Lowri's Agender

Tag: Loot Boxes

  • Infinity Nikki: Tailor Made To Make You Pay

    Infinity Nikki: Tailor Made To Make You Pay

    Throughout the past two essays on gaming addiction and the addictiveness of loot boxes and gachas, it may have been apparent that I have not really engaged with the games that are the focus of academics. This is predominantly an issue of genres. I cannot aim guns to save my life and autoplay mechanics bore me to tears. But there is one amongst the pantheon of addictively designed games that I have played. Today we will look at Infinity Nikki and see how it manipulates you to spend, spend, spend.

    Together Till Infinity

    The Nikki series is a set of mostly mobile dress up games created by the Chinese developer Paper Games. The first instalment Nikki UP2U was released in 2012, and the most recent version, Infinity Nikki, launched in December 2024. I personally started with Love Nikki, the third instalment, when I was a young teenager, before shifting to Shining Nikki and then Infinity Nikki. Although there were years long gaps between me playing them.

    As you may guess, the games revolves around the titular Nikki, a pink haired girl transported to a mystical world called Miraland, alongside her trusty talking cat friend Momo. In it, people resolve conflicts through style battles, where points are accrued based on creating outfits that fit into a set of descriptors. Though there has been at least one incident where someone just shot the other person.

    Nikki and Momo from Infinity Nikki by Paper Games
    Retrieved From: The Gamer

    The basic gameplay of all the Nikki games revolves around the player collecting new clothes to progress in the story. Going through styling battles unlocks further worlds, more materials and better clothes. These outfits are of different rarities and can be upgraded to increase your proficiency in styling battles. But Infinity Nikki somewhat differs from its predecessors, in that it is open world and available on all platforms, instead of being exclusively on mobile. This means both its presentation and how it utilises standard mobile game mechanics differs from the usual.

    For example, both traditional Nikki games and Infinity Nikki make use of stamina mechanics. You possess a certain number of hearts, which can be expended to carry out activities. They slowly regenerate with time, or you can spend in game currency to instantly recharge.

    However, traditionally Paper Games employs this to gate progression through levels and acquiring of materials, whereas in Infinity Nikki they use it only to bar very specific items. Many materials are gained through the open world itself. Although notably the rarer items may only have one source, like a specific animal, forcing you to wait 24 hours to collect again.

    The Violinist Outfit From Infinity Nikki
    Retrieved From: Eurogamer
    Note: People do actually try to play songs using this violin, my favourite being this

    Moreover, Infinity Nikki contains an unusual method of delivering gameplay. Abilities are gained through the accumulation of specific outfits, usually comprising 8-11 articles of clothing to collect. These can provide to you the capability to float, attack enemies or the most crucial power of all. Playing violin! These outfits serve a dual purpose of being aesthetically interesting to the player and offering mechanical benefits. Some are given to the player for free, some are earned through gameplay. And some are gained through the gacha element of Infinity Nikki.

    There are essentially two parts of the gacha mechanic. One is a permanent banner, currently with four outfits. This uses blue Resonance Crystals, in order to gain attempts, or pulls, from it. The other is two monthly cycling banners usually containing four outfits, but it can be only two in shorter periods.

    These comprise two easy to obtain outfits (requiring at most 10 pulls per article of the outfit) as well as inconsistently containing two hard to obtain outfits (requiring at most 20 pulls per article of the outfit). These banners use pink Resonance Crystals. Whilst you can earn both types of crystals in gameplay, the primary way of obtaining them is through purchases with in-game currency.

    Infinity Nikki Permanent Banner by Paper
    Retrieved From: Sport Skeeda

    You can obtain three forms of currency within Infinity Nikki. Blings is the most common, used for small easily accessible items as well as the general payment for crafting or refining materials. Diamonds is the currency used for buying more exclusive products, be these clothes or modest mechanical benefits. On top of this, they are how you buy Resonance Crystals, with some people saving up literal millions of diamonds for banners they like. And finally we have Stellarite.

    Unlike the previous two which could be earned in game, Stellarite is exclusively available through investing real-life money. It is primarily used to access exclusive outfits, which get rotated out each month, as well as bonuses for special updates, like a bicycle that can go any place. No, I am not kidding, Infinity Nikki includes bicycles locked to certain regions, meaning you could not use a bike from one area in another.

    Until they dropped a free roaming bicycle for Stellarite and then after this offered an outfit which summoned a motorbike. Though it was only obtainable through the gacha element. Rather scummy right? Well, it’ll only get worse from here.

