Towards an Ethical Game Design Solution to Loot Boxes: a Commentary on King and Delfabbro

descriptionPublicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article , Preprint 04 Sep 2019 United Kingdom, United Kingdom Publisher:Center for Open ScienceJournal:International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, volume 19, pages 177-192 (issn: 1557-1874, eissn: 1557-1882,

Copyright policy )

Authors: Leon Y. Xiao; Laura L. Henderson;

doi: 10.31228/osf.io/r6z5a , 10.1007/s11469-019-00164-4

Towards an Ethical Game Design Solution to Loot Boxes: a Commentary on King and Delfabbro

- Summary
- Subjects
- Related research
  (10)
- Metrics

Abstract

King and Delfabbro (2019b) proposed the adoption of social responsibility measures to combat predatory monetisation in video games, such as loot boxes. This paper rectifies a game example mistakenly used by King and Delfabbro and provides further game examples to illustrate, critique and extend the proposed measures. This paper argues that the proposed measures are unlikely to be widely adopted by the video game industry, given the industry’s economic interests in the continued unhindered implementation of predatory monetisation, their preference for continued ‘self-regulation’ and their past resistance against potential regulation. With reference to South Korean law, this paper explores the possibility of codifying and enforcing the proposed measures as law and argues that overly paternalistic regulations are insensible and impractical. This paper recommends the use of regulatory nudging to encourage video game companies through incentives, such as discretionary grants and tax relief schemes, to adopt the proposed social responsibility measures and develop towards an ethical game design framework.

Countries

United Kingdom, United Kingdom

Related Organizations

Durham University
United Kingdom
Queen Mary University of London
United Kingdom
City, University of London
United Kingdom

Keywords

10 Research products, page 1 of 1

An Intimate Insight on Psychopathy and a Novel Hermeneutic Psychological Science
2019IsAmongTopNSimilarDocuments
A Critique of the Current UK Regulatory Position on Loot Boxes: Towards the Imposition of an Equitable Maximum Spending Limit and Incentivised Ethical Game Design
2019IsAmongTopNSimilarDocuments
PRAANGGAPAN PAMFLET SOSIALISASI PELESTARIAN LINGKUNGAN DI KABUPATEN WAKATOBI
2020IsAmongTopNSimilarDocuments
Creativity and Craft
2011IsAmongTopNSimilarDocuments
KAIDAH-KAIDAH FONOLOGI
2020IsAmongTopNSimilarDocuments
Regulating Loot Boxes as Gambling? Towards a Combined Legal and Self-Regulatory Consumer Protection Approach
2020IsAmongTopNSimilarDocuments
DEIKSIS MASYARAKAT BONEGUNU KABUPATEN BUTON UTARA
2020IsAmongTopNSimilarDocuments
GAYA BAHASA SECARA UMUM DAN GAYA BAHASA PEMBUNGKUS PIKIRAN
2020IsAmongTopNSimilarDocuments
Which Implementations of Loot Boxes Constitute Gambling? A UK Legal Perspective on the Potential Harms of Random Reward Mechanisms
2020IsAmongTopNSimilarDocuments
ESRB and PEGI’s Flawed ‘Includes Random Items’ Label- Self-Regulation of Random Reward Mechanisms (e.g. Loot Boxes) Alone Fails to Ensure Consumer Protection
2020IsAmongTopNSimilarDocuments

Impact byBIP!

	selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).	26
	popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.	Top 10%
	influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).	Top 10%
	impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.	Top 10%