Gambling and gaming convergence:

Epistemological shifts and challenges for

public health

Sylvia Kairouz, Ph.D.

Holder of the Research Chair on Gambling

Department of Sociology and Anthropology

Concordia University

Gambling addiction: Science, Independence, Transparency

4th International Multidisciplinary Symposium

University of Fribourg, Switzerland, June 27-29 2018

Disclosure

Funding sources

• Fonds de recherche du Québec (FRQ-SC)

• Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC)

• 4th International Multidisciplinary Symposium

No conflict of interest

Outline

Divergence of the two-fields:

• Theoretical perspectives

• Methodological approaches

• Cultural interpretations

Convergence of the two-fields:

• The case of FTP/P2W games

• Gambling/gaming patterns and problems

Conclusion and future directions

Historical evolution

Society of the study

of play

GAMING

GAMBLING

Micro-social

encounters

Symbolic interactionism

Social Psychology

Both fields went in

different directions

(Bandura, 1986)

(Blumer, 1969; Goffman, 1961)

PLAY

Disciplinary divide

Predominance of psychological

theories

Individually-based analysis

Problem-based analysisQuantitative

population-based

approaches

Predominance of sociological

theories

Context-based

analysis

Qualitative approach

based on the lived

experience

Focus on the benefits of consuming

games

Contrasting the fields

GAMINGSocially

acceptable

Focus on pleasurable

& safe experience

Exclusion of harm

No regulations

Large economic

sector

GAMBLINGSocially

sanctioned Focus on harm

Risky endeavour

Market largely

regulated

Large economic

sector

6

Cultural interpretation of gambling/gaming

experiences

Gambling recognized as a social problem

Responsibility of public institutions in dealing with the problem

Institutions are required to pose public actions

Structures are created to deal with gambling as a social problem

(Gusfield, J., 1989; Cefaï, D. & Terzi, C., 2012)

Convergence of the two fields

Digitalization and convergence

GAMINGSocially

acceptable

Focus on positive impacts

Exclusion of harm

No regulations

Large economic

sector

GAMBLINGSocially

sanctioned

Focus on harm

Exclusion of positive

experience

Market largely

regulated

Large economic

sector

GamificationGamblification

New forms of mobile games

Pay-to-win games

Gamification - leveraging engagement towards some kind of

end. For the user the end might be:

• Fun

• Entering the zone

• Time on device

• A more knowable self

Gamblification - Introduction in the game of gambling features:

• Chance (Alea)

• Enabling monetary micro-transaction

• (for some games), less competitiveness

• (for some games), less predictable outcomes

• (for some games), more blurred rules

Convergence of gaming and gambling

Mobile games – the new (business) model

Game development

By and for gamers,

entertainment focus

More revenue focused industry

Business models

Subscription based

Free-to-play / Pay-to-win

Profit generation

Game purchase/

Subscriptions accounts

In-game micropayments

P2W games – Risky characteristics?

Recruit, Retain and Convert

F2P-P2W Business model is based on the ability to incite players to

spend more time and money in the game

Principle of chance

Integrated seamlessly in the games (e.g. Lootboxes)

Associate entertainment activities with gambling principles

Accessibility and connectivity

Multiple interconnected platforms

Highly flexible and tailored prices to fit consumer needs

Micropayments available at all times, from anywhere

Concentrated revenues

10% of gamers provide 50% of profit, the ‘whales’

F2P-P2W ‘whales’ gamers have at-risk gaming practices, similar to

excessive gamblers

E-GAMES

Electronic Gam(bl)ing:

Multinational Empirical Surveys Project

Canada

France

Germany

Italy

Switzerland

Poland

Australia

Methodology – the sample

Internet panel

Selection of sample is stratified on main demographic

characteristics - Age and gender

The study targets two sub-samples:

• Gamblers

• P2W gamers

Gamers

Paygamers

Gamblers

Methodology – the questionnaire

Pay-to-Win gaming is characterized by the possibility to make

payments during the game to significantly increase players’

chances to win or to help players better progress or progress

faster in the game compared to players not paying; that is,

players do not have to spend money to stay in the game, but

they can pay to get privileges to increase their chances to win

or advance to higher levels in the game.

