Loot Boxes and Gacha Games: The Creation Of A New Addiction

Content Notes: Discussion of Gambling Addiction, Internet Gaming Disorder, Loot Box/Gacha Addiction and Substance Addiction

In the previous essay, we covered problematic gaming, examining the academia behind it’s creation. However, when thinking of the harms caused by gaming, we ordinarily don’t consider Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD). Instead, within recent years, there has been an increase in journalistic and academic interest for a particular set of mechanics. Loot boxes and gachas are the new terror sweeping video games. So I would like to share with you the research into whether they are addictive. And to apply what we find, to the real world.

Semantic Sparring

Gachas and loot boxes are sparsely defined features. There is, as far as I can find, no singular definition for either and no agreement between academics as to if they are: completely distinct, exactly the same, or some nebulous spectrum. Therefore, we shall go over the basics of each term, looking at the similarities and differences in how they are utilized.

Gacha derives from gachapon, a name for small toy dispensers usually associated with Bandai (yes of Bandai Namco).^[1] To play, you insert a coin into a machine and twist the handle to receive a random small toy within a capsule. If you have ever been in a run down shopping mall or a cheap seaside arcade you are likely familiar with the concept. I definitely spent too much time on penny arcade machines. The word gachapon is onomatopoeic. Gacha is meant to represent the sound of turning the handle and the Pon is to evoke the noise of the machine as the toy drops.

However, in video games, gacha is not a genre but specifically a mechanic. In it, a person uses an in-game currency to purchase a randomly dispensed item, generally with the hopes of obtaining a rare reward.^[1] More often though, players will receive duplicates or a useless filler prize. These rewards can be purely cosmetic, i.e. they lack gameplay or monetary value. Or, they can be mechanically useful, such as more powerful weapons to fight with.

As well, the gacha feature is not the sole element of the game. It is not just a gambling simulator, instead they have separate gameplay, which is supposed to comprise the majority of the entertainment value. This can be heroic battles, simulator world-building or, obviously, dressing up in terrible outfits in order to prevent war between nations. Through this standard gameplay you can obtain free tries for the gacha mechanic. Of course, if you’re impatient, unlucky or loaded, there is usually the option to invest real money in order to acquire more attempts.

In a similar fashion, loot boxes also rely on a randomised dispensation where players use in-game currency to receive a reward. This currency can be gained through progression or using real money. Loot boxes can contain either cosmetic differences or mechanical benefits depending on the specific example. They also are not a genre but a mechanic employed by a variety of otherwise independent games. You may therefore ask if there is any reasonable difference between them. Well…sort of.

Essentially the corporate model behind the game is what truly distinguishes gacha and loot boxes.^[2] Gachas are conventionally Free to Play (F2P), meaning that you do not have to purchase the game in order to play it. Its monetisation is primarily, if not entirely, the gacha element. Whereas loot boxes usually appear in Pay to Play games, the traditional model where you pay upfront to access content. Typically around £40 £50 £60! Holy extortionate pricing. On top of which you are expected to play for a pittance of in-game currency or spend money to gain pulls.

Furthermore, Koeder and colleagues (2018) state that gachas are frequently on mobile whereas loot boxes are generally on consoles.^[2] Although I would say this is a rather inaccurate distinction. Especially with the fact that archetypal gachas such as Genshin Impact and Infinity Nikki have both mobile and console releases.

From all of this, I would argue the difference is both initial payment and geography. Loot boxes are associated with European and North American games, whereas gachas are linked to East and South East Asian games. In terms of mechanical difference, there is very little. Therefore for the sake of simplicity, and not giving myself or anyone else an aneurysm, I will be conflating the two. Though I will specify if research focused on gachas or loot boxes.

But, to be fair, if you have heard about either of these, you have likely heard them conflated with something else.

Let’s Go (Talk About) Gambling

Gambling is another one of those words that is thrown around a lot, but the nuance of it is misunderstood. Gambling is not just a legal term, or a psychological construct, or a noun to describe a genre of entertainment. It is all of these things and more, wrapped up in diverse forms of research. Therefore, it is challenging to propose a universal definition as to what gambling is. To discuss laws would be to parse through every country’s intricate legal system. Something I am neither qualified nor interested in doing.

