In his latest piece for iGaming Expert, Šimon Vincze, Head of Sustainable and Safer Gambling at Casino Guru, explores the industry’s shift toward using the term ‘gaming‘ and why, in the long run, this may not be beneficial as other sectors catch up with the gamification tactics pioneered by gambling.
I have never been a big fan of using the term “gaming” to refer to games of chance products.
For years, I have seen it as a strategic shift to avoid the negative connotations of gambling and to make such products more accepted. Or, even worse, to use it to hide the risky aspects of gambling and to ride on a wave of innocent gaming.
Perhaps I am wrong, and the cross-reference has emerged naturally for various reasons. One thing is clear, though: gaming is not innocent at all.
Although gaming is mainly used as a form of entertainment or relaxation, excessive engagement can lead to symptoms similar to those associated with substance addiction.
Demographics that are more vulnerable to developing gaming addiction include children and adolescents, who are particularly attracted to games. If you have a 7-year-old boy at home, you might understand what I am talking about.
Gaming is on the rise. Actually, two things are clear: those who are not gaming are increasingly absent, especially among younger demographics.
The Rutgers Addiction Research Centre revealed that recent studies from the UK, US, Germany, and Canada show that 86% of young adults have recently played online games.
Furthermore, the 2023 Global Games Market report estimates that 3.4 billion people are engaged in gaming (Have you gambled in the past 6 months?). That’s 40% of the world population.
As more states regulate online gambling, attention has been drawn to the risks and harms linked to games of chance, and rightly so.
But meanwhile, gaming has been expanding almost unnoticed, quietly exploiting gambling features within its environment of in-game purchases.
Notorious loot boxes, wheel of fortune for discounts, near wins, or battle passes, along with common use of FOMO tactics and daily engagement strategies.
Such gamification features are included in many products to encourage regular customer engagement. Behavioural science now provides numerous nudges or product placements designed to motivate buyers to spend, ideally in ways that benefit the seller.
It’s a part of a capitalist economy and profit maximisation, but where should we draw the line on manipulation?
Interestingly, this idea can be introduced very early in discussions of gambling. Many people’s initial reaction still involves thoughts of deceptive and fraudulent promises of big wins and rigged outcomes that give a taste of victory, only to lead to a losing streak.
Discussing random number generators and RTP can be challenging. This is not so surprising, as the gambling industry has been establishing its reputation for many years, and manipulation practices remain common.
For example, consider the popular delay in withdrawals due to KYC or other checks.
However, gaming is not entirely innocent in manipulating players. Traditional matchmaking in online games was based on a skill principle. In other words, the system paired players of similar abilities to create well-balanced and enjoyable matches.
This does not necessarily apply to many modern games due to Engagement Optimised Matchmaking (EOMM), an algorithm that maximises player retention, whereas the fairest match does not.
Sometimes it requires a loss; other times, a win. This Electronic Arts research paper predicts what is currently needed and groups players accordingly.
Another gaming company, Activision Blizzard, went even further with their patent on Monetisation-influencing matchmaking, which essentially aims to maximise the chances of in-game purchases by grouping the right players.
In practice, it could involve intentionally placing a player on a losing streak against more skilled opponents who own a particular in-game skin (better-looking weapon). Afterwards, the players receive nudges to purchase it after every lost match.
If they do so and wear the new skin, the situation flips. They then get matched with lower-skilled players and dominate. The loop closes.
Think about it next time you play Call of Duty. Such papers and patents have been around for almost 10 years now, but many players are under the impression that matchmaking works in the traditional way.
Naturally, none of these companies has admitted to using such algorithms in their games. Nor have they paid much attention to using gambling features like loot boxes as part of their monetisation strategies or respecting restrictions in some countries.
The fact that gambling can be addictive and cause significant harm makes people more vulnerable to its behavioural tactics.
What is not often discussed in other industries is heavily criticised in gambling. There are logical and emotional reasons for this.
However, I would not be surprised if current developments in gaming cause such a perspective to spill over, given that it already has its own issues with addiction.
The worldwide estimate of gaming disorder is not far from that of gambling and makes up about 3%. Player involvement and revenue have already been increasing with gambling features for years.
The negative reputation has so far been assigned to the slot machine industry, but people are gradually coming to understand the full picture.
We may eventually refer to everything as gaming, but that might not help with its reputation anymore.
