What are the odds? Poor compliance with UK loot box probability disclosure industry self-regulation.

Loot boxes are purchased in video games to obtain randomised rewards of varying value and are thus psychologically akin to gambling. Disclosing the probabilities of obtaining loot box rewards may reduce overspending, in a similar vein to related disclosure approaches in gambling. Presently, this consumer protection measure has been adopted as law only in the People's Republic of China (PRC). In other countries, the videogaming industry has generally adopted this measure as self-regulation. However, self-regulation conflicts with commercial interests and might not maximally promote public welfare. The loot box prevalence rate amongst the 100 highest-grossing UK iPhone games was 77% in mid-2021. The compliance rate with probability disclosure industry self-regulation was only 64.0%, significantly lower than that of PRC legal regulation (95.6%). In addition, UK games generally made insufficiently prominent and difficult-to-access disclosures both in-game and on the game's official website. Significantly fewer UK games disclosed probabilities on their official websites (21.3%) when compared to 72.5% of PRC games. Only one of 75 UK games (1.3%) adopted the most prominent disclosure format of automatically displaying the probabilities on the in-game purchase page. Policymakers should demand more accountable forms of industry self-regulation or impose direct legal regulation to ensure consumer protection.

No evidence that Chinese playtime mandates reduced heavy gaming in one segment of the video games industry.

Governments around the world are considering regulatory measures to reduce young people's time spent on digital devices, particularly video games. This raises the question of whether proposed regulatory measures would be effective. Since the early 2000s, the Chinese government has been enacting regulations to directly restrict young people's playtime. In November 2019, it limited players aged under 18 to 1.5 hours of daily playtime and 3 hours on public holidays. Using telemetry data on over seven billion hours of playtime provided by a stakeholder from the video games industry, we found no credible evidence for overall reduction in the prevalence of heavy playtime following the implementation of regulations: individual accounts became 1.14 times more likely to play heavily in any given week (95% confidence interval 1.139-1.141). This falls below our preregistered smallest effect size of interest (2.0) and thus is not interpreted as a practically meaningful increase. Results remain robust across a variety of sensitivity analyses, including an analysis of more recent (2021) adjustments to playtime regulation. This casts doubt on the effectiveness of such state-controlled playtime mandates.

Debate: Academics should collaborate with the technology industry, but not in lieu of noncollaborative research.

Academic research collaborations with the technology industry should be complementary to and, importantly, must not replace noncollaborative research that is independent from the industry (and, in particular, 'adversarial research' whose negative findings will likely operate against industry interests). Reflecting on the author's own research projects concerning companies' compliance with video game loot box regulation, he agrees with Livingstone et al.'s proposition (Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 2022, 28, 150) that research seeking to identify problems (and thereby work against the industry's interests) should be conducted independently (p. 151), at least initially. He also echoes the sentiment expressed by Zendle and Wardle (Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 2022, 28, 155) that 'a moratorium' (p. 156) or a ban on industry collaborations is not a proportional response to legitimate concerns about conflict of interest stemming from the video game industry's discretionary provision of data access. A combined approach that conducts both noncollaborative and collaborative research, but with the latter being conducted only after the former's unbiased results are known, might prove fruitful. Academics must bear in mind that industry involvement at any particular stage of the research, or at all, is not always appropriate. Some research questions should not and cannot be answered objectively with industry involvement. Funding bodies and other stakeholders should also recognise this and not render industry collaboration compulsory.

Beneath the label: unsatisfactory compliance with ESRB, PEGI and IARC industry self-regulation requiring loot box presence warning labels by video game companies.

Loot boxes in video games are a form of in-game transactions with randomized elements. Concerns have been raised about loot boxes' similarities with gambling and their potential harms (e.g. overspending). Recognizing players' and parents' concerns, in mid-2020, the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) and PEGI (Pan-European Game Information) announced that games containing loot boxes or any forms of in-game transactions with randomized elements will be marked by a new label stating 'In-Game Purchases (Includes Random Items)'. The same label has also been adopted by the International Age Rating Coalition (IARC) and thereby assigned to games available on digital storefronts, e.g. the Google Play Store. The label is intended to provide more information to consumers and allow them to make more informed purchasing decisions. This measure is not legally binding and has been adopted as industry self-regulation or corporate social responsibility. Previous research has suggested that industry self-regulation might not be effectively complied with due to conflicting commercial interests. Compliance with the ESRB's, PEGI's and IARC's loot box presence warning label was assessed in two studies. The first study found that 60.6% of all games labelled by either the ESRB or PEGI (or 16.1% using a more equitable methodology) were not labelled by the other. The majority of the inconsistencies were caused by the ESRB refusing to apply the measure retroactively. Five instances where one age rating organization culpably failed to accurately identify loot box presence were identified (although only two cases were admitted by the relevant organization). Generally, with newly released games, consumers can rely on the PEGI and ESRB labels. PEGI has retroactively labelled many older games, meaning that consumers can expect the labelling to be accurate. However, due to the ESRB's policies (which it has refused to improve), North American consumers cannot rely on the label for many older games containing loot boxes, unlike their European counterparts. The data suggest that the loot box issue is far more pressing on mobile platforms than console/PC platforms. The second study found that 71.0% of popular games containing loot boxes on the Google Play Store (whose age rating system is regulated through IARC) did not display the label and were therefore non-compliant. The IARC's current policy on the Google Play Store is that only games submitted for rating after February 2022 are required to be labelled. This policy (which the IARC has refused to improve) means that most popular and high-grossing games can be, and presently are, marketed without the label, thus significantly reducing the measure's scope and potential benefit. The Apple App Store still does not allow loot box presence to be disclosed. At present, consumers and parents cannot rely on this self-regulatory measure to provide accurate information as to loot box presence for mobile games. Due to their immense scale, the mobile markets pose regulatory and enforcement challenges that PEGI admits are not yet resolved. The mere existence of this measure cannot be used to justify the non-regulation of loot boxes by governments, given the poor compliance and doubtful efficacy (even if when complied with satisfactorily). Improvements to the existing age rating systems are proposed. Preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/E6QBM (date of in-principle acceptance: 12 January 2023).

