If they do, this may imply that a discussion about whether CCGs require regulation is needed. Here, we investigate whether people with higher problem gambling symptomology also spend more on CCGs than people with fewer problem gambling symptoms. No such evidence currently exists for CCGs. Chief among the key differences between the case for regulating loot boxes and the case for regulating CCGs is the mounting evidence that players with higher problem gambling symptomology spend more on loot boxes than players with fewer problem gambling symptoms, suggesting that people with gambling problems may engage with them in a similar manner to traditional gambling activities. However, just because something appears to resemble gambling does not necessarily mean it is a form of gambling. Researchers have certainly raised concerns about the possibility that CCGs might constitute a form of gambling (e.g., ). One argument that has been put forward by industry representatives is that many existing activities, such as Collectable Card Games (CCGs), utilise the same mechanics as loot boxes and are not currently subject to such regulation. As such, many policymakers have regulated (e.g., Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands) or considered regulating (e.g., Australia, New Zealand, UK, US) loot boxes in some way. Many loot boxes appear to meet the psychological (Drummond & Sauer, 2018), and legal definitional characteristics of traditional gambling practices. In particular, the concerns have focused upon loot boxes–digital containers of randomised rewards often purchasable for real world money. Recently, there has been a surge in public policy interest in the incorporation of gambling-like mechanics in video games. Our research suggests that there is currently little evidence to support the regulation of collectable card games. Decisions regarding regulation of activities which share structural features with traditional forms of gambling should be made on the basis of definitional criteria as well as whether people with gambling problems purchase such items at a higher rate than peers with no gambling problems. We discuss potential reasons for these differences. Thus, although collectable card game booster packs, like loot boxes, share structural similarities with gambling, it appears that they may not be linked to problem gambling in the same way as loot boxes. Follow-up equivalence tests using the TOST procedure rejected the hypothesis that either of these effects was of practical importance (η 2 > 0.04). Here, in a large sample of collectible card game players (n = 726), we show no statistically significant link between in real-world store spending on physical booster and problem gambling (p = 0.110, η 2 = 0.004), and a trivial in magnitude relationship between spending on booster packs in online stores and problem gambling (p = 0.035, η 2 = 0.008). However, not everything which appears similar to gambling requires regulation. Players of collectible card games often buy sealed physical packs of cards, and these ‘booster packs’ share many formal similarities with loot boxes. Some argue that the regulation of loot boxes as gambling-like mechanics is inappropriate because similar activities which also bear striking similarities to traditional forms of gambling, such as collectable card games, are not subject to such regulations. Recently, concerns have been raised that loot boxes might approximate traditional gambling activities, and that people with gambling problems have been shown to spend more on loot boxes than peers without gambling problems. Loot boxes are digital containers of randomised rewards present in some video games which are often purchasable for real world money.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |