Assessing compliance with UK loot box industry self-regulation on the Apple App Store: a 6-month longitudinal study on the implementation processuse asterix (*) to get italics

Leon Y. XiaoPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

2023

<p>Loot boxes in video games can be purchased with real-world money in exchange for random rewards. Stakeholders are concerned about loot boxes’ similarities with gambling and their potential harms (e.g., overspending). The UK Government has decided to first try relying on industry self-regulation to address the issue, rather than to impose legislation. These self-regulations have since been published by Ukie (UK Interactive Entertainment). Many stakeholders are interested in a transparent and independent assessment of their implementation. Compliance with some of these self-regulatory measures are empirically testable. The highest-grossing iPhone games will be played for up to one hour to confirm whether they contain loot boxes. If they do, probability disclosures will be searched for in-game; presence disclosures will be searched for on the Apple App Store product page; and attempts will be made to purchase loot boxes without parental consent whilst pretending to be under 18 (e.g., entering an appropriate birth date whenever demanded). This will be done six months after the publication of the principles (baseline; to track the implementation progress) and then again 12 months after their publication (follow-up; to check compliance, as by that point all games would be required to comply). Conclusions will be drawn as to whether the measures have been complied with by companies to an adequate degree. In addition, by checking whether the games identified as non-compliant at baseline have since complied or been removed at follow-up, conclusions will be drawn as to whether stakeholders (e.g., Apple) are enforcing the regulations.</p>

Loot boxes; Video gaming regulation; Consumer protection

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Humanities, Social sciences

Nick Ballou [n.b.ballou@qmul.ac.uk] suggested: Sorry to have to decline! There were some fields that didn't input properly in the review request so I couldn't check the snapshot, but I'm 99% sure the author is Leon Xiao, and if true, then I have a conflict of interest, having regularly collaborated with him recently. I'm also in the last few stressful weeks before my PhD submission, so would be wise not to take on any additional responsibilities for the moment. , Nick Ballou [n.b.ballou@qmul.ac.uk] suggested: I'm afraid I don't know many others working in this space who wouldn't have a conflict with Leon. Maybe Shaun Garea (S.Garea@massey.ac.nz)? , Joel Billieux suggested: Dear colleagues, , Joel Billieux suggested: I am really sorry to decline this request of review. Unfortunately, I am unfortunately not available to review until Janauary 2023, due to an important institutional commitment that I had to accept. , Joel Billieux suggested: Potential Alternative reviewers: , Joel Billieux suggested: - Olivier.Desmedt@unil.ch , Joel Billieux suggested: - Alessandro.Giardina@unil.ch , Joel Billieux suggested: - Maeva.Flayelle@unil.ch , Joel Billieux suggested: - lois.fournier@unil.ch , Joel Billieux suggested: Robert Heirene could be a good reviewer too. If you face difficulties in finding a review, do not hesitate to contact me again for other names. , Andy Przybylski suggested: Pete Etchells, p.etchells@bathspa.ac.uk, Oliver Desmedt [olivier.desmedt@unil.ch] suggested: Joël Billieux - joel.billieux@unil.ch

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

2023-08-27 22:47:03

Zoltan Dienes