Study to be presented to Australian Senate finds paying for loot boxes is linked to problem gambling

[oni-link]

From searching Google it appears this study was done in part for the Australia Senate and its inquiry on micro-transactions in video games

A recent study by Dr David Zendle from York St. John University and Dr Paul Cairns from the University of York has turned up the heat on game publishers, claiming the seemingly innocuous gimmick is potentially a major danger to gamers, especially those of a young age.

The paper, which was published in the preprint service for the psychological sciences "PsyArXiv", recommends adjustments to the current game classification system advising "parental advisories for games that feature loot boxes" as well as "a descriptor outlining that the game itself features gambling content".

"We recommend that … serious consideration is given to restricting games that contain loot boxes to players of legal gambling age," the researchers said.

The submission was presented on Monday to the Australian Senate inquiry into micro-transactions, which was initially set to table a report by Tuesday. But now, the conclusion of the inquiry has been delayed another month to allow time for more evidence, extra hearings and briefings.

Click to shrink...

I had a quick Google of the lead academic as well in case anyone is interested

The actual study can be found here, and will be presented to the Australian Senate on the 17th October according to the above linked article

The actual study is a little dry so I'll post a few bits below:

Paying for loot boxes is linked to problem gambling, regardless of specific features like cash-out and pay-to-win: A preregistered investigation

Click to shrink...

I had a bit of a mare trying to copy and paste from the study so here are two parts I screen grabbed

It's an interesting read, but I'd like to know what you guys and girls think of their methodology and how they conducted the study too, as I'm by no means an expert

What do you think?

Edit: Please see this post for some updated information

 

[oni-link]

It makes me wonder what else will be presented to the senate as the study is pretty anti loot boxes and Austraia on the the whole seem pretty conservative when it comes to gaming

 

[Deleted member 888]

Good to see some academics chipping in. I'll read the study tomorrow.

 

[Maximo]

Wonder If they will do anything about it gambling seems to be "accepted" by most, a sports betting website and app is advertised before and during any sports games on tv. The Melbourne cup is huge with the majority being a public holiday and at least in Sydney they butchered the "nightlife" to push people towards venues with a primary focus on gambling, and then you factor in "Pokies" and how much of a problem they are in certain areas.

We are and have been fairly conservative with games so they might end up doing something because "kids" and the still old view on video games. All in all I agree something should be done just I'm not how far they will take it, if they simply slap a label on the box, ban the games themselves or something in the middle.

 

[Aokiji]

Keeping the pressure up about loot boxes. No matter what people say this battle between publishers & gamers is far from over

 

[Jintor]

sorry just to correct OP. Study was already presented a few months ago as part of the Senate Inquiry; the report of the Senate Inquiry is what is due tomorrow. (Thanks for the reminder, I nearly forgot about it again)

 

[Quzar]

Who'da thunkit?

 

[oni-link]

sorry just to correct OP. Study was already presented a few months ago as part of the Senate Inquiry; the report of the Senate Inquiry is what is due tomorrow. (Thanks for the reminder, I nearly forgot about it again)

Click to shrink...

Ah thanks for the correction

I think this appears to be the most in depth study I've seen on the subject but I'm unsure how sound it is

It will be interesting to see how it's received, as it's pretty hard in it's condemnation, so I wonder what other evidence will be presented

 

[Rodelero]

If I'm reading this right, this is simply a 'link' in the sense of correlation which is neither surprising or particularly impressive. You would imagine that there is correlation between those with gambling problems and pretty much any risk taking activity however innocuous.

If this indicated that use of loot boxes lead to problem gambling, almost as a gateway, that would be extremely powerful. This? Not so much.

 

[Almagest]

What a surprise!

 

[R0987]

I often wonder what the end game is for the anti loot box movement is perhaps the total removal of loot boxes from games and then what, after all the passes and boxes the publishers will never let go of after sales profits now that they tasted it.

 

[oni-link]

I often wonder what the end game is for the anti loot box movement is perhaps the total removal of loot boxes from games and then what, after all the passes and boxes the publishers will never let go of after sales profits now that they tasted it.

