Lowri's Agender

Tag: Addiction

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

    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.

    Gachapon Machines in Hong Kong, Photographed by Mk2010
    Retrieved From:Wikipedia

    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.

    Loot Box by Viktoriia Tkachenko
    Retrieved From: ArtStation

    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]

    Table 1 From Drummond and Sauer (2018)

    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.

    Roulette Machine, Photographed by Pavel Danilyuk
    Retrieved From: Pexels

    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.

    Table 1 From Spicer et al (2022)
    Note 1: This has been edited to show only those exploring a relationship between Problem Gambling and Loot Boxes
    Note 2: The key for the MMAT Quality Analysis is as follows – 4.1 = appropriate sampling strategy; 4.2 = representative population; 4.3 = appropriate measures; 4.4 = low nonresponse bias; 4.5 = appropriate statistical approach; 4.6 = peer-reviewed; 4.7 = pre-registered/replication study; 4.8 = open access data; 4.9 = low risk of cohort response bias

    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.

    Genshin Impact Cover Image by MiHoYo Co., Ltd.
    Retrieved From: WCCFTech

    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.

    EA Sports FC 24 by Electronic Arts
    Retrieved From: Wired
    Note: Their faces capture the ways I have ended up feeling after writing all things. Alternating between complete dissociation and horror.

    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.

    Gameplay from Overwatch 2 by Activision Blizzard
    Retrieved From: Steam DB

    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.

    Golden Chocolate Coins, Photographed By Willam Warby
    Retrieved From: Pexels

    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.

    Graph Developed by Singaporean Game Company, Nubee and Former Games Research Company, EEDAR
    Retrieved From: WordPress
    Note: As you can see here, there is a exponential increase in the amount spent per month by the most monetarily dedicated players. Making it very profitable to hook “whales” or “killer whales”

    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]

    GTA 5 by Rockstar Games
    Retrieved From: ScreenRant
    Note: Remember kids, this is worse than loot boxes.

    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
  • Is Video Game Addiction Real?

    Is Video Game Addiction Real?

    Content Notes: Discussion of Gambling Addiction, Substance Abuse and Video Game Addiction

    I like to play video games. As this is being written, I am slowly making my way through Sea of Stars and have hopes to finish playing In Stars and Time. Although I am a child of the 2000s, I was raised on my older sibling’s consoles, like the Nintendo 64 and PS1. And since then, games have never left my life. Though my tastes are for turn-based RPGs, even I didn’t escape the cultural zeitgeist that is gaming addiction. So today and for the next couple of essays, I want to unpack the psychology behind disordered gaming and if games can be destructive.

    An Addiction to Pathology

    For as long as there have been video games, there has been psychological discussion of its possible addictive properties. Before the internet was but a gleam in a collection of nerd’s eyes, case studies of Space Invaders Obsession, Computer Catatonia and Video Game Addiction appeared in academic journals.[1] However, the first large-scale study to examine problematic gamers, the preferred term by researchers, was in 1989 by Shotton.[2]

    Shotton committed an error that is going to become a recurring theme over the course of this essay, as he failed to distinguish between pathological gaming and healthy pre-occupation.[1][2] The difference is primarily semantics but also key to understanding most clinical disorders.

    To rise to the level of a disorder, the person needs to not only think about an activity a lot, but be so fixated that it is detrimental to their physical, mental and/or social health or the wellness of others around them. Merely being a kid who plays for multiple hours on a weekend hardly rises to this.

    Space Invaders by SuperxTramp
    Retrieved From: Deviantart

    The issue would continue within the 1990s research and it was not until the early 2000s where there was more empirical studies, driven by the boom in Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game (MMORPG) as a novel vector for possible dependence.[1] From this wealth of theoretical essays and psychometric studies, we arrive at 2014, when the 5th revision of the American psychiatric manual (DSM-5) was released.

    A 12 person panel was convened to evaluate all the evidence for behavioural addictions, that is fixations outside of drugs.[3] The only clinically recognised behavioural addiction is Gambling Addiction. However, Internet Gaming Addiction (IGA) was included in the conditions for further research, with the following clinical symptoms (as of 2022):[4]

    • Preoccupation with gaming
    • Withdrawal symptoms when gaming is taken away or not possible (sadness, anxiety, irritability)
    • Tolerance
    • Inability to reduce playing
    • Giving up other activities, loss of interest in previously enjoyed activities due to gaming
    • Continuing to game, despite problems
    • Deceiving family members or others about the amount of time spent on gaming
    • The use of gaming to relieve negative moods, like guilt or hopelessness
    • Risk, having jeopardized or lost a job or relationship due to gaming

    The proposed clinical descriptor suggests that experiencing 5 or more of these within a year is sufficient to satisfy the standard of IGA. Following suit, in 2018, the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) official classification for diseases had it’s 11th revision (ICD-11). Included within it was Gaming Disorder, described as:

    “a pattern of gaming behaviour (“digital-gaming” or “video-gaming”) characterized by impaired control over gaming, increasing priority given to gaming over other activities to the extent that gaming takes precedence over other interests and daily activities, and continuation or escalation of gaming despite the occurrence of negative consequences.”[5]

    So it seems pretty clear cut right? Both the American Psychiatric Association and World Health Organisation have official recognised disordered gaming as a genuine psychiatric problem that exists. Unquestionably there is no dissent amongst researchers about these definitions or psychometric measurements right?…Right?

    Of Course There Is Disagreement

    From the second the ink dried on the DSM-5, there was controversy in academia around it’s inclusion within the psychiatric manual. This was best shown in an open commentary by 28 authors within the field.[6] Although Griffiths and colleagues get into granular detail that I must skip over for expediency, I will provide the pixelated highlights.

    Despite the fact the DSM-5 is used internationally as a diagnostic manual, there were no African or South American scientists on the behavioural addiction panel. Additionally, all of their Asian researchers were East or South East Asian.[6] A significant amount of the global populace was unrepresented or lacking substantial consideration when this proposal was drafted.

    An International Consenus by Lowri’s Agender
    Made In: https://www.mapchart.net
    Note: Green represents the nationalites of the researchers on the panel

    So only research in the languages the panel members spoke were read and only these countries ideas were synthesised into the condition. Not all disorders are culturally neutral, as many mental health conditions intersect with social and environmental factors. Therefore, it is critical to include a broad pool of academic knowledge and research so that the complexities of these interactions can be considered.

    Furthermore, to draft the above symptoms, the panel looked at eight psychometric instruments as well as the clinical classifications for Gambling Addiction and Substance Use Disorder.[3] Psychometric tools are questionnaires used to measure an aspect of a person’s psychology including whether they have a disorder. They are frequently exercised in conjunction with diagnostic criteria.

    Ten measurements overall might sound like a lot until you consider a 2013 study found at least 18 instruments[7], with Griffiths and colleagues identifying even more available to the panel.[6] No information is supplied as to a possible exclusion criteria the panel used, so it would be speculative to discuss why this oversight happened.

    Nevertheless, failing to read around half of the available psychometric tests and relying very heavily on previous addictive classifications leads to the IGD being extremely similar to other disorders. This means it does not address the unique vulnerabilities of those who suffer the proposed disorder, nor consider how the subject of the addiction may influence behaviours. It is too generic and referential to be useful.

    Tolerating Inadequacy

    To furnish you with an example of the issue with relying on previous disorders, let us consider tolerance. With substance addictions, tolerance is the idea that the same doses of a drug have diminished returns with persistent use.

    The experience feels inferior, so to compensate, people with substance abuse disorder will increase the dose. With gambling addiction, tolerance becomes a resistance to winning. Small stakes become less exciting, so bigger risk is needed. But with IGD, what tolerance looks like, indeed if it even exists, is up for debate.

    Petry and colleagues argue that tolerance in IGD would represent an increase in time passed playing video games, an escalation in the exciting qualities of the games and more money spent on equipment.[3] If you don’t play video games, this may seem reasonable at first, but there are shortcomings to the definition.

    For substance abuse, the ceiling for tolerance is a fatal dose, for gambling its the amount of money you have. The ceiling for novelty or money spent on a tangible product is a lot more difficult to define as pathological.

    The idea of needing to engage in more thrilling games to experience a similar high doesn’t make sense. Much of the research on problematic gaming with MMORPGs emphasise escapism and dissociation from reality.[8-11] Gaming addicts wouldn’t require higher stimulation that overwhelms them, the research suggests they desire immersion to lose themselves in. But even if they did, you’d next have to define the qualities that cause excitement.

    Comparison of Spiderman (2018) Versions
    Retrieved From: Instagram
    Note: Never forget the world’s greatest tragedy. Puddlegate

    Graphical increases happen outside of the gamer due to corporate trends treating high fidelity graphics as a marketing gimmick. Gameplay developments are just established trends for most media to constantly innovate on previous work. There isn’t categorically any one factor in all games that could be considered uniquely exciting and causative of addiction. Nor is excitability of a game really a consistently measurable concept.

