Transparency in Odds Disclosure

Transparency in odds disclosure refers to the practice of clearly communicating the probability rates associated with randomized reward mechanisms in video games, particularly loot boxes, gacha systems, and other chance-based monetization features ¹². Its primary purpose is to provide players with informed consent regarding their purchasing decisions by revealing the statistical likelihood of obtaining specific items or rewards before they spend money ³⁴. This practice matters critically in the gaming industry as it addresses ethical concerns about gambling-like mechanics, responds to regulatory pressures from governments worldwide, and helps maintain player trust while potentially reducing harm associated with exploitative monetization practices ⁵⁸. As the gaming industry has evolved toward free-to-play models with randomized monetization, transparency in odds disclosure has become a central issue in discussions about consumer protection, regulatory compliance, and ethical game design ¹²³.

Overview

The emergence of transparency in odds disclosure as a critical industry concern traces back to the proliferation of loot box mechanics in the mid-2010s, when games increasingly adopted randomized monetization systems without revealing the underlying probabilities ³¹¹. The fundamental challenge this practice addresses is the asymmetric information problem between game developers who design probability systems and players who engage with them, often without understanding the true odds of obtaining desired items ²⁸. This information imbalance created conditions where players could spend significant amounts of money pursuing rewards with extremely low drop rates they didn't fully comprehend ⁴⁵.

The practice evolved significantly following China's landmark 2016 regulations requiring all games to disclose loot box odds, which established the first major regulatory framework for transparency ⁴¹⁰. This regulatory action catalyzed global industry changes, with Apple mandating odds disclosure for all App Store games containing loot boxes in 2017, followed by similar requirements from Google Play ⁶⁷. The evolution continued as academic research documented the psychological similarities between loot boxes and gambling, prompting regulatory scrutiny in jurisdictions including Belgium, the Netherlands, and various U.S. states ⁸¹¹. What began as voluntary disclosure by some publishers has transformed into an increasingly standardized expectation, with platform policies, regional regulations, and industry self-regulation initiatives collectively shaping current practices ¹⁵⁶.

Key Concepts

Drop Rates

Drop rates represent the probability of receiving specific items from randomized reward mechanisms, typically expressed as percentages or ratios ²⁴. These rates form the mathematical foundation of all chance-based monetization systems and determine the expected frequency with which players will obtain particular rewards. For example, a mobile RPG might disclose that its premium gacha system has a 0.6% drop rate for five-star characters, a 5.1% rate for four-star characters, and a 94.3% rate for three-star characters. This means that on average, players would need approximately 167 pulls to obtain a specific five-star character, translating to roughly $250-300 in premium currency purchases depending on the game's pricing structure ⁴⁸.

Loot Box Mechanics

Loot boxes are virtual containers with randomized contents that players can purchase using real money or in-game currency, functioning as a core monetization mechanism in many contemporary games ¹³. These systems share structural characteristics with gambling, including variable ratio reinforcement schedules and the excitement of uncertain rewards. A concrete example is seen in team-based shooter games where players purchase cosmetic loot boxes for $2.50 each, with each box containing a random selection of character skins, emotes, and voice lines across different rarity tiers. The game might disclose that legendary skins have a 7.4% drop rate, epic skins 18.5%, rare skins 37%, and common items 37.1%, but without revealing that a specific desired legendary skin has only a 0.5% individual probability within that legendary tier ¹²¹¹.

Pity Systems

Pity systems are guarantee mechanisms that ensure players receive specific high-value rewards after a predetermined number of unsuccessful attempts, designed to prevent extremely unlucky outcomes and provide spending certainty ⁴⁸. These systems fundamentally alter the probability distribution by creating guaranteed outcomes at specific thresholds. For instance, a popular anime-themed gacha game implements a "soft pity" system where the base 0.6% rate for five-star characters gradually increases starting at 75 pulls, reaching nearly 100% by pull 90. Additionally, the game features a "hard pity" guarantee where players who obtain a five-star character have a 50% chance it will be the featured promotional character, but if they lose that 50/50, their next five-star is guaranteed to be the featured character. This means the absolute maximum cost to obtain a specific featured character is 180 pulls, providing a spending ceiling that transparent disclosure makes explicit to players ⁴⁸.

