Young Gamers: Possible Gamblers?

Being a gamer myself, I have always associated gaming with very benevolent notions… yet being a law student has also taught me to know better than this.

Have you ever spent a copious amount of money on a game? Perhaps it was to unlock a special character, special skins or just special “items”.

This is where Loot Boxes come in. Loot boxes are “purchasable video game content with randomised rewards”[1]. The players purchase the loot boxes using real currency and the box unlocks a set of random items that can be used in a game. Even a game as innocent as Star Wars Battlefront 2 makes use of loot boxes, despite being more discrete. In the game, a player will first have to purchase an in-game currency (called crystals) using real currency and then use the crystals to purchase the loot boxes. People would go crazy just for the mere possibility of getting Darth Vader, which is a major advantage. However, what about the tremendous amount of money spent just to unlock that special character? Is it just a mere gaming technique or is it- in legal terms- undue influence?

Undue influence is defined in regulation 7(3)(b)[2]: “exploiting a position of power in relation to the customer so as to apply pressure, even without using or threatening to use physical force, in a way which significantly limits the consumer’s ability to make an informed decision.” The courts judge how effective the undue influence is according to the relevant consumer/intended target. There are three types of consumers: standard average, average targeted, averagely vulnerable.

Today, most judges in commercial practices will use the standard average as a benchmark to judge how ethical are gaming businesses. The standard average of most video games will amount to over 16 or even 18. However, research- which can be widely seen in practice as well- shows that 80% of video games are often played by people below the prescribed age description. Whilst the UK currently does not display data on children below 16, published studies in the US illustrates 70% of those under the age of 18 regularly play video games. Age is one of the criteria for vulnerability, which proves how younger people may be more susceptible to aggressive marketing practices compared to the older generation. Hence, while video games often come with age warnings on their packages, their average consumer still consists of the average vulnerable person.

In this vein, recent developments in UK law suggest loot boxes, or in other words buying the mere chance to get something, amounts to gambling. This does not seem too far-fetched when there are loads of 10-year-olds who spent almost 300 pounds from their parent’s credit card trying to get a “special edition sword” to excel in a combat game. Unfortunately, due to the randomised nature of the loot boxes, they end up with a “special shoe” or “lucky duck” or “10 coins”...

This has been even addressed by the government (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport) in September 2020, particularly emphasising its effects on children and young people. The report goes so far to call the in-game additions as “potential harm”. Currently, the government is seeking to review the Gambling Act 2005 to encompass loot boxes. It was recognized that while in theory “gamers” can choose whether to stay in the game, there is a significant impairment of that choice due to undue influence, particularly against age-wise vulnerable groups. At this point, the point of the game is not to merely engage or engross you through providing tools or characters that might help you excel in a challenge-based system, but totally immerse you within the game[3].

Therefore, there exists an asymmetry of power between the player's choice to remain in the game, and the game’s power to influence. The latter always prevails when it comes to children, and it is for this reason that we should be careful when letting our young ones spend money on these games.

Guest Author Maya Oral

[1] Close, J., Spicer, S. G., Nicklin, L. L., Uther, M., Lloyd, J., & Lloyd, H, Secondary analysis of loot box data: Are high-spending “whales” wealthy gamers or problem gamblers? (2021) Addictive Behaviors, 117, 106851. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2021.106851>

[2] The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

[3] Brown, Emily and Paul A. Cairns. “A grounded investigation of game immersion.” (2004) CHI EA '04. <https://doi.org/10.1145/985921.986048>