    As for monetary issues, most gamers upgrade their equipment. Games become more complex, performance of technology improves and those with disposable income may save or splash on some modern tech. This in and of itself is not unreasonable. Unlike with gambling addiction, where the disbursal relies on a sunken cost and a desire to gain returns on a chance based investment, the payment of money on equipment gives a market value tangible product.

    Gaming and computer companies are absolutely making you pay through the nose for their technology, but that is not a problem of addiction but capitalism. And there is no clinical literature I could find on gamers bankrupting themselves on technological upgrades. Pathologising a typical behaviour to invest in better equipment for a hobby is ludicrous. Unless we wish to establish the people who invest thousands of pounds into art supplies as so-called Painting Addicts.

    Photograph of Painting Supplies by Dmitry Pichugin
    Retrieved From: Britannica

    The only reasonable suggestion is an increase in time spent gaming, but even then there is an issue. Where is the line between too much gaming and engaging in a hobby to de-stress? It can’t be quantifiable, because everyone possesses varying amounts of free time.

    And if it is self-report, many problematic gamers may have already reached the maximum temporal threshold.[6] Unlike in other addictions, the acceleration and threshold for time spent gaming are not inherently problematic or easily identifiable.

    Taking everything into consideration, the IGD classification just doesn’t seem developed enough to be worthy of codification. And scholars likewise debated its inclusion in the ICD-11, citing similar concerns. [12] Aarseth and colleagues also emphasise how there isn’t even a consensus on if problematic gaming represents a primary or secondary condition. It may exclusively exist in conjunction with further mental health conditions and not constitute its own unique disorder.

    The fast tracking of gaming addiction has lead to a focus on top down research. In other words, the theoretical basis for problematic gaming is taken as granted and moved onto supplementary fields. Despite the fact we are not considerably closer to understanding how IGD manifests than we were in 1989.

    Although, there have been some interesting developments.

    Escaping Reality

    As stated previously, one of the most steadfast reasons behind problematic gaming is the desire for escapism.[8] But the ability to escape in and of itself is not the sole requirement for disordered gaming. A 2014 study by Kardefelt-Winther administered psychometric tests to 702 World of Warcraft players, the most popular MMORPG to date.[9]

    These tests measured stress, negative outcomes related to gaming and self-esteem amongst other metrics. The results suggested that for escapism to become problematic, the person needs to also be experiencing hardship and low-self worth. Otherwise, a desire to escape life’s problems is usually not indicative of problematic gaming.

    Now, the directionality of this relationship cannot be ascertained, i.e. whether escapism causes higher stress and lower self-esteem or vice versa.[9] Regardless, it is clear that the confluence of these factors causes a heightened propensity towards problematic gaming. Though I do wish to emphasise the pool of participants was overwhelmingly male (89% of them) and skewed towards young adults. Therefore, consider this not a broad sweeping truth, but likely one part of a larger whole.

    World of Warcraft by Activision Blizzard

    Furthermore, this may be due to the unique mechanics MMORPGs present. As noted by Billieux and colleagues in 2015, MMORPGs have unique structural mechanics compared to other games.[10] This is one of the few mediums of games to possess a persistent social world.

    That is to say, that things happen in-game without the player there. Because there can be thousands, if not millions of users, as well as time based events, interactions between gamers and adventures exist independent of any one individual.

    In addition, they are very social games. It is encouraged, even sometimes required, that a player should make friends with others and join teams.[10] To progress often necessitates a balanced group with different builds of characters, on top of the capacity to use written or audio chats to facilitate teamwork.

    Users can become a part of guilds, exclusive clubs in which participation nets rewards. Even outside of the game itself, social media groups for distributing news, updates and strategic developments become integral to improving a gamer’s skills.

    These factors facilitate escapism as they promote a heightened self-esteem from playing the game. On top of this they allow for socialisation in a manner that may come easier than non-virtual interaction. I don’t want to pretend that this is innately detrimental, but rather as Daniel Kardefelt-Winther states:

    “Gaming provides certain affordances that may facilitate coping but the game itself is not the culprit, it merely acts as a potential facilitator of compensation for psychosocial problems.”[9]

    This idea that gaming could represent a vector of compensation is strengthened via a systematic review conducted by González-Bueso and colleagues in 2018. A systematic review, as the name implies, compiles a wealth of studies and synthesises their data. It is essentially a scientific summation of findings.

    Through 24 papers on mental health disorders and disordered gaming, they found that 92% of them established significant correlations between IGD and general anxiety, 89% between IGD and depression, 87% between IGD and ADHD and 75% between IGD and social phobias.[13] Put more simply, there is a sturdy correlation between other mental health disorders and IGD.

    Table 2 from González-Bueso and colleagues (2018)
    Note: Effect sizes measure how much of a single factor is responsible for another. For example an R2 of 0.01 suggests that Depression accounts for 1% of the variance in IGD within the sample. It’s used to quantify how impactful a significant relationship is.

    However, once more, directionality is not clear as to if IGD exacerbates these conditions or vice versa. And, as pointed out by González-Bueso and colleagues, the lack of longitudinal data means it is difficult to track the stability of these relationships.[13]

    Furthermore, the use of independent psychometric measurements for the conditions means there is less of a interconnected strength to the results. Though, it is at least clear that IGD co-exists with a variety of clinical conditions and likely is informed by low mental health.

    Altogether, the pattern seems to be that games offer a route for people with psychological issues to temporarily escape from their problems. And to even form communal bonds collectively they otherwise couldn’t. However, for a minority of these gamers, this becomes less of a healthy social hobby and more of an over-reliance on the medium to create happiness and peace.

    We subsequently see a misuse of the game themselves, to escape, to socialise or to otherwise avoid the issues in other sectors of their life. This isn’t conclusive, but at least presents an promising avenue not explored by the diagnostic manuals themselves.

    And there is one more method of elucidation to probe.

    Lets Ask The Audience!

    Despite how plainly useful it would seem to most of us, psychological researchers frequently refuse to consult people suffering with mental health disorders about their experience. Or even ask for second hand information from those around them.

    Whilst these populations may be utilised to examine psychometric tools based on theories by other psychologists. It is rather rare that comprehensive questionnaires are done to ascertain how those with these conditions understand their circumstances.

    Part of this is likely impartiality. After all who is more impartial than a clinical researcher getting money and notoriety for delivering results that make an institution look good as well as enriching publishing houses? Another part is that qualitative research is undervalued compared to numerical and statistical data, which is simpler to parse as well as easier to manipulate.

    But perhaps more than anything, there is a rather patronising view that clinicians are gatekeepers of ailments and only through their enlightened education can a disorder be understood.

    Artwork for MAGfest (2018) by Christina Danelon
    Retrieved From: ChristinaDanelon.com

    Times are changing, with lived experience starting to guide research, policy and care. Therefore, I hope you can appreciate my elation at Carras and colleague’s study from 2018, which asked gamers at a gaming convention, how they define game addiction.[11] It is uncommon to observe those with lived experience and expertise being highlighted in their understanding of how their shared pastime can become disordered.

    Although part of me suspects this is a clever ploy to obtain tickets to one of the largest conventions around. It is delightful to read research that doesn’t feel disconnected from the experience of the community.

    The researchers hosted two panels for MAGfest 2016 and 2017, wherein attendees were asked to write down signs of gaming addiction which were then ranked by the audience themselves.[11] I think the most interesting section is a table comparing the items generated by gamers to the DSM-5 criteria.

    Table 2 from Carras et al (2018)

    Here we can see a heightened consensus around the ideas of continued use despite a problem being identified, over-prioritisation of gaming, and withdrawal symptoms.[11] There was less consensus around the ideas of preoccupation with games, habitual playing, failing school and deception. Showing that there is some merit to the symptoms of the DSM-5 but not entirely, and that tolerance itself is never even remotely considered by the sample.

    But more interesting to me is the unique items mentioned. An avoidance of socialisation, lack of control over your schedule, a loss of reality and difficulty separating the fictional world from the material world.[11] Although the lattermost exhibits low consensus.

    There is a prioritisation by gamers as to how gaming affects your existence outside of it, an importance placed on socialisation and testimony that the hobby becomes more pivotal than other tasks. For example, you may log onto World of Warcraft to complete an event instead of having lunch, since the event is time locked.

    It is vital to stress two factors here, though. Firstly, the sample size comprised around 50 people, thereby hardly constituting a representative group. [11] Although I do hope more researchers will conduct similar enquiries. Secondly, it is unlikely there were many, if any, problematic gamers at the panels.

    Therefore, this needs to be understood as non-problem gamers utilizing their own lived experience to elucidate unique avenues and ideas. Interviewing self identified or clinically recognised problematic gamers would provide even richer details.

    MAGfest (2017) by Christina Danelon
    Retrieved From: ChristinaDanelon.com

    All things considered, the study showcases that the nature of games as a media informs how others understand problematic usage. It is not just as simple as game addiction is gambling addiction is substance addiction. Instead, due to of the role of time gated events, because of the unique social opportunities, and its ability to facilitate escapism into a simpler pixelated world, games cause a unique experience of dependence.