Granularity of Disclosure

Granularity of disclosure refers to the level of detail provided in probability information, ranging from broad category percentages to individual item-specific rates ²⁵. Higher granularity provides more actionable information but requires more complex presentation. A card-based strategy game demonstrates low granularity by disclosing only that card packs contain "at least one rare or better card" with legendary cards appearing in "approximately 1 in 20 packs." In contrast, high granularity disclosure would specify that legendary cards have a 5% per-pack probability, that there are 15 legendary cards in the current set giving each a 0.33% individual rate, and that the featured legendary has a rate-up to 1% while others drop to 0.27% each. This detailed information allows players to calculate that obtaining a specific featured legendary would require an average of 100 packs costing approximately $100 ²⁵⁸.

Expected Value Transparency

Expected value transparency extends beyond raw probabilities to communicate the practical financial implications of randomized systems, including average costs to obtain specific items or complete collections ⁸⁹. This concept addresses the cognitive disconnect between small percentages and actual spending requirements. A mobile game implementing this approach might display: "Based on disclosed rates, obtaining the featured SSR character requires an average of 143 pulls. At current prices, this equals approximately $220. However, due to the pity system, the maximum cost is guaranteed at $285 for 180 pulls." Some games and third-party community tools go further by calculating collection completion costs, showing that obtaining all characters in a limited banner would require an average of $2,400, making the true scope of spending explicit in ways that raw percentages obscure ⁸⁹.

Verification and Auditing

Verification and auditing mechanisms ensure that disclosed odds accurately reflect actual drop rates through systematic monitoring and independent validation ⁵⁸. These processes build trust by demonstrating accountability beyond mere disclosure statements. A leading free-to-play game implements this by publishing quarterly transparency reports compiled by an independent auditing firm, showing aggregated data from millions of player pulls. The reports confirm that observed drop rates for each rarity tier fall within expected statistical margins of disclosed rates (e.g., disclosed 0.6% rate for five-star items with observed rate of 0.603% ± 0.012% at 95% confidence). The game also maintains a public API allowing community researchers to analyze drop rate data, with any discrepancies triggering internal investigations and public explanations ⁵⁸.

Dynamic Probability Systems

Dynamic probability systems adjust drop rates based on player behavior, pity system progress, or other contextual factors, requiring real-time disclosure updates to maintain transparency ⁴⁸. These systems create complexity in odds communication because the probability of obtaining specific items changes throughout the player's engagement. A gacha game with dynamic probabilities might start with a base 0.6% rate for the highest rarity, but after 75 unsuccessful pulls, each subsequent pull increases the rate by 6%, reaching 32.4% by pull 80 and approaching certainty by pull 90. The game's disclosure interface updates in real-time, showing players their current pull count, current probability (e.g., "Pull #77: Current 5-star rate: 12.6%"), and pulls remaining until guaranteed pity. This dynamic disclosure helps players make informed decisions about whether to continue pulling based on their current position in the probability curve ⁴⁸.

Applications in Game Monetization Contexts

Mobile Free-to-Play Games

Mobile free-to-play games represent the primary application context for odds disclosure, particularly in gacha-based character collection games that generate billions in annual revenue ⁴⁸. These games typically implement comprehensive disclosure systems showing detailed probability tables for all obtainable characters and items, organized by rarity tier with individual rates for featured content. A successful mobile RPG displays its disclosure through a dedicated "Details" button on the gacha interface, revealing that the current banner has a 0.6% rate for five-star characters (with the featured character at 0.3% and off-banner characters sharing the remaining 0.3%), a 5.1% rate for four-star characters, and detailed pity system mechanics. The disclosure also specifies that rates exclude the guaranteed four-star or better item every 10 pulls, and that pity counters persist across the banner's duration but reset when the banner ends. This application demonstrates how mobile games balance monetization goals with regulatory compliance and player trust ⁴⁶⁸.

Console and PC Premium Games

Console and PC games with upfront purchase prices face different disclosure considerations when implementing supplementary loot box systems for cosmetic items ¹¹¹. A popular multiplayer shooter that costs $60 initially but includes optional cosmetic loot boxes at $2 each implements odds disclosure through an in-game "Loot Box Probabilities" menu accessible from the store interface. The disclosure reveals that each box contains exactly four items with the following distribution: legendary items (7.4% per item slot), epic items (18.5%), rare items (37%), and common items (37.1%), with duplicate protection ensuring players don't receive identical items within the same box. The game also discloses that approximately 1 in 13.5 boxes will contain at least one legendary item, and that the system tracks duplicate items, converting them to in-game currency at disclosed exchange rates. This application shows how premium games maintain transparency while monetizing post-launch content ¹²¹¹.