Safer gambling and consumer protection failings among 40 frequently visited cryptocurrency-based online gambling operators.

OBJECTIVE: Online gambling has increased the accessibility and range of gambling products available to people all over the world. This trend has been particularly noticeable in the United Kingdom. Cryptocurrency-based gambling is a new, largely unregulated, way to gamble online, which uses mostly anonymous blockchain-based technologies, such as Bitcoin. The present research investigated consumer protection features of 40 frequently visited and U.K.-accessible cryptocurrency-based online gambling operators. METHOD: A content analysis was performed by visiting all 40 cryptocurrency-based online operators and recording their safer gambling and consumer protection practices. Coded features included aspects of the sign-up process, features of any safer gambling pages, customer support practices, and Identity verification. RESULTS: Results revealed significant failings in the account registration process; none of the operators verified the identity of new users, and 35% required only an email or no personal information for sign-up. Overall, 37.5% of operators offered no safer gambling tools and a further 20% offered only one. Additionally, 64.7% of operators continued to email promotional material after being informed of a user's impaired control when gambling. Less than half of the analyzed operators held a valid license (47.5%), and none of the operators with an available deposit page required identity verification before enabling deposits. CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight the potential risks for young and vulnerable individuals, especially when a lack of identity verification is paired with the inherent anonymity of cryptocurrencies. Furthermore, it emphasizes the need for greater policy and research attention toward cryptocurrency-based online gambling. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Opening Pandora's Loot Box: Weak Links Between Gambling and Loot Box Expenditure in China, and Player Opinions on Probability Disclosures and Pity-Timers.

Loot boxes are quasi-gambling virtual products in video games that provide randomised rewards of varying value. Previous studies in Western contexts have identified a positive correlation between loot box purchasing and problem gambling severity. A preregistered survey of People's Republic of China (PRC) video game players (N = 879) failed to replicate this correlation. We observed statistically significant but weak positive correlations between loot box expenditure and past-year gambling participation, and between loot box expenditure and impulsiveness. This study cannot prove that loot boxes are not disproportionately purchased by people with problem gambling symptomatology in the PRC or that PRC players are not potentially at risk of loot box-related harms. Instead, the evidence suggests that the relationship between loot boxes and gambling might be weaker in the PRC than in Western countries. We identified multiple unique factors about the PRC that might be affecting this relationship. For example, the lotteries are the only legally permitted form of gambling. More gamified electronic gambling products are unavailable. The limited availability of gambling meant that a low level of gambling participation (n = 87) was observed, which is a limitation of this study. Additionally, the PRC is presently the only country to legally require loot box probability disclosures as a consumer protection measure. Most loot box purchasers (84.6%) reported seeing loot box probability disclosures, but only 19.3% of this group reported consequently spending less money. Most loot box purchasers (86.9%) thought that pity-timers, which increase the winning probabilities of obtaining rarer rewards, are appropriate for implementation. Future loot box research should give greater consideration to differing cultural contexts and novel consumer protection measures.

Reserve your judgment on "Draconian" Chinese video gaming restrictions on children •.

China imposed strict restrictions on young people's participation in videogaming from September 2021. Colder Carras et al.'s commentary (2021) referred to this policy as 'draconian,' i.e., 'excessively harsh and severe.' However, any opinion on whether this policy is 'draconian' is a value judgment, and any judgment on its 'effectiveness' ought to be reserved until proven or disproven by empirical evidence. Indeed, the Chinese policy is neither potentially ineffective nor draconian, and is already providing at least one identifiable benefit: enhancing consumer protection by effectively reducing underage players' monetary spending on videogames, including on randomised, gambling-like mechanics known as 'loot boxes.'