al. assert that limit-setting ‘is broadly effective at reducing over-expenditure, and generally viewed positively by gamblers’. While we agree that a range of harm minimization controls should be examined 10, we have some reservations about proposing any single regulatory control in isolation of other supporting measures. Introducing a $50 limit on loot box spending, as Drummond et al. propose, may have unintended consequences that lead to other problems (e.g. some players may increase their playing time to compensate for spending less money). Additionally, game designers may find strategies to obtain revenue in other ways by introducing other micro-transaction features, such as features on external or third-party platforms, which would create further complexities for limit-setting and players keeping track of spending. Another caveat to introducing a limit to curb in-game overspending is that gaming activities involve a substantial proportion of underage players whose game-play and spending behaviour may be influenced by unique developmental, cognitive, social and environmental factors that are less relevant to adults who gamble. At this stage in this developing field, we believe that, rather than seeking proposals for singular measures, the optimal approach would be to first undertake a wide consultation and scoping process to develop a comprehensive list of potential countermeasures and related consumer advice and protections, particularly those designed specifically for gaming and in-game purchasing, for the purpose of further review and evaluation. None. This work received financial support from a Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DECRA) DE170101198 funded by the Australian Research Council (ARC).