Cross-Platform Live Service Games

Cross-platform live service games must implement odds disclosure systems that function consistently across mobile, console, and PC platforms while complying with varying regional regulations ⁵⁶. A major battle royale game available on all platforms implements a unified disclosure system accessible through identical interfaces regardless of platform, showing that its seasonal loot boxes contain cosmetic items with disclosed probabilities: 2.55% for gold rarity, 15.45% for purple rarity, 31.85% for blue rarity, and 50.15% for gray rarity. The disclosure specifies that each box guarantees at least one blue or better item, and that the system includes bad luck protection ensuring a gold item within 30 boxes. Importantly, the game maintains separate disclosure pages for different regional versions, with the Chinese version providing additional detail about individual item rates within rarity tiers as required by local regulations, while other regions show tier-level probabilities. This application demonstrates the complexity of maintaining transparency across multiple jurisdictions and platforms ⁵⁶⁷.

Competitive Card Games

Digital collectible card games apply odds disclosure to card pack opening mechanics, where transparency directly impacts player decisions about pack purchases versus crafting individual cards ²⁹. A leading digital card game discloses that each pack contains five cards with the following guaranteed distribution: at least one rare or better card, with legendary cards appearing at a 5% rate per pack, epic cards at 20%, rare cards at 100% (guaranteed), and the remaining slots filled with common cards. The game goes beyond basic disclosure by providing an in-game collection tracker that calculates expected costs to complete sets, showing players that obtaining all cards from the current expansion would require an average of 350 packs (approximately $350) or a combination of 200 packs plus crafting remaining cards using in-game dust currency. This application demonstrates how transparency can extend to collection completion economics, helping players make informed decisions about purchasing versus crafting strategies ²⁹.

Best Practices

Prominent and Accessible Placement

Odds disclosure information should be easily accessible through prominent placement rather than buried in nested menus or obscure documentation ⁵⁸. The rationale is that transparency only serves its consumer protection purpose if players can actually find and review the information before making purchasing decisions. Effective implementation places a clearly labeled "Details," "Drop Rates," or "Probability Info" button directly on the purchase interface for any randomized reward mechanism. For example, a mobile game positions an information icon next to the "Pull x10" button on its gacha interface, which when tapped displays a full-screen probability table showing all obtainable items organized by rarity with individual rates, pity system details, and a "More Info" expansion revealing expected value calculations. The interface requires no more than two taps from the purchase screen to access complete probability information, ensuring accessibility without disrupting the user experience for players who choose not to review odds ⁵⁶⁸.

Multiple Presentation Formats

Probability information should be presented in multiple formats to accommodate different player preferences and numeracy levels ⁸⁹. The rationale recognizes that players vary in their statistical literacy and how they best process probability information—some prefer percentages, others respond better to ratios or visual representations. A comprehensive implementation presents the same probability information in three formats: numerical percentages (0.6% for five-star characters), ratio notation (approximately 1 in 167 pulls), and visual representation through a progress bar or pie chart showing relative probabilities of different rarity tiers. The interface also includes contextual examples: "On average, players obtain one five-star character every 90 pulls" and "Based on these rates, obtaining the featured character costs an average of $220." This multi-format approach ensures that players with different cognitive preferences can understand the practical implications of disclosed odds ⁸⁹.

Proactive Communication of Changes

Any modifications to probability systems should be communicated proactively with advance notice and clear explanations ²⁵. The rationale is that player trust depends not only on initial transparency but on ongoing honesty about system changes that affect spending value. Best practice implementation involves announcing probability changes at least one week before implementation through multiple channels (in-game notifications, official forums, social media), explaining the specific changes and rationale. For example, when a game adjusts its pity system from a 90-pull guarantee to an 80-pull guarantee while slightly reducing the base rate, the announcement specifies: "Starting June 1st, the guaranteed five-star pity will decrease from 90 to 80 pulls. The base rate will adjust from 0.6% to 0.55%, but overall expected pulls to obtain a five-star will decrease from 90 to 77 on average. These changes improve value for most players while reducing maximum spending." This proactive approach maintains trust even when systems change ²⁵.