    Through The Pattern Darkly

    Dark Patterns or Deceptive Patterns is a term coined by website designer, Harry Brigull.[1][2] It describes a set of interface design choices which manipulate users in order to promote benefits (usually profit) for the owners. In other words, you know how scammy websites will have arbitrary timers in big bold font to make you sign up for their rubbish? Dark patterns describe the mechanical aspects of such design choices.

    A Fake Example of a Dark Pattern by Cmglee
    Retrieved From: Wikipedia

    It is a rather comprehensive term, used in all forms of technology from shopping websites to social media to video games. Naturally, for our purposes, we are only interested in the latter most. To save on space, I will focus on the specific deceptive patterns that I have identified in Infinity Nikki. As well, there is no comprehensive list of what is and isn’t a dark pattern. In fact, there is much debate about whether some of these mechanics are really wholly underhanded. Therefore we will start with their general definitions and then look at how they link to Infinity Nikki, as well as the damage they cause.

    Dark patterns are often separated into one of three categories: Temporal, Monetary, Social.[2][3] Temporal concerns deceptive mechanics which manipulate the players time, often with the goal of convincing them to devote more time than is reasonable or desired. Monetary is when users financial sense is exploited or they are tricked into spending more than is necessary. Social is when relationships or desire for bonds is leveraged.

    Grinding is a common temporal example, where a tedious repetitive task is necessary to achieve a goal.[3] This means all you can hope to do is accelerate the process as there is no other way around it. Endowed Progress is another, unfortunately named, one which is when the initial advancement is significant quicker than subsequent advancement. Leading to a warped sense of progression. Fear Of Missing Out (FOMO) is when games use daily logins gifts, frequent updates or reward passes to persuade players that they should log in everyday.

    Loot boxes or gacha mechanics are the chief monetary dark pattern. But since I have already dedicated an essay to them, I will not delve far into Infinity Nikki’s specific brand.[3] Pay Walls are when content is locked behind payment. This is a common tactic for free to play games, where necessary or even just useful mechanical benefits are locked behind small payments (often called micro-transactions). Comparison prevention involves an interface making comparisons between products difficult, especially when monetary value is obfuscated.[2]

    The sole social dark pattern of interest is fake social proof. These include user reviews, testimonials or inter-user social medias that are manipulated or forged in order to present a more favourable version of the product.[2] Though it is important to note there are other examples. Like social pyramid schemes, where players are encouraged to onboard others in return for in-game currency.[3] But that is the be all and end all of the phenomenon, so there isn’t much more depth to them.

    However, as you will see, the others are really baked into the foundational practices of Paper Games and how they made Infinity Nikki.

    Tailoring Your Mind

    Grinding is one of the most normalised dark patterns listed. In Infinity Nikki, grinding is primarily done through the gating of materials to make new clothes. These clothes can be integral to story progression as well as giving diamonds for completed outfits. For me, the majority of Infinity Nikki gameplay was spent picking plants, brushing sheep and playing a fishing mini-game I dearly wish I could have skipped.

    Response to Infinity Nikki Survey by Sad-Blackberry-7283
    Retrieved From: Reddit
    Note: Average fishing hater be like

    But to do so was mandatory to complete quests and to gain new clothing items, the two major conceits of the game. This leads to people expending money on quick fixes. Such as spending Diamonds on more stamina or additional materials to quicken progression. Sometimes you would even need to expend Stellarite for exceedingly rare items. You could also try your luck on the gachas, as some outfits quicken the progress of collecting materials.

    Endowed progress is another common mechanic within games. For Infinity Nikki, like many others, you first level up and gain access to resources quickly. This leads to a blistering pace, where you’re constantly acquiring new clothes and new features to try out. However, this plateaus swiftly, with the gaining batches of clothing going from every day, to every week, to every month if you’re waiting for new non-gacha content. And to collect them requires either paying into the gacha element or spending each day grinding to obtain more materials.

    The way Infinity Nikki uses Fear of Missing Out is different to its predecessors, where there were explicit daily login rewards. Alternatively, Infinity Nikki makes use of a two tier battle pass system. For those who do not spend money, they can gain some much needed diamonds by completing daily and weekly tasks. Paying money unlocks extra Diamonds as well as access to Stellarite, stamina boosts and even exclusive outfits for Momo. If you need Diamonds for the gacha mechanic or to progress quicker, this is the most economical way. However, it is also the most time consuming.