Instead, I want to talk about how psychological research defines gambling. The most oft cited definition in loot box and gacha academia comes from Griffiths (1995) whereby gambling is any game where there is:^[3]

• The exchange of money or something of value.
• A future event determines the results of this exchange, and the outcome of this event is unknown at the time that a bet is made.
• An amount of chance that partly determines the outcome of the exchange.
• The ability to avoid losses by simply not taking part.
• A gain for winners at the sole expense of losers.

Frequently added onto this definition, is the caveat is that any winnings must be able to be cashed out.^[4][5] Although this value can be outside of the gambling game itself depending on who you ask, such as selling any winnings through a third party. It is pretty effortless to demonstrate how most of these pertain to loot boxes or gacha games.

Both allow for the exchange of money to gain attempts. Both have outcomes which are unknown to the player before paying and determined by chance. Loss within these chance elements can be avoided by not taking part. The two major points of cotention are that some games do not offer a mechanical advantage for players who win rare rewards and some do not allow for cashing out. Though it should be noted, two academics informally reviewed 22 games and found ten which fulfil all of Griffith’s criteria for gambling (therefore excluding cashing out).^[4]

If we include cashing out, that would mean only four are gambling. Cashing out is mostly achieved due to the presence of third-party sites, where items or even accounts can be sold and exchanged. This is typically unintended by the developers, though they rarely enforce strict control against these markets either. However, even without this detail, that still means many games are essentially just fancy one arm bandits in all but monetary motivation. And these were all immensely popular games when they released.

Plus, it is not just aesthetic similarities that we can draw between them.

Hedging Addictions

Many studies have shown a connection between loot boxes and gambling addiction. Zendle, Meyer and Over (2019) established a significant positive correlation between adolescent gambling and the amount spent on loot boxes, with a 0.12 effect size.^[5] To frame this more simply, in their particular sample, scores on a gambling scale could explain 12% of the differences in the amount spent on loot boxes.

This may not sound like a lot, but it is rare to see effect sizes for single scales above 5%. Behaviours are typically multi-factorial, they require a variety of measurements in order to explain the majority of the cognition behind them. So, the result is pretty promising as a factor, suggesting that although gambling is not solely predictive, it is at least an integral component. Though of course, this is only one study’s finding.

Another study reported that problem gambling was also positively correlated with loot box spending in adults.^[6] They observed a moderate correlation between the two and that problem gambling explained more variance in loot box expenditure in comparison to IGD. In other words, gambling addiction scores were more closely related to loot box spending than gaming addiction scores.

Zendle and Cairns (2018) found that problem gamblers spent more on loot boxes than non-problem gamblers, with a moderate effect size as well.^[7] This is taken even further in a 2023 study, which estabished that problem gambling represents a moderating factor between loot box spending and debt.^[8]

So, loot box spending was more likely to lead to an increase in debts, when the person was predisposed to gambling issues. This shows a direct link between loot box purchasing and real world consequences, as well as what vulnerabilities may be exploited by these mechanics.

There are even systematic reviews such as Spicer and colleagues (2022). They showed that 93% of the studies sampled, reported a positive relationship between problematic gambling and loot boxes.^[9] In a systematic review, all the results from numerous studies are compiled and compared to determine if any overarching conclusions can be drawn. So this would suggest a massive support for a connection between gambling and loot boxes in academia.

Overall, this sounds pretty convincing. Probably because I am deliberately ignoring any granularity for dramatic effect. But, the evidence is unfortunately not as clear cut as anyone or I would like. That same systematic review, examined 32 studies of which 14 related to problem gambling.^[9] The rest looked at loot boxes and problem gaming or the link between problem gaming and problem gambling. That isn’t bad, but it isn’t exactly a huge amount of research. And certainly not enough to base any consensus opinion on.

Furthermore, both it and a review by Yokomitsu (2021)^[10] call into question the quality of the research. I do want to state upfront, very few of the papers both reviews identified were what would be considered unforgivably bad. Yokomitsu identified two investigations of poor calibre ^[9] and Spicer and colleagues noted three studies that failed more aspects of quality analysis than they succeeded.^[9] However, none of them were excelling and most were middling, leaning towards limited quality.

