From premature semantics to mature interaction programming

As HCI has progressed as a discipline, perhaps just as time has passed, the engineering work of programming has become increasingly separated from the HCI, the core user interface design work. At the same time, the sophistication of digital devices, across multiple dimensions, has grown exponentially. The result is that HCI and User Experience (UX) professionals and programmers now work in very different worlds. This separation causes problems for users: the UX is attractive but the program is unreliable, or the program is reliable but unattractive or unhelpful to use, correctly implementing the wrong thing. In this chapter, we dig down from this high-level view to get to what we identify as a new sort of fundamental problem, one we call premature semantics. Premature semantics must be recognised and understood by name by UX and HCI practitioners and addressed by programmers

Video game loot boxes are linked to problem gambling : Results of a large-scale survey

Loot boxes are items in video games that can be paid for with real-world money and contain randomised contents. In recent years, loot boxes have become increasingly common. There is concern in the research community that similarities between loot boxes and gambling may lead to increases in problem gambling amongst gamers. A large-scale survey of gamers (n=7,422) found evidence for a link (η2=0.054) between the amount that gamers spent on loot boxes and the severity of their problem gambling. This link was stronger than a link between problem gambling and buying other in-game items with real-world money (η2=0.004), suggesting that the gambling-like features of loot boxes are specifically responsible for the observed relationship between problem gambling and spending on loot boxes. It is unclear from this study whether buying loot boxes acts as a gateway to problem gambling, or whether spending large amounts of money on loot boxes appeals more to problem gamblers. However, in either case these results suggest that there may be good reason to regulate loot boxes in games

Loot boxes are again linked to problem gambling : results of a replication study

Loot boxes are items in video games that contain randomised contents and can be purchased with real-world money. Similarities between loot boxes and forms of gambling have led to questions about their legal status, and whether they should be regulated as gambling. Previous research has suggested a link between the amount that gamers spend on loot boxes and their problem gambling: The more individuals spent on loot boxes, the more severe their problem gambling. However, the generalisability of prior work may be limited by both the self-selected nature of the sample under test, and the fact that participants were aware of the study’s aims. A large-scale survey of gamers (n=1,172) was undertaken to determine if this link remained when these limitations of previous work were taken into account. These gamers did not self-select into a loot box study and were not aware of the study’s aims. This study found similar evidence for a link (η2 = 0.051) between the amount that gamers spent on loot boxes and the severity of their problem gambling. Previous research strongly suggested both the size and the direction of link between loot box use and problem gambling. This paper provides further support for this link. These results suggest either that loot boxes act as a gateway to problem gambling, or that individuals with gambling problems are drawn to spend more on loot boxes. In either case, we believe that these results suggest there is good reason to regulate loot boxes

Paying for loot boxes is linked to problem gambling, regardless of specific features such as cash-out and pay-to-win

Loot boxes are items in video games that may be bought with real-world money but contain randomised contents. Due to similarities between loot boxes and gambling, various countries are considering regulating them to reduce gambling-related harm. However, loot boxes are extremely diverse. A key problem facing regulators is determining whether specific types of loot boxes carry more potential for harm, and should be regulated accordingly. In this study, we specify seven key ways that loot boxes may differ from each other: They may involve paid or unpaid openings; give opportunities for cashing out; allow gamers to pay to win; involve the use of an in-game currency; feature crate and key mechanics; show near misses; and contain exclusive items. We then use a large-scale preregistered correlational analysis (n=1200) to determine if any of these features strengthen the link between loot box spending and problem gambling. Our results indicate that being able to cash out, showing near-misses, and letting players use in-game currency to buy loot boxes may weakly strengthen the relationship between loot box spending and problem gambling. However, our main conclusion is that regardless of the presence or absence of specific features of loot boxes, if they are being sold to players for real-world money, then their purchase is linked to problem gambling

Growing Together : An Analysis of Measurement Transparency Across 15 Years of Player Motivation Questionnaires

There are many questionnaires to assess player motivation, originating from a diverse range of disciplines. Each discipline differs in their usage and reporting of questionnaires, but there has been no attempt to synthesise or standardise their application. No standard approach leads to a lack of transparency in usage reporting, which affects the ability of the field to synthesise. This has made it unclear whether player motivation research is a unified community, or a collection of individuals with a similar goal. Therefore, the current work assesses the transparency of reporting practices of player motivation questionnaires published within the last 15 years. 18 questionnaires were identified via a scoping review, then papers citing these questionnaires were analysed for their transparency of reporting practices (n=238); first via a content analysis of justifications for use, then followed by an analysis of transparency against eight criteria created for this work. Overall, reporting transparency is lacking, driven by little priority for presenting items alongside text. Many papers use questionnaires because they are theory-based or have measured specific variables in previous works, but explicit justification is rare. The work concludes with a transparency checklist based on the eight criteria used, which authors can use to standardise the field and allow for more cohesive research synthesis

The prevalence of loot boxes in mobile and desktop games

Background and Aims Loot boxes are items in video games that may be bought for real-world money but provide randomized rewards. Formal similarities between loot boxes and gambling have led to concerns that they may provide a ‘gateway’ to gambling amongst children. However, the availability of loot boxes is unclear. This study aimed to determine what proportion of top-grossing video games contained loot boxes, and how many of those games were available to children. Design, setting and cases Survey of the 100 top-grossing games on both the Google Play store and the Apple App store, and the top 50 most-played games on Steam according to the data aggregator SteamSpy. Measurements The prevalence of loot boxes was measured for each platform outlined above, split by age rating. Findings A total of 58.0%of the top games on the Google Play store contained loot boxes, 59.0%of the top iPhone games contained loot boxes and 36.0% of the top games on the Steamstore contained loot boxes; 93.1% of the Android games that featured loot boxes and 94.9% of the iPhone games that featured loot boxes were deemed suitable for children aged 12+. Age ratings were more conservative for desktop games. Only 38.8% of desktop games that featured loot boxes were available to children aged 12+. Conclusions Loot boxes appear to be prevalent in video games that are deemed suitable for children, especially on mobile platforms

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570