Click to shrink...

They won't ever be removed, but it's likely they'll be made to make games with them 18 plus and they might need to get a gambling licencee, depending on if it's decided that it will be covered under gambling law, if not it might get it's own laws

It's only paid lootboxes people have a problem with, if they can't be paid for then they're not an issue

In Belgium all the games that were deemed an issue just turned off the option to pay for them and that alone meant they were complying with the law

EA decided to ignore that and carry on breaking the law though

 

[Rodelero]

I often wonder what the end game is for the anti loot box movement is perhaps the total removal of loot boxes from games and then what, after all the passes and boxes the publishers will never let go of after sales profits now that they tasted it.

Click to shrink...

I think this is actually not the case, at least in AAA games. They'll find something that's similarly profitable and move on. They've done so before and they'll do so again. Battle Passes seem like the most likely successor. At some point people will start to turn against those as well.

 

[Lowrys]

If I'm reading this right, this is simply a 'link' in the sense of correlation which is neither surprising or particularly impressive. You would imagine that there is correlation between those with gambling problems and pretty much any risk taking activity however innocuous.

If this indicated that use of loot boxes lead to problem gambling, almost as a gateway, that would be extremely powerful. This? Not so much.

Click to shrink...

Yes, correlation =/ causation. Though I would not be surpsied if there were a causative link between the two.

 

[Deleted member 888]

I often wonder what the end game is for the anti loot box movement is perhaps the total removal of loot boxes from games and then what, after all the passes and boxes the publishers will never let go of after sales profits now that they tasted it.

Click to shrink...

For me?

Known drop rates in all games and to the precise %, not EA's "less than 1%". Also known manipulative systems that increase or decrease the drop rate (although these might be banned as the house manipulating isn't a good thing).

I'd also like to see games with loot boxes give some sort of description about what they are and to spend aware. As for age rating, that's debatable depending on further findings around them being gambling. I wouldn't be opposed to M/18 ratings.

Outright banning? I've never really argued for that, simply regulation. The industry will not self-regulate as everyone's best publisher friends won't do it with any consistency or genuine respect for the spender.

If they end up getting banned in some countries the industry only has itself to look at for being absolutely pathetic around handling this with any level of dignity whatsoever.

 

[oni-link]

I think this is actually not the case, at least in AAA games. They'll find something that's similarly profitable and move on. They've done so before and they'll do so again. Battle Passes seem like the most likely successor. At some point people will start to turn against those as well.

Click to shrink...

You can't really do Battle Passes for SP though (I don't think you can, anyway)

Yes, correlation =/ causation. Though I would not be surpsied if there were a causative link between the two.

Click to shrink...

Well that's why I asked people to look at the methodology in the OP, as it does account for that I believe (If I've read it correctly anyway)

 

[Dr. Mario]

If I'm reading this right, this is simply a 'link' in the sense of correlation which is neither surprising or particularly impressive. You would imagine that there is correlation between those with gambling problems and pretty much any risk taking activity however innocuous.

If this indicated that use of loot boxes lead to problem gambling, almost as a gateway, that would be extremely powerful. This? Not so much.

Click to shrink...

I don't think there's an ethical committee that would sanction an experiment where kids in the experiment group are made problem gamblers (and thank jeebus for that). A correlation (perhaps regression) is as close as proof as we're going to get. In any case, the authors correctly state that either direction of the correlation is problematic. It either causes gambling addiction in minors, or it exploits it.

 

[deft]

I often wonder what the end game is for the anti loot box movement is perhaps the total removal of loot boxes from games and then what, after all the passes and boxes the publishers will never let go of after sales profits now that they tasted it.

Click to shrink...

Regulation could mean all number of things:

eg. age restrictions to adults
eg. removal of fancy graphical 'reward' effects a la plain cigarette packaging
eg. require a running tally of how much the player has spent that day and/or all time
eg. require messaging about the dangers of problem gambling
eg. require a payment password every time
eg. restrict the number of loot boxes purchasable at any time
eg. require purchase values to be shown in real currencies, not fake bux
eg. require timed interstitial screens between boxes to break up the reward loop
eg. require specific odds to be listed (ie none of this "less than 1%" bullshit EA pulled)
eg. require 'fake bux' to be purchased as physical 'top up' cards, so its not as easy to click buy

The end game doesn't necessarily mean the removal of loot boxes. It may be that breaking the reward loop and ensuring each loot box purchase is an informed and intentional purchase is enough.

