Loot crates are a hot topic in gaming circles right now. I have bounced around on my thoughts on them (and even wrote about their dangers in my recent Zelda book). However, as a fan of YouTube theorist Matthew Patrick (MatPat), I recently watched his two-part video series outlining the two sides of the debate. You can watch his first video here.
For those who don’t know, The Game Theorists is a channel run by Matthew Patrick wherein he picks apart video game logic and uses science to come to new conclusions. While many of his topics are hyperbolic and he frequently uses click-bait titles and thumbnails (such as Link is Dead and Pokemon are Going Extinct), I find that most of his logic and theories hold up. I hope to address his controversial video about Link being dead in Majora’s Mask at another time, but for now, let’s come back to his videos on loot crates.
For this blog, I try to address my thoughts on games, game scholarship, as well as my review of popular texts and related media. However, this isn’t exactly a review of MatPat’s videos, so much as a response to them. So bear with me.
Across his two videos, MatPat first outlines the manipulative elements of loot crates. He outlines some of the well-known arguments that they are akin to gambling. These arguments were previously made, also by MatPat, in his video on the addictive natures of mobile gaming. Mobile games, which use loot crates more often than other genres, use randomized rewards to establish Skinner Boxes for players, who begin to crave the unknown and aren’t satisfied until they continue to spend and spend their money to open more and more mystery boxes.
These are especially popular in Gacha games (a notable example being Fire Emblem: Heroes) which are freemium games of collecting figures or items in lottery-style game mechanisms. When comparing Gacha games to gambling, the connections are very obvious. Almost blatant. However, when stepping back into more common examples of loot crates (such as Overwatch skins), these correlations become more tenuous. With loot crates, there obviously is a negative impact of pay-to-win models, where those who engage in loot crates gain a significant tactical advantage over those who don’t. And using purely aesthetic loot crates doesn’t seem as harmful to players, who can choose not to want to be a Pink Darth Vader.
But the second part of MatPat’s video series then examines these arguments that loot crates aren’t gambling because they always provide a reward. Unlike slot machines, which are designed to pay out less often than they receive, loot crates always provide a reward. Granted, the reward may not be what the player wants, but it is always a reward. MatPat then goes on to recall other historical examples of gambling scares in the media. The hype around baseball cards and Pokemon cards have led previous thought leaders to condemn these trading cards as gambling for kids. The same arguments against loot crates were used against baseball cards, which begs the question if loot crates are gambling then what isn’t?
I can’t claim to have any experience with clinical psychology or scholarly examination of addiction. So I don’t have the credentials to determine what an addiction is or what defines as an addictive behavior. However, I do find that the current question, the one that MatPat answers in his videos, is “Are loot crates gambling?” Which, I think is a different question than “Are loot crates harmful?” or “Can loot crates be addictive?”
While I might side with MatPat on the former question, and think that loot crates aren’t gambling, I think there is still evidence to suggest additional research needs to be done to determine their potential threat. I’m not saying I want to do that research (at least not now), but it should be done. The negative effects of loot crates, as well as the possibility that they are addictive is a question that still needs to be asked. However, I also think that critically examining these games, and their mechanics, is beneficial for gamers and non-gamers. And being critical is not an attack on the industry, but rather part of the scientific method, as we seek to make the best games possible.
Hyrule University 