Regular Verification and Reporting

Disclosed odds should be regularly verified against actual drop rates with documented processes and periodic public reporting ⁵⁸. The rationale is that disclosure statements alone don't guarantee accuracy—systematic verification demonstrates accountability and builds long-term trust. Implementation involves automated monitoring systems that continuously track actual drop rates from live player data, flagging any statistical deviations from disclosed rates for investigation. Leading practice includes publishing quarterly transparency reports showing aggregated data: "Q1 2024: Five-star character rate across 47.3 million pulls: 0.604% (disclosed: 0.6%, within expected variance). Four-star rate: 5.09% (disclosed: 5.1%). All rates within 95% confidence intervals." Some games go further by providing APIs allowing independent researchers to verify rates, demonstrating confidence in their systems' accuracy and creating external accountability mechanisms ⁵⁸.

Implementation Considerations

Technical Infrastructure and Format Choices

Implementing odds disclosure requires technical infrastructure that ensures disclosed probabilities accurately reflect backend systems across all game versions and platforms ⁵⁷. Organizations must choose between static disclosure (fixed probability tables updated manually) and dynamic disclosure (real-time probability display that adjusts based on pity system progress or player-specific factors). A mobile game studio implementing dynamic disclosure develops a centralized probability service that maintains the authoritative probability tables, with all game clients querying this service to display current odds. The system includes version control to ensure that disclosed odds match the specific game build players are using, automated testing that verifies displayed probabilities match backend random number generation logic, and localization management to ensure accurate translation of probability information across 15 languages. The technical implementation also includes analytics tracking to monitor how many players view disclosure information and how long they spend reviewing it, providing insights into disclosure effectiveness ⁵⁶⁷.

Audience-Specific Customization

Odds disclosure should be customized for different player segments based on their sophistication, spending patterns, and regional contexts ⁴⁸. Implementation involves creating tiered disclosure interfaces: a simplified view for casual players showing basic rarity tier probabilities and expected costs, an advanced view for engaged players displaying individual item rates and statistical details, and a regional-specific view that meets local regulatory requirements. A game operating globally implements this by detecting player location and displaying China-compliant comprehensive disclosure for Chinese players (including individual item rates and pity system details as required by regulation), EU-focused disclosure emphasizing consumer protection information for European players, and standard disclosure for other regions. The system also adapts based on player behavior—players who have spent over $100 automatically see enhanced disclosure including their personal spending history and average cost per desired item obtained ⁴⁸.

Organizational Maturity and Cross-Functional Collaboration

Successful odds disclosure implementation requires organizational maturity with established processes for cross-functional collaboration between game design, legal, monetization, and player support teams ²⁵. Organizations at lower maturity levels might treat disclosure as a compliance checkbox handled solely by legal teams, while mature organizations integrate transparency into their design philosophy from the earliest development stages. A mature implementation involves regular cross-functional meetings where designers present proposed probability systems, legal counsel reviews them for regulatory compliance across target markets, monetization specialists analyze expected revenue impacts, UX designers develop disclosure interfaces, and player support representatives provide feedback based on common player questions. The organization maintains comprehensive documentation of all probability systems with change logs, conducts regular training for all teams on disclosure requirements and ethical considerations, and establishes clear approval workflows requiring sign-off from legal, design, and executive leadership before any probability system launches or changes ²⁵⁸.

Platform Policy Compliance and Multi-Jurisdiction Navigation

Implementation must account for varying platform policies and regional regulations that create a complex compliance landscape ⁶⁷¹⁰. Organizations must track requirements from Apple's App Store (requiring odds disclosure for loot boxes since 2017), Google Play (similar requirements), console platform policies, and regional regulations including China's comprehensive disclosure mandates, European consumer protection frameworks, and emerging U.S. state legislation. A comprehensive implementation maintains a compliance matrix documenting requirements across all target platforms and regions, implements the most stringent disclosure standard globally to simplify development (typically China's requirements), and establishes monitoring processes for regulatory changes. For example, a publisher launching a new gacha game implements China-level disclosure globally (individual item rates, pity system details, expected value information) even though other markets require less detail, reasoning that uniform high-standard disclosure simplifies development, reduces compliance risk, and builds player trust across all markets ⁴⁶⁷¹⁰.

Common Challenges and Solutions

Challenge: Technical Complexity in Conditional Probability Systems

Many modern monetization systems involve conditional probabilities where the odds of obtaining specific items depend on multiple factors including pity system progress, previous pulls, featured item rotations, and player-specific variables ⁴⁸. A gacha game might have a base 0.6% rate for five-star characters that increases incrementally after 75 pulls, with separate probability pools for featured versus standard characters, and additional complexity from guarantee systems that trigger after losing multiple 50/50 chances. Accurately disclosing these conditional probabilities becomes technically challenging, especially when probabilities change dynamically based on player state. Players frequently misunderstand how these systems work, leading to complaints that disclosed odds don't match their experience, even when the system functions correctly ⁸.

