The Australian Greens agree with many of the observations made within
the Majority Report. However it is our view that evidence given in this inquiry
clearly indicates the risk to children and vulnerable adults from developing
gambling-related harms through interaction with loot boxes is of such
significance that stronger regulatory action should be taken.
Legal definitions of gambling
We note that regulators around the world have been bound by the
definitions of gambling included in current legislation when considering the
status of loot boxes as a form of gambling. In particular, throughout the
inquiry it was argued that to be considered a gambling service, a game must be
played for a prize or monetary value. Although loot boxes are not homogenous
entities and therefore need to be considered on a case-by-case basis, it
appears evident that the monetisation of virtual items is widespread and common
It is also clear that a broader concept of utility and value operates in
the video-game community with subjective value created through the combination
of item scarcity and competitive advantage. Variable scarcity can affect the
way in which players perceive the value of virtual items and can motivate
players to continue purchasing loot boxes in an attempt to obtain such items.
Rare items are often referred to as epic or legendary, and obtaining such items
can change the way in which players are perceived by other players, including
adding to a player's prestige or status. As such, items have a tangible value
to players beyond monetisation.
The Australian Greens are of the view that the rapid evolution of online
activity requires the regular review of legislative definitions to ensure that
regulatory gaps do not eventuate, particularly where risks to children and
vulnerable adults may exist.
Psychological definition of gambling
Through the inquiry we heard that many loot boxes meet the psychological
definition of gambling, even where they do not meet legal definitions. The
Australian Greens note with concern the evidence that a number of loot box
mechanisms contained in home game console and PC release games meet the five
psychological criteria of gambling. Of particular concern were loot boxes which
both meet the five psychological criteria, and which allow the monetisation of
virtual items. We accept the evidence that these loot boxes would most closely
meet the accepted definitions, both legal and psychological, of gambling.
The Australian Greens were concerned to hear that loot boxes utilise
psychological mechanisms commonly seen in other forms of gambling, including
poker machines. These mechanisms include variable ratio reinforcement
schedules, game-play experience, entrapment, and ready and constant
availability. Further, there is evidence that outcomes are being manipulated
through the configuration of loot boxes according to player behaviour.
We were also concerned to learn that loot boxes encourage repeated
player spending through intrusive and unavoidable solicitations, limited
disclosure of the product, and systems which manipulate reward outcomes to
reinforce purchasing behaviours at the expense of encouraging skilful or
Similarity to poker machines
The Australian Greens were disturbed to learn that the variable ratio
reinforcement schedule mechanism more commonly found in poker machines,
underpins the mechanism of many loot boxes. This mechanism, which rewards
certain behaviours to encourage the repetition of such behaviour, but delivers
rewards on a seemingly random schedule, results in the rapid acquisition of
extremely persistent behaviours which are robust to extinction. In particular,
players are unable to determine how many purchases are required to obtain a
particular item they see, and the exact number of required purchases varies. We
noted with concern the assessment by the Royal Australian and New Zealand
College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) that the risk to players who engage with loot
boxes of developing gambling-related harms is likely to be similar to the risk
posed by other forms of gambling that utilise variable ratio reinforcement
In addition to the use of variable ratio reinforcement schedules, we
heard that the game-play experience of opening many loot boxes mirrors the
gameplay experience of using a poker machine. In particular, the sensory
feedback of lights, and sound, and the use of rolling graphics showing
potential prizes were highlighted by witnesses as being almost
indistinguishable from the experience of playing a poker machine. Further,
other mechanisms utilised by both loot boxes and poker machines include rapid
playing speeds, rapid and immediate payouts, and the potential to quickly and
easily multiply transactions.
We are concerned that such mechanisms which closely resemble poker
machines appear to be widely accessible to children and vulnerable adults,
without apparent restriction or regulation.
Another similarity that loot boxes share with other forms of gambling is
the dematerialisation of payment through the use of symbolic currency. Players
purchase symbolic currency with real-world money, and then use the symbolic
currency to purchase loot boxes. This is similar to the use of casino chips to
make bets and play games, and this process is known to reduce the ability of
players to monitor and track spending, which can lead to overspending.
Children are particularly vulnerable to the effect of dematerialisation
of payment as it can be difficult to conceptualise that an interaction using
virtual currency in fact has real-world economic consequences. Furthermore,
there is research to suggest that the conversion into abstract currency may
increase people's willingness to spend money when it is in abstract forms
rather than real-world dollars.
Loot boxes can reinforce and perpetuate continued play which sustains
ongoing spending through so-called 'entrapment'. This is similar to 'chasing
losses' which is seen in other forms of gambling. In entrapment situations,
players often spend an escalating amount of money which begets further spending
as players eventually believe that too much has been invested to stop.
Potential for harm
The Australian Greens note the evidence that because loot boxes are a
relatively new phenomenon, there is little empirical research available
regarding the potential for gambling-related harms to be experienced by
players. Drs Zendle and Cairns provided the committee with what was described
as the only current empirical evidence which demonstrates a link between loot
boxes and problem gambling. This study hypothesised that loot boxes may be
acting as a gateway to problem gambling amongst gamers, or alternatively,
individuals who are problem gamblers tend to overspend on loot boxes due to the
similarities between loot boxes and other forms of gambling. We are of the view
that both propositions are troubling and, at the very least, warrants further
Through the inquiry analogous evidence was given which compared both the
mechanics of loot boxes and the potential for gambling-related harms to be
experienced, to other more widely researched forms of gambling. We found this
evidence compelling, particularly in light of the evidence that loot boxes
utilise a number of psychological mechanisms seen in other forms of gambling
such as poker machines.