 

[Joeyro]

Loot boxes for people with gambling tendencies are very dangerous. i've been playing Clash Royale on and off, and i've seen guild members wasting thousands and straight up admitting that they can't stop. I remember even one guy saying he got a loan to max out a legendary, just terrifying stuff.

Now every time i see a whale i pray that they're rich and that they have the extra cash to blow on this kind of stuff.

 

[Cugel]

Next study will find water is wet. Lootboxes ARE gambling.

 

[spineduke]

Regulation could mean all number of things:

eg. removal of fancy graphical 'reward' effects a la plain cigarette packaging
eg. require a running tally of how much the player has spent that day and/or all time
eg. require messaging about the dangers of problem gambling
eg. require a payment password every time
eg. restrict the number of loot boxes purchasable at any time
eg. require purchase values to be shown in real currencies, not fake bux
eg. require timed interstitial screens between boxes to break up the reward loop
eg. require specific odds to be listed (ie none of this "less than 1%" bullshit EA pulled)

Click to shrink...

These are all great ideas, I'd love to see how such boxes would perform in real world conditions with all of the above applied.

 

[Rodelero]

I don't think there's an ethical committee that would sanction an experiment where kids in the experiment group are made problem gamblers (and thank jeebus for that). A correlation (perhaps regression) is as close as proof as we're going to get. In any case, the authors correctly state that either direction of the correlation is problematic. It either causes gambling addiction in minors, or it exploits it.

Click to shrink...

Correlation does not imply causation in either direction. A being correlated with B does not imply that either A causes B or that B causes A.

One thing that occurs to me is that one could test to see if the rise of loot boxes is correlated with a rise in problem gambling. Loot boxes have been around for about ten years but arguably only became ubiquitous in the last four or five. Is there any noticeable change in the number of problem gamblers over that period (or lagging it by a few years)?

 

[Deleted member 888]

Correlation does not imply causation in either direction. A being correlated with B does not imply that either A causes B or that B causes A.

One thing that occurs to me is that one could test to see if the rise of loot boxes is correlated with a rise in problem gambling. Loot boxes have been around for about ten years but arguably only became ubiquitous in the last four or five. Is there any noticeable change in the number of problem gamblers over that period (or lagging it by a few years)?

Click to shrink...

There's been an increase in problem spending, yes, as at some points in the gaming industry the below would only be doable with casino games, either real or virtual

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/195806/chasing_the_whale_examining_the_.php

https://kotaku.com/meet-the-19-year-old-who-spent-over-10-000-on-microtra-1820854953

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...-over-usd10-000-in-two-years-on-ultimate-team

Heck, even this old article should be read by some of the ardent defenders on this forum, especially after seeing the data in the FIFA article above

The writer describes him or herself as "a senior producer at a free-to-play games company" that has worked for several major companies. You have almost certainly played or are playing a game that this person produced or worked on in some significant capacity. Originally a console game producer, they joined mobile games in the early days of the iPhone and witnessed the whole evolution that brought us to where we are today.

The most troubling revelation of the story is how much personal data developers skim about their players, and then use to target them for in-app purchases:

"This is about how we can target you, because we (and our partners) know everything about you. We know where you live, we know your income level, we know your relationships, your favorite sports teams, your political preferences. We know when you go to work, and where you work. We can target an event to start for you when we know you have a long weekend coming up. We own you."

Click to shrink...

https://toucharcade.com/2015/09/16/we-own-you-confessions-of-a-free-to-play-producer/

 

[Rodelero]

There's been an increase in problem spending, yes, as at some points in the gaming industry the below would only be doable with casino games, either real or virtual

Click to shrink...

