IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/s9xqt.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Ruse by Any Other Name: Comparing Loot Boxes and Collectible Card Games Using Magic Arena

Author

Listed:
  • Mattinen, Topias

    (Tampere University)

  • Macey, Joseph
  • Hamari, Juho

Abstract

The convergence of gaming and gambling, known as "gamblification", has been a topic of increasing interest in recent years. Loot boxes, i.e., rewards offering randomized content in exchange for money or time, have been a particular focal point. Research has shown links between excessive loot box consumption and problematic consumption behaviors, leading to several attempts to regulate loot boxes. Arguments against regulation have been that loot boxes are conceptually and structurally akin to other unregulated game formats, such as collectible card games. However, this discourse is often without deeper analysis of the mechanics of different products at the center of convergence. Therefore, to add to this knowledge, this article examines the similarities and differences between booster packs in Magic Arena, their physical counterparts in Magic: The Gathering, and loot boxes included in digital games. Particular attention is paid to the ways in which these booster packs compare to loot boxes in terms of consumption patterns, visual appearance, contextual factors, and regulation. Analysis reveals that digital booster packs in Magic Arena differ from both loot boxes and physical card packs, both due to their direct impact on gameplay, and their unique features afforded by the digital environment in which they exist.

Suggested Citation

  • Mattinen, Topias & Macey, Joseph & Hamari, Juho, 2023. "A Ruse by Any Other Name: Comparing Loot Boxes and Collectible Card Games Using Magic Arena," OSF Preprints s9xqt, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:s9xqt
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/s9xqt
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/64d498c02fe49654cb61b0c7/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/s9xqt?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aaron Drummond & James D. Sauer & Lauren C. Hall & David Zendle & Malcolm R. Loudon, 2020. "Why loot boxes could be regulated as gambling," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(10), pages 986-988, October.
    2. David Zendle & Paul Cairns, 2019. "Loot boxes are again linked to problem gambling: Results of a replication study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-13, March.
    3. Hamari, Juho & Hanner, Nicolai & Koivisto, Jonna, 2020. ""Why pay premium in freemium services?" A study on perceived value, continued use and purchase intentions in free-to-play games," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    4. Shaun Stephen Garea & Aaron Drummond & James D. Sauer & Lauren C. Hall & Matthew Neil Williams, 2021. "Meta-analysis of the relationship between problem gambling, excessive gaming and loot box spending," International Gambling Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 460-479, September.
    5. D. Leahy, 2022. "Rocking the Boat: Loot Boxes in Online Digital Games, the Regulatory Challenge, and the EU’s Unfair Commercial Practices Directive," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 561-592, September.
    6. Arkes, Hal R. & Blumer, Catherine, 1985. "The psychology of sunk cost," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 124-140, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xiao, Leon Y., 2024. "Illegal loot box advertising on social media: an empirical study using the Meta and TikTok ad transparency repositories," OSF Preprints s92j3, Center for Open Science.
    2. Sarah E Hodge & Max Vykoukal & John McAlaney & Reece D Bush-Evans & Ruijie Wang & Raian Ali, 2022. "What’s in the box? Exploring UK players’ experiences of loot boxes in games; the conceptualisation and parallels with gambling," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-23, February.
    3. D. Leahy, 2022. "Rocking the Boat: Loot Boxes in Online Digital Games, the Regulatory Challenge, and the EU’s Unfair Commercial Practices Directive," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 561-592, September.
    4. Freeman, Steven F., 1997. "Good decisions : reconciling human rationality, evolution, and ethics," Working papers WP 3962-97., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    5. Mehmet Nar, 2015. "The Effects of Behavioral Economics on Tax Amnesty," International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Econjournals, vol. 5(2), pages 580-589.
    6. Christoph Bühren & Thorben C. Kundt, 2013. "Worker or Shirker – Who Evades More Taxes? A Real Effort Experiment," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201326, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    7. Hisaki Kono & Yasuyuki Sawada & Abu S. Shonchoy, 2016. "DVD-based Distance-learning Program for University Entrance Exams: Experimental Evidence from Rural Bangladesh," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-1027, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    8. Funk, Matt, 2008. "On the Problem of Sustainable Economic Development: A Theoretical Solution to this Prisoner's Dilemma," MPRA Paper 19025, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 08 Jun 2008.
    9. Kim, Jungkeun, 2019. "The impact of different price promotions on customer retention," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 95-102.
    10. Argenton, Cedric & Wang, Xiaoyu, 2020. "Litigation and Settlement under Loss Aversion," Discussion Paper 2020-008, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    11. Florian Englmaier & Arno Schmöller, 2008. "Reserve Price Formation in Online Auctions," CESifo Working Paper Series 2374, CESifo.
    12. Ronayne, David & Sgroi, Daniel & Tuckwell, Anthony, 2021. "Evaluating the sunk cost effect," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 318-327.
    13. Florian Heine & Martin Sefton, 2018. "To Tender or Not to Tender? Deliberate and Exogenous Sunk Costs in a Public Good Game," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-28, June.
    14. Hidalgo, Diana & Onofa, Mercedes & Oosterbeek, Hessel & Ponce, Juan, 2013. "Can provision of free school uniforms harm attendance? Evidence from Ecuador," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 43-51.
    15. von Meduna, Marc & Steinmetz, Fred & Ante, Lennart & Reynolds, Jennifer & Fiedler, Ingo, 2020. "Loot boxes are gambling-like elements in video games with harmful potential: Results from a large-scale population survey," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    16. Konrad Grabiszewski & Alex Horenstein, 2022. "Profiling dynamic decision-makers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-22, April.
    17. Anthony Koschmann, 2019. "Evaluating the durability of brand alliances using Bayesian methods," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 26(3), pages 268-276, May.
    18. Gneezy, Uri & Nelidov, Vadim & Offerman, Theo & van de Ven, Jeroen, 2023. "When opportunities backfire: Alternatives reduce perseverance and success in task completion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 208(C), pages 304-324.
    19. Hoffmann, Vivian, 2008. "Psychology, Gender, and the Intrahousehold Allocation of Free and Purchased Mosquito Nets," Working Papers 55282, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    20. Bonaccio, Silvia & Dalal, Reeshad S., 2006. "Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 127-151, November.

    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:s9xqt. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.