The methodological flaws skate a variety of factors including issues with sampling, suitable statistical methods, appropriate measures and whether or not they were peer reviewed. It is, quite frankly, inane how low quality some of this research is. This is made even more depressing by the fact Yokomitsu (2021) only found that half of the studies they sampled confirmed a link between loot boxes and problem gambling. ^[10] That is not what I would call a consensus in research.

Furthermore, from my reading of these papers, there is a lack of research focusing on loot box users who spend vast amounts on them. Whilst it is intriguing that Zendle and Cairns (2018) found problem gamblers spend £30 more a month on loot boxes than non-problem gamblers.^[7] Those most affected by this issue, the highest spenders, are likely to have different motivations and psychological profiles than those with still high but more stable spending habits.

In other words, those who spend £100s if not £1000s on loot boxes each month are unlikely to be the same as those who spend £50 within a similar timeframe.

However, we should not get too far ahead of ourselves here. The overall evidence being mediocre does not change the trend in the research of higher quality, that gambling and loot boxes are somewhat linked. But, it may be pertinent to consider other avenues as well, to develop a broader understanding.

Making You Pay

A 2023 study produced a pretty comprehensive look at a variety of psychosocial factors and how it related to loot box spending.^[11] Their notable finds were a strong correlation between desire to progress in-game or socialisation around it and loot box spending, as well as a compulsive element.

Put more simply, mechanical improvements and social pressures can help promote a compulsive desire to engage with loot boxes. Though this is correlational. So we do not know if these factors predispose people to steeper loot box spending, or if higher spenders end up placing more importance on the motivations as a justification.

A study by Tang and colleagues in 2022 developed a remarkable model for gachas. They found that stress, clinical anxiety, monthly expenses, predisposition to participating in gambling activities and the number of self identified motives to engage in loot boxes were significant predictors of loot box spending.^[12] And they reported an effect size of 0.513, or that around 51% of spending was explained by all the variables combined. That is astronomical and rarely seen.

Now I do want to state they had a small sample size of 337 participants, and these were mostly young adult male Chinese players. So this is not a monolithic study. Nevertheless, it is a promising model and makes some intuitive sense. Increased stress or anxiety could lead to a larger engagement in gacha mechanics to self regulate and gain enjoyment. As well, though there is some link to gambling, this study does not define it as an exclusive relationship, nor is it the primary one.

There is also some evidence for protective factors that reduce the amount spent by loot box and gacha users. A 2024 study found that flow reduced spending on loot boxes.^[13] Flow is the experience of being completely immersed in an activity, to the point that the external world becomes unimportant. You may have experienced it watching a good show, immersing yourself in an creative project or just really needing to finish this one battle in a game and then you will eat, you swear.

We still cannot specify if those who spend lower amounts are predisposed to flow states or experiencing flow reduces loot box consumption. But it is an fruitful avenue to discuss how people’s engagement with the medium could help safeguard them from predation.

Furthermore, Dong (2020) identified negative correlations between loot box spending and paying for other video games, software or idol merchandise.^[14] Now, this is a little speculative, but it is somewhat sensible to suggest that engaging in other hobbies would be protective from heightened spending on loot boxes. A varied expenditure would mean that less monetary and personal value is placed in a single product.

All of this, not only de-centres gambling as the allegory of loot boxes, but helps us understand loot boxes in a unique manner. Similarly to how academics critiqued IGD for relying too heavily on gambling and substance addiction literature, the same has been talked about for loot box and gacha research.

Newall (2024) argues that such analogistic reasoning is important in the early stages of research, but should be ultimately abandoned to examine critical nuances of the phenomenon.^[15] Whilst analogies to previous research can assist in establishing a basis, it hampers our ability to grow beyond previous reports.

For example, Newall mentions how impulsivity plays a role in gambling but not in loot box and gacha spending.^[15] More importantly (at least from my perspective) it means we do not conflate the lived experiences of those targeted by gambling machines and those exploited by loot boxes and gachas. Although some similarities exist, there is a difference in motivation.