That's not what I was asking though. I was asking if there was a correlation between the rise of lootboxes and problem gambling in the young. That some people end up spending a fortune on loot boxes doesn't tell us anything about that.

As much as those stories are horrifying, I'm not convinced they can only happen because of loot boxes. I'm aware of people, anecdotally, that are clearly and problematically addicted to buying skins in Fortnite. There's no chance element there but they end up buying almost every expensive skin as soon as they come out and while there is more of a cap on that kind of spending we're still talking about people who are spending thousands on cosmetic items they almost never end up using.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think loot boxes are a good thing, I do think they need to be regulated and, frankly, I'd be glad to see the back of them. There are some very concerning aspects to them, like those in that final quote. On the other hand, I think these discussions often end up being very simplistic and binary and I don't think that helps anyone.

 

[Deleted member 888]

That's not what I was asking though. I was asking if there was a correlation between the rise of lootboxes and problem gambling in the young. That some people end up spending a fortune on loot boxes doesn't tell us anything about that.

As much as those stories are horrifying, I'm not convinced they can only happen because of loot boxes. I'm aware of people, anecdotally, that are clearly and problematically addicted to buying skins in Fortnite. There's no chance element there but they end up buying almost every expensive skin as soon as they come out and while there is more of a cap on that kind of spending we're still talking about people who are spending thousands on cosmetic items they almost never end up using.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think loot boxes are a good thing, I do think they need to be regulated and, frankly, I'd be glad to see the back of them. There are some very concerning aspects to them, like those in that final quote. On the other hand, I think these discussions often end up being very simplistic and binary and I don't think that helps anyone.

Click to shrink...

And before youth could do this in video games, they couldn't do it. The youth cannot go into casinos nor can they legally gamble. Outlets like gaming allow them to because there are no age restrictions or overseeing bodies regulating. Yes, parents are supposed to continually play a role but lets not be daft about how tech savvy young minds can be or how stupid parents can be

https://www.cinemablend.com/games/Father-My-Teenager-Spent-4500-FIFA-Microtransactions-70782.html

https://gamerant.com/8000-fifa-microtransactions-charge/

https://segmentnext.com/2017/12/21/fifa-18-kid-soend/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/rel...s-on-in-app-purchases-without-me-knowing.html

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/01/17-year-old-uses-his-dads-credit-card-to-spend-7600-playing-fifa

I understand you want an actual study, but I am at this point simply highlighting the hypothetical is there due to how we tend to restrict other industries from the youth being able to legally partake.

 

[Deleted member 1698]

It makes me wonder what else will be presented to the senate as the study is pretty anti loot boxes and Austraia on the the whole seem pretty conservative when it comes to gaming

Click to shrink...

Australia conservative when it comes to gaming? Yes. Gambling though? Well Australians, and in particular politicians who are owned by the gambling industry love it.

So ironically I'd expect them to come down pretty hard on this. For once they get to be seen to be "tough on gambling" while doing absolutely nothing about sports betting or poker machines.

 

[Deleted member 135]

I mean its obvious. All microtransactions are exploitative and manipulative, ones with virtual currency or lootboxes are even worse and cross into predatory.

 

[sir_crocodile]

I mean its obvious. All microtransactions are exploitative and manipulative, ones with virtual currency or lootboxes are even worse and cross into predatory.

Click to shrink...

yup

 

[Mars People]

Why do we need studies and academics to tell us what single cell organisms can deduce given five minutes?

 

[defaltoption]

And they still wont believe it, of course it triggers the same things in your brain. The arguement of how or what you cash out makes no difference in any way unless you're arguing the semantics of the law, if you are actually thinking about the persons well-being that doesn't matter at all, and its the same with cards for all of the people who uses "but real life cards" as their defense to say it isn't gambling.

 

[Dr. Mario]

Correlation does not imply causation in either direction. A being correlated with B does not imply that either A causes B or that B causes A.

Click to shrink...