Solution:

Implement layered disclosure with progressive detail levels and interactive calculators that show personalized probability information ⁴⁸. The basic disclosure layer presents simplified information: "Base rate: 0.6% for five-star characters. Guaranteed five-star within 90 pulls. Featured character has 50% chance when you obtain a five-star." An intermediate layer explains the pity system mechanics: "Pulls 1-74: 0.6% rate. Pulls 75-89: rate increases by 6% per pull. Pull 90: 100% guaranteed." An advanced layer provides an interactive calculator where players input their current pull count and previous results, receiving personalized information: "You are at pull 76 with no five-star yet. Your current rate is 6.6%. You are guaranteed a five-star within 14 more pulls. Your last five-star was not the featured character, so your next five-star is guaranteed to be featured." This solution addresses complexity by meeting different player needs while maintaining technical accuracy ⁴⁸.

Challenge: Localization and Cultural Context

Probability information must be accurately translated across languages and adapted for cultural contexts where numerical literacy, gambling familiarity, and regulatory expectations vary significantly ⁵¹⁰. A percentage like "0.6%" might be clearly understood in some markets but confusing in others where ratio notation ("1 in 167") is more intuitive. Additionally, some cultures have different expectations about transparency and different relationships with chance-based spending. Translation errors can lead to serious compliance issues—a mistranslation that shows "6%" instead of "0.6%" would fundamentally mislead players about their odds ⁵.

Solution:

Develop a centralized localization system with specialized review processes for probability information and culturally adapted presentation formats ⁵¹⁰. The system maintains probability data in a structured format separate from display text, ensuring that numerical values cannot be mistranslated—the number 0.6 is stored as a data value, with only the presentation format ("0.6%", "1 in 167", etc.) varying by locale. Each regional version undergoes specialized review by native speakers with statistical literacy who verify that probability information is both linguistically accurate and culturally appropriate. For markets where percentage notation is less intuitive, the system automatically converts to preferred formats—Chinese versions might emphasize "千分之六" (6 in 1000) alongside percentage notation, while some European versions emphasize decimal probability (0.006). The system also adapts contextual examples to regional spending patterns and currency, showing expected costs in local currency with regionally appropriate price points ⁵¹⁰.

Challenge: Player Comprehension and Cognitive Biases

Even with technically accurate disclosure, many players struggle to understand probability information or make rational decisions based on it due to cognitive biases including the gambler's fallacy, optimism bias, and difficulty processing small probabilities ⁸⁹. Players might see a 0.6% rate and think "that's not too bad" without realizing it means an average of 167 pulls costing $250. Others might believe they're "due" for a rare drop after several unsuccessful attempts (gambler's fallacy), or overestimate their personal chances of getting lucky (optimism bias). Research shows that disclosure alone doesn't necessarily lead to reduced spending or more informed decision-making if players can't accurately interpret the information ⁸⁹.

Solution:

Supplement raw probability disclosure with contextual information, concrete examples, and decision-support tools that translate statistics into practical implications ⁸⁹. Instead of only showing "0.6% rate," the disclosure includes: "On average, players need 167 pulls to obtain a five-star character. At current prices, this costs approximately $250. However, the pity system guarantees a five-star within 90 pulls ($135 maximum)." The interface includes a spending calculator where players can input how much they're willing to spend and see their probability of obtaining the desired item: "With a $50 budget (33 pulls), you have an 18% chance of obtaining the featured character. With a $100 budget (67 pulls), you have a 33% chance." Some implementations include "reality check" prompts for players approaching high spending thresholds: "You've spent $200 pursuing this character. Based on disclosed odds, the average cost is $250. Consider whether continued spending aligns with your budget." These tools help bridge the gap between statistical disclosure and practical understanding ⁸⁹.

Challenge: Maintaining Disclosure Accuracy Across Updates

Games frequently update their content with new items, events, and probability adjustments, creating ongoing challenges in ensuring disclosed odds remain accurate across all game versions and platforms ²⁵. A mobile game might run dozens of different limited-time banners annually, each with unique probability distributions and featured items. Version fragmentation across platforms means some players might be on older builds with different probability systems than disclosed on current websites or in updated game clients. Failure to update disclosure when probability systems change can lead to serious compliance violations and player trust breaches ²⁵.