    Cycling in Infinity Nikki as Photographed by FluffyBunny359
    Retrieved From: Reddit

    I’ve already sort of touched on Pay Walls with the whole bicycle debacle. Games will formulate annoyingly arbitrary problems and then sell solutions to the consumer. Grinding and Endowed Progress also feed into these, as users are expected to pay for the luxury of reasonable progression. Paying players then become preferentially treated, which in and of itself, can encourage others to fork out for the “premium” experience. By which of course I mean, mildly functional experience.

    Comparison Prevention makes this even worse. The use of in-game currency and in-game currency that can only be bought with in-game currency, obfuscates comparisons between game products and likening products to real world value. Crystals can be purchased, but never directly with money, only with Diamonds or Stellarite. Meaning players are likely to spend more than they otherwise would due to this complexity. Even the savviest shopper would be bogged down in mathematics to understand the likely monetary cost of clothing gained from the gacha machine.

    Fake Social Proof is an intriguing one, because I cannot say definitively if the Steam reviews have been flooded with bots. There has been some evidence of suspicious activity on Steam. Such as profiles which have engaged in no other games, play very little of Infinity Nikki and provide glowing endorsements.[5][6]

    This would make some sense as there have been efforts in the fan spaces to review bomb Infinity Nikki on Steam.[7] Usually whenever Paper Games pushes the envelope on exploitative corporate practices, like a cat near a precarious glass of water hanging over electrical equipment. But nothing I have observed is concrete, so it will not be the basis of my foundation for this point.

    Current Review Breakdown for Infinity Nikki on Steam.

    However, there are a frequent stories of the official Infinity Nikki discord server being heavily moderated against controversy, with most expressing their experiences on the fan run subreddit.[8-10] Doing so serves two purposes. Firstly, it serves to insulate paying customers in a cheerful atmosphere, thereby reducing the likelihood of player numbers (and therefore payments) dropping. Secondly, it means newer players are in a complimentary upbeat community, that incentivises a lack of critical thinking when engaging with the game. Meaning new players can be on-boarded to pay and continue paying.

    Overall, this seems a pretty scathing indictment on the methods used by Paper Games in their game. And don’t get me wrong it absolutely is. But it wouldn’t be one of my essays without some complexity thrown into the mix.

    The Light Hand of Darkness

    Look, I want to state my position here clearly. I do believe that Paper Games (and by extension other publishers) are engaging in deeply unethical and manipulative practices. But that does not mean I agree with how the research on dark patterns is applied. There’s nothing inherently wrong with it, but much of the writing feels out of touch with both game design and with gamers.

    Take grinding for example. I am a filthy turn based RPG player, so I have spent most of my time playing games by gaining levels and abilities to defeat the next big bad boss. Its undeniably mostly grinding. But I don’t believe it would qualify as inherently deceptive. There’s a lot to complain about with Final Fantasy games, but its routine of fighting is usually part of the appeal. It creates a gameplay loop where you master the skills of your characters. Iteratively getting more competent at the mechanics and gaining artificial boosts to power through the game itself.

    The Best My Favourite Turn Based RPG, Bravely Default by Square Enix
    Drawn By Akihiko Yoshida
    Retrieved From: Tumblr

    To put it in more simple terms. Its really fun beating those level 5 blobs that caused you trouble at the start of the game with a giant fireball because you now comprehend elemental weaknesses. And have way higher stats. This needs to be considered when applying these dark patterns to games. Some are clearly just manipulative no matter what, like fake social proof, comparison prevention and loot boxes. There is no mechanical or narrative reason to dissipate dissent, to prevent players from making informed financial decisions or to use randomised mechanics to give rewards. It is solely to increase profit.

    Though with practices like endowed progress, they can create good gameplay experiences. Infamously, Runescape took the idea perhaps a little too far, with the meme of 92 is half of 99. Because the necessary experience points to get to level 92 were half of those needed to get to level 99. But quicker beginning progression gives a fast-paced gameplay and allows players to quickly explore the benefits of level ups. Whilst later slower progression, instils rarer, more substantial benefits for sticking with certain characters or mechanics.

    And that, in my own experience, is extremely fun. I want to use Ultima on the ultimate boss because I spent so long working on these characters to get to it. So my reward should be to one shot those who stand in my way with the power to end all reality.

    Donald Duck Casting Zettaflare in Kingdom Hearts 3 by Square Enix
    Note: Me at every minor inconvenience in a game

    This lack of fundamental lived experience by the academics investigating it, means they miss the intricacies of gaming. And admittedly, I am not considerably better. The reason I even heard about dark patterns is because a friend brought up the concept. Without the connections I have to many talented friends involved in diverse aspects of game design, I would have missed a remarkably rich vein of discussion.