I mean that's technically correct, but it's also a bit like saying technically there's no such thing as causation because there's no fully controllable experiment, there's a physical observer effect, and we cannot go past the problem of induction. Correlation does not imply causation because of two main reasons, a potential missing third variable causing the apparent correlation or because you cannot determine the direction of the relationship. Let's ignore for a bit that the effect size explains the part of the variance attributable to the correlation so also gives some indication, these problems with correlation and causation can be "circumvented" somewhat, by controlling as in experiments or including a larger number of variables as in regression analysis or SEM, and by measuring over time, respectively. There's no time factor providing direction, which is why the authors give frameworks that make the relationship plausibly not spurious in both directions. For the potentially missing variable they performed a moderation (multiple regression) analysis with a large number of variables (not a simple bivariate correlation), so it checks most of these boxes. Still obviously doesn't make it rigorously causation, but if you know other variables that can plausibly explain these results I'd be happy to hear them; otherwise we can kind of assume there to be a causation here.

To expound further on the moderation analysis argument, if you remove or add elements to the model related to gambling practices (near misses, paying to win, etc.), you would not expect to see much effect on the model if it were caused by some unmeasured third root cause variable. Instead, at least from my cursory glance, everything is highly significant, further indicating that the model of problem gambling and lootboxes impacting each other is correct.

 

[Dr. Mario]

That's not what I was asking though. I was asking if there was a correlation between the rise of lootboxes and problem gambling in the young. That some people end up spending a fortune on loot boxes doesn't tell us anything about that.

Click to shrink...

You could probably make that correlation

The report by the Gambling Commission estimated that the number of British over-16s deemed to be problem gamblers had grown by a third in three years, suggesting that about 430,000 people suffer from a serious habit.

Click to shrink...

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/24/problem-gamblers-uk-gambling-commission-report

Lootboxes have been around for about three years, and the number of problem gamblers haven risen 30% since then.

Of course this would be a much more dubious correlation than the one in the study in the OP.

 

[Principate]

That's not what I was asking though. I was asking if there was a correlation between the rise of lootboxes and problem gambling in the young. That some people end up spending a fortune on loot boxes doesn't tell us anything about that.

As much as those stories are horrifying, I'm not convinced they can only happen because of loot boxes. I'm aware of people, anecdotally, that are clearly and problematically addicted to buying skins in Fortnite. There's no chance element there but they end up buying almost every expensive skin as soon as they come out and while there is more of a cap on that kind of spending we're still talking about people who are spending thousands on cosmetic items they almost never end up using.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think loot boxes are a good thing, I do think they need to be regulated and, frankly, I'd be glad to see the back of them. There are some very concerning aspects to them, like those in that final quote. On the other hand, I think these discussions often end up being very simplistic and binary and I don't think that helps anyone.

Click to shrink...

I mean this works under the assumption problem gambling is inherently worse when the question that should asked is how much are these problem gamblers spending on lootboxes vs games with cash payouts.

Not sure if the study itself mentions this as was unable to find it linked in the article thoughI may have missed it.

 

[oni-link]

I mean this works under the assumption problem gambling is inherently worse when the question that should asked is how much are these problem gamblers spending on lootboxes vs games with cash payouts.

Not sure if the study itself mentions this as was unable to find it linked in the article thoughI may have missed it.

Click to shrink...

It's linked in the OP but I'll put it here just in case anyone else can't find it:

https://psyarxiv.com/6e74k/

 

[Rodelero]

You could probably make that correlation


https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/24/problem-gamblers-uk-gambling-commission-report

Lootboxes have been around for about three years, and the number of problem gamblers haven risen 30% since then.

Of course this would be a much more dubious correlation than the one in the study in the OP.

Click to shrink...

... three years? Loot boxes have been around for ten years.

 

[JimmyJacking]

Ok, there is a lot of incorrect info in the OP. Not major, but should be noted.

From searching Google it appears this study was done in part for the Australia Senate and its inquiry on micro-transactions in video games

Click to shrink...

While not a big issue, the study was not done for the inquiry but was used as a reference in a submission. and follow up as direct questioning as a witness. I think a distinction should be made there - The Aust govt did not have any part in it creation or the commission of it.

CHAIR: Have you got a time line on your additional research?
Dr Zendle : Yes. I would expect a pre-print of a paper showing different effects of different kinds of games within the next month or so.
CHAIR: Oh, that is tantalising!
Dr Zendle : Then I imagine another thing we would like to do is a longitudinal study where we have a look at how problem gambling develops over time amongst people buying loot boxes, because that could help us work out the causal argument—whether it's causing it or whether it's just an effect of problem gamblers being drawn to loot boxes. That's more speculative. I would imagine that's within six months, but I would say a hard copy within two months or a pre-print of how different games affect things differently, because we have the data. We just have to analyse it.
CHAIR: Would you be willing to provide it to the committee in that preprint form?
Dr Zendle : Of course we would. We would be happy to share it.
CHAIR: That may be a question of our time lines more than yours. But it seems that the critical piece of clarifying information is just about to arrive. Thank you for that, gentlemen.
Senator DUNIAM: Are you asking for the report?
CHAIR: We could do it, couldn't we?
Senator DUNIAM: Yes.
CHAIR: Our report date is 17 October.
Dr Zendle : We will make it by the 17th, and that is a solid promise.

So this bit;

The actual study can be found here, and will be presented to the Australian Senate on the 17th October according to the above linked article

Click to shrink...

Is not exactly correct. The article is talking about their prior study that was referenced and submitted with their submission
[1] D. Zendle and P. Cairns, "Video game loot boxes are linked to problem gambling: Results of a large-scale survey," PsyArXiv, Aug. 2018.

Little confusing, but there are two studies;

1. Video game loot boxes are linked to problem gambling: Results of a large-scale survey
2. Paying for loot boxes is linked to problem gambling, regardless of specific features like cash-out and pay-to-win: A preregistered investigation

(Im not sure of their datasets and use/methodology - I just have not had the capacity to read them)

FWIW Jintor and OP - An extension was granted on the 15th Oct for the final date to now be due Late Nov.

The Clerk: Notifications of extensions of time for committees to report have been lodged in respect of the following:
Gaming micro-transactions—from 17 October to 27 November 2018.
(per Hansard)

​

I didn't update that other AU Senate thread about the date change cause RL - Get busy during sitting weeks. But yeah..

edit: formatting and what-not

 

[Jintor]

oh blast. oh well, more time to prep for other stuff i guess. thanks jimmy

 

[oni-link]

Ok, there is a lot of incorrect info in the OP. Not major, but should be noted.


While not a big issue, the study was not done for the inquiry but was used as a reference in a submission. and follow up as direct questioning as a witness. I think a distinction should be made there - The Aust govt did not have any part in it creation or the commission of it.

CHAIR: Have you got a time line on your additional research?
Dr Zendle : Yes. I would expect a pre-print of a paper showing different effects of different kinds of games within the next month or so.
CHAIR: Oh, that is tantalising!
Dr Zendle : Then I imagine another thing we would like to do is a longitudinal study where we have a look at how problem gambling develops over time amongst people buying loot boxes, because that could help us work out the causal argument—whether it's causing it or whether it's just an effect of problem gamblers being drawn to loot boxes. That's more speculative. I would imagine that's within six months, but I would say a hard copy within two months or a pre-print of how different games affect things differently, because we have the data. We just have to analyse it.
CHAIR: Would you be willing to provide it to the committee in that preprint form?
Dr Zendle : Of course we would. We would be happy to share it.
CHAIR: That may be a question of our time lines more than yours. But it seems that the critical piece of clarifying information is just about to arrive. Thank you for that, gentlemen.
Senator DUNIAM: Are you asking for the report?
CHAIR: We could do it, couldn't we?
Senator DUNIAM: Yes.
CHAIR: Our report date is 17 October.
Dr Zendle : We will make it by the 17th, and that is a solid promise.

So this bit;

Is not exactly correct. The article is talking about their prior study that was referenced and submitted with their submission
[1] D. Zendle and P. Cairns, "Video game loot boxes are linked to problem gambling: Results of a large-scale survey," PsyArXiv, Aug. 2018.

