Mainland China's 2021 restrictions on under-18s' video game time were imposed when older 2019 restrictions already applied: Omitting the historical regulatory context is misleading.

Investigating the impacts of addiction policymaking following implementation is important. Effective policies should be considered for emulation elsewhere, whilst ineffective policies should be repealed. Zhou et al.

What are the odds? Poor compliance with UK loot box probability disclosure industry self-regulation.

Loot boxes are purchased in video games to obtain randomised rewards of varying value and are thus psychologically akin to gambling. Disclosing the probabilities of obtaining loot box rewards may reduce overspending, in a similar vein to related disclosure approaches in gambling. Presently, this consumer protection measure has been adopted as law only in the People's Republic of China (PRC).

Loot boxes, gambling-related risk factors, and mental health in Mainland China: A large-scale survey.

Loot boxes can be bought with real-world money to obtain random content inside video games. Loot boxes are viewed by many as gambling-like and are prevalently implemented globally. Previous Western and international studies have consistently found loot box spending to be positively correlated with problem gambling.

No evidence that Chinese playtime mandates reduced heavy gaming in one segment of the video games industry.

Governments around the world are considering regulatory measures to reduce young people's time spent on digital devices, particularly video games. This raises the question of whether proposed regulatory measures would be effective. Since the early 2000s, the Chinese government has been enacting regulations to directly restrict young people's playtime.

Beneath the label: unsatisfactory compliance with ESRB, PEGI and IARC industry self-regulation requiring loot box presence warning labels by video game companies.

Loot boxes in video games are a form of in-game transactions with randomized elements. Concerns have been raised about loot boxes' similarities with gambling and their potential harms (e.g.

Debate: Academics should collaborate with the technology industry, but not in lieu of noncollaborative research.

Academic research collaborations with the technology industry should be complementary to and, importantly, must not replace noncollaborative research that is independent from the industry (and, in particular, 'adversarial research' whose negative findings will likely operate against industry interests). Reflecting on the author's own research projects concerning companies' compliance with video game loot box regulation, he agrees with Livingstone et al.'s proposition (Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 2022, 28, 150) that research seeking to identify problems (and thereby work against the industry's interests) should be conducted independently (p.

Safer gambling and consumer protection failings among 40 frequently visited cryptocurrency-based online gambling operators.

Objective: Online gambling has increased the accessibility and range of gambling products available to people all over the world. This trend has been particularly noticeable in the United Kingdom. Cryptocurrency-based gambling is a new, largely unregulated, way to gamble online, which uses mostly anonymous blockchain-based technologies, such as Bitcoin.

Opening Pandora's Loot Box: Weak Links Between Gambling and Loot Box Expenditure in China, and Player Opinions on Probability Disclosures and Pity-Timers.

Loot boxes are quasi-gambling virtual products in video games that provide randomised rewards of varying value. Previous studies in Western contexts have identified a positive correlation between loot box purchasing and problem gambling severity. A preregistered survey of People's Republic of China (PRC) video game players (N = 879) failed to replicate this correlation.

Reserve your judgment on "Draconian" Chinese video gaming restrictions on children •

China imposed strict restrictions on young people's participation in videogaming from September 2021. Colder Carras et al.'s commentary (2021) referred to this policy as 'draconian,' i.