Counterplay: Circumventing the Belgian ban on loot boxes by adolescents
summary
Survey of 453 Flemish adolescents (ages 11–18) isolates 124 “counterplayers” versus 329 non‑counterplayers and documents concrete circumvention tactics: changing account location, using VPNs, buying via third‑party sites or soft currency, switching platforms (PC/Steam vs consoles), vouchers, and occasional jailbreaking. Counterplayers show higher gaming disorder, risky loot‑box engagement, more livestream watching, skin‑betting and selling loot box rewards; logistic regressions find small depth effects (5.3% for risky use/perceived skill) and a modest breadth effect (11.5% for selling rewards).
AI-written summary · about
related talks
24mLoot Boxes in Video Games
41mCurated Panel: When is a Game a Gamble? Loot boxes, Virtual Economics and Regulatory Creep.
07mFolk Models of Loot Boxes in Video Games
55mA Legal Perspective on the Business of Games
12mHow Predatory Monetization Designs Manifest in Child-Friendly Video Games
14mWho Purchases and Why?: Explaining Motivations for In-game Purchasing in the Online Survival ...
36mLoot Boxes: Theory and Practice
30mCheaters’ Secrets Unveiled – How Cheaters Operate in Mobile Games & How to Counteract Them