IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/g5wd9.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What are the odds? Lower compliance with Western loot box probability disclosure industry self-regulation than Chinese legal regulation

Author

Listed:
  • Xiao, Leon Y.

    (IT University of Copenhagen)

  • Henderson, Laura L.
  • Newall, Philip Warren Stirling

    (University of Warwick)

Abstract

Loot boxes are purchased to obtain randomised rewards in video games. These mechanics are frequently implemented, including in children’s games, and are psychologically akin to gambling. Emulating gambling harm reduction measures, disclosing the probabilities of obtaining loot box rewards is a consumer protection measure that may reduce overspending. Presently, this has been adopted as law only in China, where a 95.6% disclosure rate was previously observed. In other countries, the industry has generally adopted this measure as self-regulation. This study assessed the compliance rate of self-regulation amongst the 100 highest-grossing UK iPhone games to be 64.0%, significantly lower than that of Chinese legal regulation. Additionally, only 6.7% of games containing first-party implemented loot boxes made reasonably prominent disclosures. Non-enforced Western self-regulation needs substantial improvements before it can be as effective as legal regulation: until then, uniform and prominent disclosures should be required by law to maximise their consumer protection benefits.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiao, Leon Y. & Henderson, Laura L. & Newall, Philip Warren Stirling, 2021. "What are the odds? Lower compliance with Western loot box probability disclosure industry self-regulation than Chinese legal regulation," OSF Preprints g5wd9, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:g5wd9
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/g5wd9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/6155991d17d22700c98696de/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/g5wd9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:g5wd9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.