We accept that more research is required on the potential for harm
associated with loot boxes. However we are of the view that existing research,
particularly in relation to the psychological definitions of gambling as they
apply to loot boxes is sufficient as to warrant the Australian Government
taking urgent action on the issue.
Groups vulnerable to harm
In understanding the potential for loot boxes to cause harm, it is
important to identify those groups most vulnerable to experiencing such harm.
Much of the discussion has focused on the potential for children to experience
gambling-related harms as a result of interaction with loot boxes. However,
submitters have also argued that there are also a range of other vulnerable
persons, including adults with impulse control issues, and those with poor
computer and financial literacy, who are at risk.
Children are still developing cognition and impulse control and are
therefore particularly vulnerable to conditioning effects such as variable
ratio reinforcement schedules. Children are also vulnerable to immersive
features associated with games which cause loss of time harms. In addition,
children are impacted by the use of enticing colours, rewards, and the social
opportunities provided by games.
It is alarming that there appear to be few controls which prevent
underage access to loot boxes, especially in light of the evidence that loot
boxes are psychologically akin to other forms of gambling, even where they do
not met legal definitions.
There is considerable concern that even if loot boxes are not determined
to be gambling according to legal definitions, the game play experience is
similar enough that gambling is normalised for children. This normalisation may
lead to children taking up other forms of gambling, and suffering subsequent
Need for regulation
The Australian Greens are of the view that the protection of children
from gambling related harms warrants the introduction of regulatory measures to
restrict access to loot boxes to those over the age of 18, and to ensure that
consumers are made aware of the risks associated with loot boxes.
We accept the evidence that the industry has had to seek alternative
sources of revenue to meet the increasing costs of game development, and
acknowledges that micro-transactions are a significant source of income.
The Australian Greens are however concerned that without appropriate
regulation, micro-transactions may become, or in some cases are, predatory
monetisation schemes where children and vulnerable adults are exploited for
profit utilising gambling mechanisms and strategies.
We do not believe that the introduction of measures such as appropriate
labelling and classification are so onerous that the profitability of the video
game industry would be in jeopardy.
Classification and labelling
The classification of computer games provides an opportunity for the
Australian Government to ensure that games containing loot boxes are not made
available to children, and that parents and guardians are aware that games
contain such mechanisms.
Gambling is a significant public health concern, and it has long been
government policy that such activity should be restricted to those over the age
of 18. Further, activities which normalise gambling, particularly to children
and young adults has been recognised as creating a pathway to other forms of gambling.
We accept the evidence that some loot boxes meet the established
psychological criteria for gambling, and that virtual items contained in a
number of loot boxes can be monetised (i.e. meeting the legal requirement that
prizes are of monetary value). Where games meet both elements, there would
appear to be the most serious risk to players of suffering gambling-related
harms as loot boxes most closely resemble other forms of gambling.
As such, we are of the view that where games meet the psychological
definition of gambling (as outlined in Chapter 3), and where virtual items can
be monetised, the Classification Board should assess and rate these games as
We are also of the view that where games meet the psychological
definition of gambling, but where virtual items cannot be monetised, the
Classification Board should assess and rate these games as MA15+. It is clear
that even without monetisation, virtual items have intrinsic value to players,
and that loot boxes utilise a range of techniques seen in other forms of
gambling. It is not appropriate that children are exposed to such elements
without parental guidance.
In addition to appropriately classifying games, there is a clear need to
inform consumers and the parents and guardians of children that games contain
loot boxes. Appropriate labelling would increase consumer knowledge, and ensure
that parents and guardians are aware that games contain material inappropriate
Consumer protection framework
The Australian Greens acknowledge and commend the video game industry's
stated commitment to ensuring the protection of children and young people. We
also note the industry's efforts to implement parental controls and purchase
restrictions on many platforms. It is clear that there is a willingness on the
part of the Australian video game industry to engage with regulators to address
community concerns and to develop appropriate responses.
We consider that a consumer protection framework for the video games
industry, based on existing frameworks such as the Australian National
Principles of Child Safe Organisations, would provide consumer confidence and
clarity for the industry. Such a framework should include risk assessment
processes to identify risks to children, reporting mechanisms, and policies and
processes for developers and publishers to respond to safety concerns, and
information to assist consumers and parents and guardians. This framework
should be developed in collaboration with the video game industry and community
The Australian Greens recommend the Australian Government review the
definition of 'gambling service' contained in the Interactive Gambling Act
2001 to ensure that it continues to be fit for purpose, particularly with
regard to micro-transactions for chance-based items.
The Australian Greens recommend that games which contain loot boxes that
meet the psychological definition of gambling, and where virtual items can be
monetised, be rated as R18+.
The Australian Greens recommend that games which contain loot boxes that
meet the psychological definition of gambling but where virtual items cannot be
monetised, be rated as MA15+.
The Australian Greens recommend that games containing loot boxes be
required to clearly display 'Contains Simulated Gambling' in the video game
content rating label.
The Australian Greens recommend that a consumer protection framework be
developed in collaboration with the video game industry and community groups.
This framework should include risk assessment processes to identify risks to
children, reporting mechanisms for concerns, policies and processes for
developers and publishers to respond to safety concerns, and information to
assist consumers and parents and guardians.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page