After all, unlike gamblers, most loot box users aren’t looking for a cash out. Primarily because it is not straightforward to transfer earnings in the game to real-world value. Which does beg the question, as to what they do desire.

Why Pay to Play?

As I have stated in other essays, I adore research which focuses on the population being studied. When researchers allow those effected to have a voice and guide understanding, it means we gain unique insights into what is happening as well as giving agency to participants. After all, they are usually relegated to being examined, and having their life contorted into the framework of someone out of touch at best, and wilfully ignorant at worst.

Zendle, Myer and Over’s 2019 paper didn’t merely establish a positive correlation between loot boxes and gambling in adolescents. More valuable, for our purposes, is their qualitative analysis of their participants motivations. They invited each of them to self-describe their reasons for buying a loot box in the past month.^[5] Of the 492 incentives offered by 441 participants, eight different categorises were collated.

The most often remarked (making up 21.9% of reasons) was competitiveness, like the need to keep up with other players or compete with them.^[5] Next was collectability, mentioned in 19.2% of the motivations. Specifically this is outside of aesthetic or mechanical importance. People just wanted to possess a collection of characters, weapons or clothes, which is remarkably similar to how traditional gacha machines work. They prey on your desire for a complete set.

After that, with 16% of responses, is the excitement of pulling itself, the thrilling feeling of that chance to gain something novel and exciting.^[5] This is best encapsulated by the following quote:

“shit just feels good man, seeing other people opening hundreds and you get a few of that feels good and keeps me goin[sic]”

15.3% of responses talked about aesthetics, being able to either show off rare costumes, or customising the character to the person’s own style.^[5] 10.7% interestingly mentioned wishing to support the developers. This, of course, was a prevailing sentiment for F2P games, where people likely feel they have gained a bargain and so wish to show gratitude.

9.8% of gamers focused on value for money, such as it being cheaper to gain items through loot boxes.^[5] Repeatedly their focus was on maximising their chances to increase how much bang they get for their buck. 6.2% mentioned speeding up the process of games, getting through the content faster. This may sound low at first, but to be fair, accelerating games is ordinarily the realm of micro-transactions and not loot box’s chance mechanics. So I am honestly surprised it is this high.

And finally, most importantly of all, guess how many mentioned profit or making money back. A grand total of…0.9%.^[5] Or four responses. Shocking no-one who plays games, most people who like loot boxes lack a fundamental part of gambling addiction. The desire to make money back.

However, I don’t think this means that loot boxes and gacha games are not addictive. Rather, they are just addictive in a alternate way, at least motivation wise. But there is another way they resemble addictions, which is not really talked about as much.

In a 2022 study (which is primarily an excellent bachelor’s thesis that I am totally not jealous of) George-Gabriel Rentia and Anastasia Karaseva interviewed 5 long time gacha game players.^[16] Obviously, take these results with a huge grain of salt due to the low sample size, but I think their input is at least prospectively illuminating. Their results for motivations are relatively similar to those I have already stated, but the researchers also inquired into why the participants quit playing gacha games.

Most stopped due to burnout from playing and irrelevancy, i.e. it demanded too much from them time wise or became monotonous.^[16] In spite of this, they usually didn’t just quit and never play the game again. They would often go back, citing nostalgia or emotional attachment to the games. Then stop again, this time for longer. The cycle would continue until eventually they stopped playing entirely.

Now, I am not going to put words in the mouths of these people. But it is my own opinion, that is is somewhat akin to weaning. That is, lowering your exposure more and more to something you are dependent on, until eventually you can live without it. A familiar method of amelioration for both drug use and gambling based addictions.

And the fact that it requires this weaning period, at least for some players, is key evidence that it is addictive. An addiction that is deliberately designed to exploit people.

Revenue Enhancement

You are likely at least familiar with one or two stories of the high amounts people spend on loot boxes and gachas. One which echoes the tales I have heard from friends or acquaintances is a 2020 news story, where a student spent £3,000 on loot boxes.^[17] Furthermore, some research has at least included high spenders, who cashed out over £200 per session^[1] or £350 a month.^[6] It is a known and well understood phenomenon that people devote more money than they can reasonably expend on these games. All of which, is part of the business model.

