Cited by 260Gambling Behavior and TreatmentsDigital Games and MediaImpact of Technology on Adolescents

Predatory monetization schemes in video games (e.g. ‘loot boxes’) and internet gaming disorder

Open access
King, Daniel L., Delfabbro, Paul H.·2018·Addiction

Abstract

Predatory monetization schemes in video games (e.g.'loot boxes') and internet gaming disorder Predatory monetization schemes in video games are purchasing systems that disguise or withhold the longterm cost of the activity until players are already financially and psychologically committed.Such schemes contribute to the increasing similarity of gaming and gambling and the potential for financial harm for those with Internet gaming disorder.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/add.14286

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Participation in loot boxes is associated with greater participation in gambling in one cross-sectional survey-based study.

    “The variable reinforcement interval can also resemble the reward scheme embedded in gambling and participation in loot boxes is also associated with greater participation in gambling in one cross-sectional survey-based study.346”

    From Digital Ecosystems, Children, and Adolescents: Technical Report (2026) · cites this paper as [346]

    The passage labeled Abstract says loot boxes resemble slot machines because their outcomes are random, but it does not report an association between loot-box participation and gambling participation. Searches for a cross-sectional survey and that association found no passage reporting such a result in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [17]17. Higuchi S. Behavioral addictions: scientific update. Plenary session at the 19th Annual Conference of the International Society of Addiction Medicine (ISAM). Abu Dhabi: Emirates Palace, 28 October 2017.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
King, D. L., & Delfabbro, P. H.
Affiliations
The University of Adelaide (AU)
Corresponding author
King, Daniel L.
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-06-28
Volume
113
Issue
11
Pages
1967-1969
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
OpenAlex
W2811319480
Cited by
250
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 4
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Australian Research Council (DE170101198)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Games and Media
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
Keywords
loot boxes, video games, internet gaming disorder, gambling, financial harm, in-game purchases, player commitment
MeSH terms
Commerce, Gambling, Humans, Behavior, Addictive, Video Games, Internet

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review