Solution:

Implement automated disclosure management systems with version control, mandatory review workflows, and real-time synchronization across all platforms ²⁵. The system maintains a centralized probability database that serves as the single source of truth, with all game clients and web-based disclosure pages querying this database to display current odds. When designers create a new banner or modify probabilities, the system automatically generates disclosure text and interfaces based on the probability data, reducing manual errors. A mandatory review workflow requires legal and compliance sign-off before any probability changes go live, with automated checks verifying that disclosure updates deploy simultaneously with game updates. The system maintains version history showing exactly what probabilities were active during each time period, supporting player inquiries about historical odds. For limited-time events, the system automatically archives disclosure information after events end, maintaining a permanent record. Automated monitoring alerts teams if any discrepancy is detected between disclosed and actual rates, triggering immediate investigation ²⁵.

Challenge: Balancing Transparency with Monetization Goals

Organizations face tension between maximizing transparency (which may reduce spending by making poor expected value explicit) and achieving monetization targets ¹⁸. Some stakeholders worry that comprehensive disclosure showing that obtaining a desired item costs an average of $300 will deter spending, preferring minimal disclosure that technically complies with regulations while obscuring practical implications. This creates internal conflicts between legal/ethical teams advocating for comprehensive transparency and monetization teams focused on revenue targets. The challenge is finding approaches that maintain ethical transparency while supporting sustainable monetization ¹⁸.

Solution:

Reframe transparency as a long-term monetization strategy that builds player trust and sustainable spending rather than a short-term revenue obstacle ¹⁵⁸. Organizations implementing this approach conduct research showing that transparent systems with reasonable odds can actually increase player lifetime value by building trust and reducing the anxiety and perceived deception that drive player churn. Instead of viewing disclosure as revealing "bad" odds, they redesign probability systems to offer genuinely fair value that they're proud to disclose transparently. For example, a game might adjust its pity system from 90 pulls to 75 pulls, reducing maximum spending from $135 to $112, then prominently feature this improved value in marketing: "Guaranteed featured character within 75 pulls—we're transparent about our odds because we believe they're fair." This approach positions transparency as a competitive advantage and quality signal rather than a necessary evil. The organization tracks metrics showing that transparent, fair systems achieve higher player satisfaction scores, better retention rates, and more sustainable long-term revenue than opaque systems with exploitative odds, building the business case for ethical transparency ¹⁵⁸.

References

1. GamesIndustry.biz. (2021). What does the future hold for loot boxes and video game gambling. https://www.gamesindustry.biz/what-does-the-future-hold-for-loot-boxes-and-video-game-gambling
2. Game Developer. (2019). The loot box debate: A designer's perspective. https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/the-loot-box-debate-a-designer-s-perspective
3. Polygon. (2019). Loot boxes, gaming regulation, gambling, and free-to-play. https://www.polygon.com/2019/5/7/18534431/loot-boxes-gaming-regulation-gambling-free-to-play
4. VentureBeat. (2019). How China regulates loot boxes and what the West can learn. https://venturebeat.com/games/how-china-regulates-loot-boxes-and-what-the-west-can-learn/
5. PocketGamer.biz. (2020). Loot boxes, regulation, transparency, and odds disclosure. https://www.pocketgamer.biz/comment-and-opinion/74807/loot-boxes-regulation-transparency-odds-disclosure/
6. GamesIndustry.biz. (2017). Apple now requires loot box odds disclosure. https://www.gamesindustry.biz/apple-now-requires-loot-box-odds-disclosure
7. Game Developer. (2017). Apple now requires loot box drop rate disclosure. https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/apple-now-requires-loot-box-drop-rate-disclosure
8. ScienceDirect. (2020). Loot boxes, problem gambling and problem video gaming: A systematic review and meta-synthesis. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563220303824
9. ACM Digital Library. (2019). The prevalence of loot boxes in mobile and desktop games. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3290605.3300854
10. TechCrunch. (2017). China's new gaming rules require loot box odds disclosure. https://www.techcrunch.com/2017/12/19/chinas-new-gaming-rules-require-loot-box-odds-disclosure/
11. Kotaku. (2021). Loot boxes, gaming law, regulation, and gambling. https://www.kotaku.com/loot-boxes-gaming-law-regulation-gambling-1847283403