Whether it is gachas, loot boxes or some putrid inbreeding of them, games companies gain most of their revenue through these mechanics from high spenders.^[4] Which are charmingly referred to as “whales”. This destruction of people’s lives is merely business running it’s course, ironically in the same way cigarette and slot machine companies gain their profits.

The unifying factor in all of them is not the psychological motivations of the addiction themselves, but the exploitative capitalistic venture of the people manufacturing the products. Companies prey on the psychological vulnerabilities of a minority, to gain higher revenue. There is no gameplay, narrative or other purpose that can justify these malicious practices. Just the ravenous greedy pit within every game executive who allows this. As succinctly put by a participant:

“I want to support game companies, but they don’t want to support me.”^[5]

Which is why, thankfully there have been moves to legally ban, restrict or otherwise manage these mechanics. The Netherlands and Belgium have both declared loot boxes gambling, meaning they must be supervised in accordance to gambling machines, severely restricting their reach.^[18][19]

China passed an act with maximum individual and monthly spending limits for under 18s as well as a watershed for online gaming services.^[20] South Korea and Japan forced companies to state the probabilities of all gacha mechanics.^[21][22] An Austrian court has ruled that FIFA loot boxes constitute illegal gambling setting a precedent for future challenges.^[23]

And the UK….is just hoping the games industry will self-regulate.^[24] Despite evidence that most mobile gacha games actually violate governmental guidelines.^[25]

And Australia decided to somehow mess this up worse by making gambling simulators that do not require money 18+.^[26] But loot boxes which require money are only M and therefore it is not illegal to peddle them to under 15s. Really showing true brilliant political manoeuvring that I usually only expect of the American and British government.

Pathetic Practices

I do not think it is controversial to state that these mechanics should be age restricted, at the very least. Kids can easily gain access to their parent’s bank cards or otherwise obtain money to fuel spending. Allowing kids to engage in these games only sets them up to continue such behaviours into adulthood. The sole benefit of which is to shovel money towards the already wealthy.

Furthermore, more effective regulations should be required for adults, akin to that witnessed for gambling machines. Even to the point, I think such games should not be as easily accessible and ubiquitous as they currently are.

The harm that can be done by these mechanics does not warrant any hypothetical gains, especially with how they are currently being utilised and will continue to be used. In the most pathetic display of gluttony stifling any actual innovative creation for the sake of maximised revenue.

But more than this, it is critical to state clearly the harm these games do to people and to not shame those who have been targeted by them. Whether you want to consider them induced addictions, manipulation of those with pre-existing mental vulnerabilities or just malicious corporate practice, these people deserve protection.

Legal, binding, inescapable protection. On top of which, they deserve empathy and support from us. We cannot claim to comprise a community of gamers if we cannot even stand up against such fundamentally disgusting practices.

I personally believe these are addictive mechanics. The research routinely notes connections to other addictions, even if I do not believe they are one to one comparisons. Both qualitative and quantitative research shows inextricable links between addictive experiences and loot boxes or gachas.

Companies should not be allowed to leverage people’s psychological dependencies, whether children or adults, to gain profit. Especially when they already amass unfathomable and unreasonable amounts of money. It is just one more practice in an extensive line of soulless cash grabbing exhibited by games companies.

And if we accept that they are addictive, then we should probably try to examine what makes them so. So we can be vigilant against such methods and better understand what needs to be controlled. But that is something we will tackle next time. Thank you all so much for reading and let me know your thoughts. Until next time.