Little confusing, but there are two studies;

1. Video game loot boxes are linked to problem gambling: Results of a large-scale survey
2. Paying for loot boxes is linked to problem gambling, regardless of specific features like cash-out and pay-to-win: A preregistered investigation

(Im not sure of their datasets and use/methodology - I just have not had the capacity to read them)

FWIW Jintor and OP - An extension was granted on the 15th Oct for the final date to now be due Late Nov.

The Clerk: Notifications of extensions of time for committees to report have been lodged in respect of the following:
Gaming micro-transactions—from 17 October to 27 November 2018.
(per Hansard)

​

I didn't update that other AU Senate thread about the date change cause RL - Get busy during sitting weeks. But yeah..

edit: formatting and what-not

Click to shrink...

Thanks. I'll look to incorporate a lot of your post into the OP when I'm back at my PC (hate editing posts on mobile)

 

[Weltall Zero]

Correlation does not imply causation in either direction. A being correlated with B does not imply that either A causes B or that B causes A.

Click to shrink...

Actually, demonstrable, systematic correlation (i.e. not caused by statistical noise, a badly formulated experiment, etc.) means one of three things.
- A causes B.
- B causes A.
- C (a third , unseen cause), causes both A and B.

Evident caveat is that "causes" doesn't necessarily mean "directly" and that influence can happen through any number of intermediate cause / effect relations.

So it's entirely correct to say that correlation between gambling and lootbox spending means that either one causes the other (unlikely), or rather (far more likely) that lootboxes exploit the same mechanisms and compulsions that gambling does (which was the thesis of the post you replied to).

 

[Principate]

It's linked in the OP but I'll put it here just in case anyone else can't find it:

https://psyarxiv.com/6e74k/

Click to shrink...

They mention a spending catgorisation but I can't seem to find the actual table within the result. Either way a very interesting paper.

1. Video game loot boxes are linked to problem gambling: Results of a large-scale survey

Click to shrink...

This one does however. The responders were recruited from reddit so take from that what you will but the number of participants are high. According to results from it loot boxes were a far more effective means of monitising problem gamblers than traditional microtransactions.

 

[Rodelero]

Actually, demonstrable, systematic correlation (i.e. not caused by statistical noise, a badly formulated experiment, etc.) means one of three things.
- A causes B.
- B causes A.
- C (a third , unseen cause), causes both A and B.

Evident caveat is that "causes" doesn't necessarily mean "directly" and that influence can happen through any number of intermediate cause / effect relations.

Click to shrink...

But in this case it is clearly C, not A or B. A and B are correlated because they are similar. They are showing not that loot boxes addiction leads to gambling problems nor the reverse, but that there is a strong similarity between the two (which is obvious) which means there is a big overlap between the two groups. Loot boxes are not exploiting gambling addiction as the post I responded to implied, loot boxes share some (not all) features of gambling and those are problematic.

 

[Weltall Zero]

But in this case it is clearly C, not A or B. A and B are correlated because they are similar. They are showing not that loot boxes addiction leads to gambling problems nor the reverse, but that there is a strong similarity between the two (which is obvious) which means there is a big overlap between the two groups.

Click to shrink...

This is literally what I just said. :D

Loot boxes are not exploiting gambling addiction as the post I responded to implied, loot boxes share some (not all) features of gambling and those are problematic.

Click to shrink...

Loot boxes are exploiting the same mechanism or compulsion that makes people vulnerable to gambling (which, as you point out, is kind of obvious). This mechanism is C. I don't see what you disagree with here, frankly.

 

[Vitor]

That seems so obvious, but even the obvious has to be studied and verified as much as possible.

The discussion on gambling semantics ("is it gambling if you always get something or the prizes can't be exchanged for real money?",etc) is silly - what matter is if people are being harmed and exploited by predatory tactics and how should we change the legislation to prevent it.

 

[Rodelero]

This is literally what I just said. :D

Loot boxes are exploiting the same mechanism or compulsion that makes people vulnerable to gambling (which, as you point out, is kind of obvious). This mechanism is C. I don't see what you disagree with here, frankly.

Click to shrink...