    So, how about we look at some research by actual game academics?

    Gaming In The Dark

    In their 2021 paper, Dupont and Malliet try to develop a version of dark patterns that can be understood through the lens of game design theory.[11] In it, they make use the fundamental unit of a game called a ludeme. This is akin to the basic unit of speech called a phoneme, which is the smallest possible sound a person can produce. Phonemes are then strung together to create words, which generates sentences, which formulates paragraphs, so on and so forth. In a similar manner, their ludeme comprises the root components of a game. Comprising a graphic element, sound cue and mechanic. Which can then be strung together to create puzzles, levels and games.

    Their example is the block pushing from the original legend of Zelda games. Within is a graphical representation of both Link and the block, the sound of something dragging on the floor and the mechanic of pushing the block through the character.[11] Whilst this definitionally is not the base element of the game itself; it is the most stripped down interaction for what a player experiences.

    Graphic from Dupont and Malliet (2021)

    Merely looking at the block is not the player interacting with the world. It is only with all three combined that they enact change upon the game world itself. Audiovisual feedback punctuates mechanical changes and tells them they are doing something right.

    Just as a sound can be utilised in a variety of different words, ludemes can be employed in a variety of different games. Nintendo does not own the patent for pushing blocks. Although I wouldn’t put it past them to be honest. But if you played the original Legend of Zelda and then saw a similar block within another game. You would attempt the action again, to try and push it, to see if it is the same ludeme.[11] In this way, games not only instruct us about further gameplay within themselves, but base mechanics and genre conventions condition our view of future games as well.

    The benefit of framing dark patterns through ludemes, is that we can appreciate the mechanical differences between deceptive practices and beneficial practices. There is much focus on how it is the slick graphics or earworm auditory cues, that lead to people becoming dependent on these games. But really, those elements are similar across MMORPGs. The difference is the context of the mechanic.

    Screenshot of the Gacha Pulling Animation from Infinity Nikki
    Retrieved From: The Gamer

    For example, MMORPGs often allow the player to gather materials through the world. Whether it be getting plants, foraging for foods or interacting with animals, even fighting bosses can net you rare items. These materials can then be used to craft better armour or weapons. All without spending a single real world penny. Similarly in Infinity Nikki, you can forage for plants, interact with animals and go through boss trials to gain rare items, in order to craft better clothes. But, these are significantly more gated behind 24 hour timers and stamina mechanics. And unlike say, World of Warcraft, the game has easy ways for you to spend money to get around these arbitary restrictions.

    So, despite both seeming similar on the surface, in Infinity Nikki (alongside other scummier games) you are incentivised to expend real money. Dark patterns manipulate training from previous games, slightly twisting our ingrained responses of collecting materials to profit. That is what causes them to be manipulative. The parasitic contortion of otherwise normal gameplay elements to further incentivise spending.

    The most important part to stress through this framework is how player interaction with the game is highlighted. Sizeable amounts of research positions players as passive, that they are being manipulated through these tricks without input. This isn’t to say it is the player’s fault, rather that their input and prior experiences are integral to the manipulation itself. It is in their interactions with games that grinding or endowed progress is seen as normal and not harmful. Which subsequently allows for manipulative practices to catch them off guard.

    Lighting Up Darkness

    There has been academic discussion of the ways in which we can limit or otherwise ameliorate the effects of dark patterns. This is especially pressing considering that even games for preschoolers have been found to exhibit some characteristics of dark patterns.[12] Nong (2025) states some simple changes, such as game distribution boards enforcing stricter methods of transparency for in-store and online descriptions.[13] Like an enormous yellow warning signs saying “contains gambling and unbridled ravenous predation by executives”. Though my suggestion may need workshopping.

    Current Pan-European Game Information (PEGI) Warning Labels for Loot Boxes and Gachas
    Retrieved From: Royal Society Publishing

    Further effective interventions suggested include clear conversion rates between the value of items and real money, perhaps through a toggle or enforcing price tags only in the relevant currency for the country.[13] You know, instead of three levels of obfuscation. Others have suggested more legalistic action, such as challenging games companies on these deceptive practices violating data protection and consumer rights laws.[1] All things considered, I think these methodologies can be easily surmised like this.

    Make deceptive practices as inconvenient to implement as humanly possible.

    To me this is reasonable as unfortunately, there really is no individual method to salvation here. You can be an informed consumer; trying to research the games you wish to play. But this is rapidly becoming the standard for most games. And exploitative practices are becoming increasingly normalised. I will always champion education on these topics, but I don’t think there is a way to outmanoeuvre this as a typical consumer.