References

1. Lakić, N., Bernik, A., & Čep, A. (2023). Addiction and spending in gacha games. Information, 14(7), 399.
2. Koeder, M. J., Tanaka, E., & Mitomo, H. (2018). ” Lootboxes” in digital games-A gamble with consumers in need of regulation? An evaluation based on learnings from Japan. 22nd Biennial Conference of the International Telecommunications Society (ITS): “Beyond the Boundaries: Challenges for Business, Policy and Society.”
3. Griffiths M. (1995). Adolescent gambling. Psychology Press.
4. Drummond, A., & Sauer, J. D. (2018). Video game loot boxes are psychologically akin to gambling. Nature human behaviour, 2(8), 530-532.
5. Zendle, D., Meyer, R., & Over, H. (2019). Adolescents and loot boxes: Links with problem gambling and motivations for purchase. Royal Society open science, 6(6), 190049.
6. Drummond, A., Sauer, J. D., Ferguson, C. J., & Hall, L. C. (2020). The relationship between problem gambling, excessive gaming, psychological distress and spending on loot boxes in Aotearoa New Zealand, Australia, and the United States—A cross-national survey. Plos one, 15(3), e0230378.
7. Zendle, D., & Cairns, P. (2018). Video game loot boxes are linked to problem gambling: Results of a large-scale survey. PloS one, 13(11), e0206767.
8. Sirola, A., Nyrhinen, J., Nuckols, J., & Wilska, T. A. (2023). Loot box purchasing and indebtedness: The role of psychosocial factors and problem gambling. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 18, 100516.
9. Spicer, S. G., Nicklin, L. L., Uther, M., Lloyd, J., Lloyd, H., & Close, J. (2022). Loot boxes, problem gambling and problem video gaming: A systematic review and meta-synthesis. New Media & Society, 24(4), 1001-1022.
10. Yokomitsu, K., Irie, T., Shinkawa, H., & Tanaka, M. (2021). Characteristics of gamers who purchase loot box: A systematic literature review. Current Addiction Reports, 8(4), 481-493.
11. Close, J., Spicer, S. G., Nicklin, L. L., Uther, M., Whalley, B., Fullwood, C., … & Lloyd, H. (2023). Exploring the relationships between psychological variables and loot box engagement, part 1: pre-registered hypotheses. Royal Society Open Science, 10(12), 231045
12. Tang, A. C. Y., Lee, P. H., Lam, S. C., Siu, S. C. N., Ye, C. J., & Lee, R. L. T. (2022). Prediction of problem gambling by demographics, gaming behavior and psychological correlates among gacha gamers: A cross-sectional online survey in Chinese young adults. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13, 940281.
13. Spicer, S. G., Close, J., Nicklin, L. L., Uther, M., Whalley, B., Fullwood, C., … & Lloyd, H. (2024). Exploring the relationships between psychological variables and loot box engagement, part 2: exploratory analyses of complex relationships. Royal Society Open Science, 11(1), 231046.
14. Dong, Y. (2020). Exploring motivations for virtual rewards in online F2P Gacha games: Considering income level, consumption habits and game settings. (Bachelor’s dissertation).
15. Newall, P. (2024). Beyond gambling: the dangers of analogistic reasoning in addiction science, and how loot box psychology should create its own unique theory. Addiction Research & Theory, 32(5), 319-324.
16. Rentia, G. G., & Karaseva, A. (2022). What Aspects of Gacha Games Keep the Players Engaged?
17. Hannah, F., & Andrews, J. (2020). Loot boxes: I blew my parents’ savings on Fifa. BBC News. BBC
18. Yin-Poole, W. (2018a). The Netherlands declares some loot boxes are gambling. Eurogamer. Eurogamer
19. Yin-Poole, W. (2018b). Now Belgium Declares Loot Boxes Gambling and Therefore Illegal. Eurogamer. Eurogamer
20. Xiao, L. Y. (2019). People’s Republic of China Legal Update: The Notice on the Prevention of Online Gaming Addiction in Juveniles.
21. Jae-Lim, L. (2024). “Loot box” transparency to swing wide open with new gaming laws. Korean Joongang Daily Korean Joonang Daily
22. Kawase, T. (2023). An In-depth Explanation of Why “Kompu Gacha” is Illegal and its Relationship with the “Japanese Prize Display Act.” Monolith Law Office. Monolith Law
23. Schütz, A. (2023). Austria | The End of Loot Boxes? – Taylor Wessing. Taylor Wessing
24. Gerken, T. (2022). Government says video game loot boxes will not be regulated. BBC News. BBC
25. Gerken, T. (2024). Top-selling mobile games breaking rules on loot boxes. BBC News. BBC
26. Reilly, L. (2023). New Minimum Age Classifications for Gambling, Loot Box Content in Australia – IGN. IGN