I think I could make the same point to you when you responded to my statement that:

"Correlation does not imply causation in either direction. A being correlated with B does not imply that either A causes B or that B causes A."

 

[Htown]

Why do we need studies and academics to tell us what single cell organisms can deduce given five minutes?

Click to shrink...

I don't think you've considered all the facts in this case.

For example, what if I like playing the video game called Overwatch? That game has lootboxes, and I like it, so nothing about it can possibly be a problem.

These types of studies are inherently flawed, because they have the potential to imply that something could be wrong with video games that I like.

Please consider this carefully, while I go try to figure out another way to remind you that companies want to make money, as if that ends all conversation on the matter.

 

[Weltall Zero]

I think I could make the same point to you when you responded to my statement that:

"Correlation does not imply causation in either direction. A being correlated with B does not imply that either A causes B or that B causes A."

Click to shrink...

You could make the same point, but you'd be wrong. You used "correlation doesn't imply causation" to counter someone's point that lootboxes are exploiting the same compulsion than gambling is; however, correlation does imply that when there's no A<->B causation, there's at least a common cause, and therefore their point still stands. My own post was pointing out all of these discrepancies, so I don't see how you get that I'm restating your previous post from that.

Just to know where we're standing, do you still disagree with the original argument that lootboxes at the very least exploit the same compulsion than gambling does?

Why do we need studies and academics to tell us what single cell organisms can deduce given five minutes?

Click to shrink...

There's a pretty great explanation why studies are still necessary to prove what you think is obvious, here.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WnheMGAka4fL99eae/hindsight-devalues-science

 

[Rodelero]

You could make the same point, but you'd be wrong. You used "correlation doesn't imply causation" to counter someone's point that lootboxes are exploiting the same compulsion than gambling is; however, correlation does imply that when there's no A<->B causation, there's at least a common cause, and therefore their point still stands. My own post was pointing out all of these discrepancies, so I don't see how you get that I'm restating your previous post from that.

Click to shrink...

The original statement is "It either causes gambling addiction in minors, or it exploits it."

I don't really think 'common cause' fits into that either or. In my opinion the extent that loot box use 'causes' gambling addiction or gambling addiction 'causes' loot box use/misuse is almost entirely explained by the fact that, to a large extent, loot boxes are gambling. If we are to consider them wholly separate then all I'm saying is that the study doesn't illustrate that gambling addiction leads to loot box use or vice versa.

Just to know where we're standing, do you still disagree with the original argument that lootboxes at the very least exploit the same compulsion than gambling does?

Click to shrink...

I've never disagreed with that.

 

[Weltall Zero]

The original statement is "It either causes gambling addiction in minors, or it exploits it."

I don't really think 'common cause' fits into that either or. In my opinion the extent that loot box use 'causes' gambling addiction or gambling addiction 'causes' loot box use/misuse is almost entirely explained by the fact that, to a large extent, loot boxes are gambling. If we are to consider them wholly separate then all I'm saying is that the study doesn't illustrate that gambling addiction leads to loot box use or vice versa.

I've never disagreed with that.

Click to shrink...

OK, I see your point now; you're arguing that partaking in gambling doesn't necessarily make one more susceptible to microtransactions, or viceversa. That seems like a fair observation on paper; however, consider this:

- A1 (the act of gambling) causes both A2 (compulsion to gamble), and is caused by A1. That is, the more you gamble, the more you crave gambling (this is kind of the definition of an addiction), and obviously, the higher your craving, the more you gamble.
- B1 (actually spending in microtransactions) has a similar two-way relationship with B2 (compulsion to spend in them). Again, this seems hard to dispute considering the readily available stories about microtransaction addiction spiraling out of control, even by people in this board.

The question here would be, are A2 and B2 related, and how? The research seems to suggest they are at least correlated, although again it's a fair point that their correlation might come from a third, unrelated variable C (e.g. fixed psychological predisposition to compulsive behaviour in general) which might not get causality feedback from A2 and B2. The problem is that I don't know how this could be proved or disproved via anything resembling an ethical study, as you'd have to take two groups with similar gambling histories and force one to gamble more. :D