Random Numbers and Gaming

In Counter Strike: Global Offensive spray pattern control becomes a muscle memory to a player after long periods of playing. It’s a design choice that makes the gunplay between players more about instant crosshair placement with the faster player usually winning. This is very different from the gunplay of the current popular shooter Player Unknown’s Battlegrounds. Player Unknown’s Battleground’s spray pattern for the guns are random. So how does this affect the player experience? Well as opposed to Counter Strike: Global Offensive, the design choice makes gunplay between two players more about how a person can adapt faster when encountering another. So why does the change from a set pattern to random make for such a different experience in gameplay. Did the usage of randomness make for such a different experience? Random numbers in video games are utilized frequently and have been used for a long time, whether it was better for the player experience is often hard to tell. So just what is this “randomness”? What games use random numbers and why? Are random numbers a bad practice? The usage of random numbers in games is nothing new, but poor implementations and bad business practices have given random numbers a smudge mark on their reputation

A Global Analysis into Loot Boxes: Is It Virtually Gambling?

The video game industry has expanded rapidly in recent years by implementing a microtransaction business model and expanding to a new market of mobile gaming. However, the introduction of loot boxes has been controversial; similar to gambling, gamers pay real money for a randomized microtransaction for a chance to win a random virtual prize of perceived value. Additionally, the items won from these loot boxes, such as cosmetic skins, can potentially be used to bet on other games of chance or even on the outcomes of competitive esports games. With the ease of online payments, the use of manipulative operant conditioning, and exploitive advertisements, young gamers are subject to gambling tendencies. However, there is a global split between whether loot boxes fit under the definition of gambling. Countries around the world have responded in four different ways: (1) outright banning loot boxes; (2) regulating loot boxes in various ways; (3) investigating loot boxes further; and (4) not recognizing loot boxes as gambling and taking no further action. This Comment seeks to challenge the global question of whether loot boxes are gambling and instead ask whether loot boxes are inducing the same effects of gambling on young children. Whether loot boxes fit under pre-existing gambling constructs, the effects on children are prevalent. Treading a fine line between its government paternalistic approach and respecting economic freedom, the United States should take steps to regulate loot boxes in a manner that will protect minors from the effects of gambling without crippling the video game industry

Regulating Habit-Forming Technology

Tech developers, like slot machine designers, strive to maximize the user’s “time on device.” They do so by designing habit-forming products— products that draw consciously on the same behavioral design strategies that the casino industry pioneered. The predictable result is that most tech users spend more time on device than they would like, about five hours of phone time a day, while a substantial minority develop life-changing behavioral problems similar to problem gambling. Other countries have begun to regulate habit-forming tech, and American jurisdictions may soon follow suit. Several state legislatures today are considering bills to regulate “loot boxes,” a highly addictive slot-machine- like mechanic that is common in online video games. The Federal Trade Commission has also announced an investigation into the practice. As public concern mounts, it is surprisingly easy to envision consumer regulation extending beyond video games to other types of apps. Just as tobacco regulations might prohibit brightly colored packaging and fruity flavors, a social media regulation might limit the use of red notification badges or “streaks” that reward users for daily use. It is unclear how much of this regulation could survive First Amendment scrutiny; software, unlike other consumer products, is widely understood as a form of protected “expression.” But it is also unclear whether well-drawn laws to combat compulsive technology use would seriously threaten First Amendment values. At a very low cost to the expressive interests of tech companies, these laws may well enhance the quality and efficacy of online speech by mitigating distraction and promoting deliberation

Loot Boxes

"Loot boxes" are video game mechanics that provide randomized rewards. "Paid loot boxes" that require purchase using real-world money by players are frequently implemented by companies to "monetize" and generate revenue. The technical definition of "loot boxes" is wider than that of when the term is used in common parlance, which generally only refers to "paid loot boxes." Previous research has identified conceptual and psychological similarities between paid loot boxes and gambling. Regulation and other harm-minimization measures have been suggested and adopted in certain countries. Further research is required to understand the nature and the extent of any potential harms

Mobile Privacy and Business-to-Platform Dependencies: An Analysis of SEC Disclosures

This Article systematically examines the dependence of mobile apps on mobile platforms for the collection and use of personal information through an analysis of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings of mobile app companies. The Article uses these disclosures to find systematic evidence of how app business models are shaped by the governance of user data by mobile platforms, in order to reflect on the role of platforms in privacy regulation more generally. The analysis of SEC filings documented in the Article produces new and unique insights into the data practices and data-related aspects of the business models of popular mobile apps and shows the value of SEC filings for privacy law and policy research more generally. The discussion of SEC filings and privacy builds on regulatory developments in SEC disclosures and cybersecurity of the last decade. The Article also connects to recent regulatory developments in the U.S. and Europe, including the General Data Protection Regulation, the proposals for a new ePrivacy Regulation and a Regulation of fairness in business-to-platform relations

Harms Of Loot Boxes And Approaching Regulation In Singapore

‘Loot boxes’ are a type of videogame monetization model that contains randomized rewards of varying rarities which emerged in recent years. The element of chance seeks to entice players into buying loot boxes in hopes of receiving a rare and desirable reward. The design of loot boxes has been identified to be addictive and to entice players to spend more money than they estimate they would. With links to addiction and gambling behaviours, loot boxes may cause social harm if unregulated. Singapore is not new to the videogaming scene and may seek to regulate loot boxes should it emerge as a social problem amongst Singaporeans. By acknowledging existing approaches towards regulating loot boxes and situating loot boxes in Singapore’s social context, this paper explores Lessig’s four modalities of constraint as a framework to hypothesize regulatory options for Singapore

Open World Regulation: The Urgent Need for Federal Legislation on Video Game Loot Boxes

Loot boxes are items in video games that contain randomized prizes that players can purchase with real-world money. In recent years, loot boxes have come under scrutiny because the relationship between behavior and the underlying mechanics of loot boxes are similar to that of addictive behaviors associated with real-world gambling. Many papers suggest solutions focused on industry changes without direct regulation. However, these papers neglect the enormous profit incentive to maintain a business practice which can have detrimental behavioral effects on children. The United States federal government must take example from a growing number of European countries and ban the sale of loot boxes to children. Growing concern in the United States has been met with attempts to regulate loot boxes as gambling. However, the nature of loot boxes causes them to fall between the cracks in our present regulatory infrastructure, which is created through state gambling laws. Common law on what constitutes a prize typically requires that the item have transferrable value. Game developers restrict players from selling items gained through loot boxes, so this requirement usually cannot be met through state gambling laws or common law. This paper will examine the Federal Government’s ability to regulate loot boxes on a national level and propose model legislation