    I’d like to say that since boycotting worked to get Paper Games to reverse some decisions, the same is true for games companies like Activision-Blizzard. Unfortunately, Paper Games isn’t a massive megacorporation. When they are boycotted, it impacts their bottom line. When Activision-Blizzard is, it affects their employees. Plus, Paper Games relies on the Nikki series almost exclusively, whereas other corporations retain a wide berth of games companies beneath them to throw under the bus. They won’t stop until they are forced to.

    So the most urgent communal action we can carry out as gamers, is not boycotts, though I would still recommend avoiding their games. Instead it is political pressure on lawmakers. The tried and true method of shouting on the streets, educating others, as well as pushing for change personally and politically. Inconvenience is a effective tool and one that routinely influences those with actual access to power. And only through preventing easy money, will we ever hope to stop capitalistic enterprise. Their laziness is their greatest moneymaker and their greatest downfall.

    The End of Infinity

    I do want to emphasise that I really love the Nikki games. At least. Abstractly. In terms of dress up games, they are some of the best if not the best. They are an oasis in a desert of a deprived genre. It caters very explicitly to women, to a particular genre of women’s gaming that is never considered to be profitable or worthwhile. They fufill a fantasy for many people, not just women, that is severely deprived otherwise.

    But, that’s the issue, right. The reason for Infinity Nikki’s popularity, the reason as to why people will latch on and cling to it despite Paper Games practices, is the desperation. Is the lack of catering to a market that is crying out for high quality games. And, to me at least, that makes Paper Games practices worse. They are not even the worst offenders in implementing dark patterns, much more ink is spilled on Overwatch, Genshin Impact and FIFA amongst others.

    Infinity Nikki is arguably one of the better games within this manipulative genre. I want that to sink in for you. Amongst consistent use of dark patterns, this is as good as it gets. Yet it is still a game that got under my skin so much and made me buy into the sunk cost fallacy of spending money on it, that I had to stop playing. Again.

    Because this is a repeat issue in the Nikki games for me. And for many others. Even at their best, they are coercive, deceptive and most of all, greedy. Unfettered in their desire to accumulate wealth at the cost of ethical practice. Even as they nominally pretend to care about their player base, the company’s only real concern is a loss of revenue. The sole method to stopping their relentless onslaught of harm, if we force them to. And unfortunately the only current way to prevent it from harming you, is to stop playing.

    Thank you all so much for reading, do let me know your thoughts on dark patterns below. And I will be back with next time to discuss Joseph Campell’s, The Hero’s Journey.

    References

    1. Mathur, A., Kshirsagar, M., & Mayer, J. (2021). What makes a dark pattern… dark? Design attributes, normative considerations, and measurement methods. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1-18).
    2. Shemeikka, A. (2024). Dark patterns in video game monetization (Bachelor’s thesis).
    3. Veiga, E., Silva, N., Gadelha, B., Oliveira, H., & Conte, T. (2025). Dark Patterns in Games: An Empirical Study of Their Harmfulness. Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2025), 2, 470–481.
    4. 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.”
    5. Masterre (2025). I may of found proof that some of the most recent positive steam reviews are not only fake but probably were purchased. Retrieved From: Reddit
    6. TheHeadlessFool (2025). I have a feeling that Steam reviews are manipulated. Retrieved From: Reddit
    7. BanananaCherryBiscuits (2025). So we’re finally now over 50% negative reviews on Steam. Retrieved From: Reddit
    8. Mischeveouslyacat (2025). The majority of us who were participating in the discourse about the game got 24 hour bans and we’re muted by last night. Retrieved From: Reddit
    9. Nysanion (2025). The Discord situation is ridiculous. Retrieved From: Reddit
    10. Hitomienjoyer (2025). The censorship in official spaces takes the cake for me!! LIKE WHAT. Retrieved From: Reddit
    11. Dupont, B., & Malliet, S. (2021). Contextualizing Dark Patterns with the Ludeme Theory: A New Path for Digital Game Literacy?. Acta Ludologica, 4(1), 4-22.
    12. Sousa, C., & Oliveira, A. (2023). The Dark Side of Fun: Understanding Dark Patterns and Literacy Needs in Early Childhood Mobile Gaming. In European Conference on Games Based Learning (Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 599-610). Academic Conferences International Limited.
    13. Nong, M. N.(2025) Predatory Game Monetization: Going Beyond Loot Boxes and Gambling.
  • 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