    To grasp how gaming addiction manifests, psychologists need to comprehend games and gamers significantly more than they do presently. Otherwise, any clinical condition they propose might as well be created by reading tea leaves.

    The Beginning Step

    I have difficulty knowing where to fully land with this. Part of me believes game developers should be aware of these issues and seek to counteract the methods by which general problem gamers manifest. But another part of me wonders how possible that is and if gaming is particularly notable in this regard. It is possible we worry about gaming being addictive not only because it is one of the most popular hobbies, but due to its comparative novelty.

    Western society does not stress about the kids who lose a sense of reality in books as it valorises the reader. They are educated, intelligent and of better stock than the folk we imagine to be gamers. I think that on a general level, any hobby could be maladaptive to a person.

    However, gaming represents a unique crossroads where individuals can gain skills and achieve a sense of accomplishment easily, whilst also losing themselves in a world unlike any other. It is a nexus point of many problems that other people latch onto to cope with stress and mental health issues.

    We’ve all binge watched a series to lose ourselves in characters whos lives seem so much better and happier than our own. We’ve all cooked a nice meal, or written a poem or otherwise engaged in a craft to feel that sense of accomplishment when it is completed. Gaming offers these and more, in an easier format, fostering a sense of reliance that would be hard to replicate in other avenues. It is a blessing and curse of games themselves that they remain such an interactive format.

    But, I think it would be academic dishonesty to pretend the medium, creators and corportations especially, are wholly innocent in this. Because, if you’ve been in the gaming community long enough, you’ve heard about loot boxes, gacha games and all manner of predatory addictive design. Creations that capitalise on vulnerable populations. So next time, we will explore not just gaming addiction generally, but a specific brand of corporately encouraged leveraging, tailor made to make you pay.

    Thank you all so much for reading, let me know your thoughts on game addiction or your own experiences with it.

    References

    1. Griffiths, M. D., Király, O., Pontes, H. M., & Demetrovics, Z. (2015). An overview of problematic gaming. Mental health in the digital age: Grave dangers, great promise, 27-45.
    2. Shotton M. (1989). Computer Addiction? A Study of Computer Dependency. Taylor and Francis, London, UK.
    3. Petry, N. M., Rehbein, F., Gentile, D. A., Lemmens, J. S., Rumpf, H. J., Mößle, T., … & O’Brien, C. P. (2014). An international consensus for assessing internet gaming disorder using the new DSM‐5 approach. Addiction, 109(9), 1399-1406.
    4. American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.).
    5. World Health Organization. (2018). ICD-11: International classification of diseases(11th revision).
    6. Griffiths., Van Rooij, A. J., Kardefelt-Winther, D., Starcevic, V., Király, O., Pallesen, S., … & Demetrovics, Z. (2016). Working towards an international consensus on criteria for assessing internet gaming disorder: a critical commentary on Petry et al.(2014). Addiction (Abingdon, England), 111(1), 167.
    7. King, D. L., Haagsma, M. C., Delfabbro, P. H., Gradisar, M., & Griffiths, M. D. (2013). Toward a consensus definition of pathological video-gaming: A systematic review of psychometric assessment tools. Clinical psychology review, 33(3), 331-342.
    8. Kardefelt-Winther, D. (2014). Problematizing excessive online gaming and its psychological predictors. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 118-122.
    9. Kardefelt-Winther, D. (2014). The moderating role of psychosocial well-being on the relationship between escapism and excessive online gaming. Computers in Human Behavior, 38, 68-74.
    10. Billieux, J., Deleuze, J., Griffiths, M. D., & Kuss, D. J. (2015). Internet gaming addiction: The case of massively multiplayer online role-playing games. In Textbook of addiction treatment: International perspectives (pp. 1515-1525). Springer, Milano.
    11. Carras, M. C., Porter, A. M., Van Rooij, A. J., King, D., Lange, A., Carras, M., & Labrique, A. (2018). Gamers’ insights into the phenomenology of normal gaming and game “addiction”: A mixed methods study. Computers in human behavior, 79, 238-246.
    12. Aarseth, E., Bean, A. M., Boonen, H., Colder Carras, M., Coulson, M., Das, D., … & Van Rooij, A. J. (2017). Scholars’ open debate paper on the World Health Organization ICD-11 Gaming Disorder proposal. Journal of behavioral addictions, 6(3), 267-270.
    13. González-Bueso, V., Santamaría, J. J., Fernández, D., Merino, L., Montero, E., & Ribas, J. (2018). Association between internet gaming disorder or pathological video-game use and comorbid psychopathology: A comprehensive review. International journal of environmental research and public health, 15(4), 668.