Frequency, spending and time

PGSI adapted to P2W gaming

E-GAMES

Preliminary results from the French survey

The sample

Gamblers

6381

InternetUsers

22750

617

P2WGamers

1414

Participate to P2W games 59.2%

Spend money on P2W games 15.4%

5 janvier 2017 au 24 février 2017

Results – demographic profiles

GamblersSign.

P2W

&

Gamblers Sign.

P2W

Gamers

Gender

Men 66 * 60 * 40

Women 34 * 40 * 60

Age

18-34 37 * 44 * 36

35-54 38 * 44 NS 42

55+ 16 * 7 * 15

Education

< than High School 25 NS 25 NS 23

High School to College +2 75 NS 75 NS 77

At least College +3 40 NS 39 NS 33

Household Income (Monthly)

≤ 1,500 € 38 NS 38 NS 40

1,500€ - 2,999€ 62 NS 62 NS 60

≥ 3,000€ 41 NS 38 NS 38

Online gambling & gaming patterns

P2W Gaming Patterns Mean Std. error Median Gini

# Play/year 551 27 210 0.62

# Spend money/year 32 1.7 6 0.67

Amount spent/year (€) 127 9 39 0.77

Duration of play (hours)/year 501 39 134 0.77

Online Gambling Patterns Mean Std. error Median Gini

# Spend money/year 126 8.4 38 0.70

Amount spent/year (€) 1483 69 240 0.83

Duration of play (hours)/year 389 45 117 0.76

Gamblers only versus gamblers who game

Gambling PatternsGamblers

Sign.Gamblers who

are gamers

Annual Frequency

1-25 times/year 37 NS 32

26-51 15 NS 15

52-104 16 * 12

104+ 32 * 40

Annual spending

1-249€ 49 NS 40

250-499€ 14 NS 11

500-1,000€ 13 NS 12

>1,000€ 21 NS 35

DK 3 NS 2

Gamers only versus Gamers who gamble

gamersGambling PatternsGamblers

Sign.

Gamblers who

are gamers

Annual Frequency

1-25 times/year 5 NS 4

26-51 9 * 5

52-104 7 * 2

104+ 77 * 88

DK 1 NS 1

Annual spending

1-249€ 78 * 90

250-499€ 10 * 4

>500€ 9 * 2

DK 3 NS 5

Online gambling & gaming patterns

P2W gamers – self-declared problems

33.9

16.9

31.7

19.8

28.8

15.4

40.1

30.6

64

20.7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Spentmoremoneythanyoucouldaffordtolose

Spentmoretimethanyouintended

Neededtoplaylongertogetthesamefeeling

Increasingplayingtimewhenyoulose

Borrowed/selltogetmoneytogame

Felthaveproblemwithgaming

Healthproblems,stressduetogaming

Peoplecriticizedyourgaming

Gamingcausedanyfinancialproblems

Feltguiltyaboutthewayyougame

PercentageofpositivescoresonadjustedPGSIitems

P2W gamers – self-declared problems

PGSI adjusted score %

Non-problem Gambling (0) 26.2

Low-Risk Gambling (1-2) 29.4

Moderate-Risk Gambling

(3-7)

24.6

Problematic Gambling (8+) 19.8

Gambling & Gaming Problems

PGSI Gamblers

only

Sign. Gamblers &

Gamers

Sign

.

Gamers only

Problematic

Gambling12 * 27

Problematic Gaming 31 * 11

The issue of addiction…

http://business.time.com/2013/11/15/candy-crush-saga-the-science-behind-our-addiction/

Is our conception of addiction adequate?

Conclusion

What is at stake for prevention and treatment?

Digitalization and convergence

Call for a better cross-field integration

PleasureHarm

Meaning in contexts

Objective realities

QualitativeQuantitative

Digitalization and convergence

Investigate the networked and digitalized forms of social relations in

context of gaming/gambling (Castells, 2010)

Investigate the transformation of time and space in the human

experience

• Compressing the occurrence of phenomena

• Instantaneity

• Introducing random discontinuity in the sequence

Reconfiguration of spatial experiences through augmented realities

(e.g. via mobile devices)

Some future directions

P2W games: an emerging public health concern?

Very limited knowledge about F2P-P2W gamers and their lived

experience

Very limited knowledge about cost and benefits of these games

• This raises a point about how to think prevention

• This leaves a regulatory void

THANK YOUconcordia.ca/fr/recherche/chairejeu