Content Analysis of Video Game Loot Boxes in the Media A thesis presented to the faculty of the Scripps College of Communication of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Science Raymond T. Humienny May 2019 © 2019 Raymond T. Humienny. All Rights Reserved. This thesis titled Content Analysis of Video Game Loot Boxes in the Media by RAYMOND T. HUMIENNY has been approved for the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism and the Scripps College of Communication by Hans Meyer Associate Professor of Journalism Scott Titsworth Dean, Scripps College of Communication ii Abstract HUMIENNY, RAYMOND T., M.S., May 2019, Journalism Content Analysis of Video Game Loot Boxes in the Media Director of Thesis: Hans Meyer Throughout the relatively nascent course of games media scholarship, representation of video games within popular mainstream media tends to suggest an antagonistic relationship between those familiar and unfamiliar with video games respectively. Yet, this outlook fails to acknowledge the content of popular gaming media that can be equally critical of the representation of games in reporting. For instance, within the past two years, reports pertaining to video game “loot boxes” have not only shown that reward systems in certain games can structurally mimic online gambling, but games and mainstream media can cohabitate in this reporting arena. Given our nascent understanding of gaming media from a mainstream perspective, this study examines how gaming and mainstream news outlets comparatively frame this “loot box” rewards practice. A content analysis of 274 articles containing the term “loot box(es)” revealed similarities wherein both types of media outlets framed “loot boxes” with political messages, references to gambling and cast some form of normative judgment. Traditional news writing provided fewer overall frames than more opinionated types of writing. Political intervention was the greatest predictor of frames assigned by both media. Overall, the internal regulation of “loot boxes” and games industry’s opposition to government-assisted regulation are the strongest implications that warrant future study of this controversy. iii Dedication For my family, Angela and Newswire. iv Acknowledgments I would like to thank Amrik Singh and Kyle Linville for their work as coders on this project. As friends I game with frequently, their input for the codebook was invaluable. My thanks also go to my committee members Dr. Michael Sweeney, Dr. Aimee Edmondson and committee chair Dr. Hans Meyer for the support in guiding this thesis. The E.W. Scripps School of Journalism graduate program provided the basis for this endeavor. Additionally, IBM’s SPSS was used to generate all statistical analyses within this study. v Table of Contents Page Abstract ......................................................................................................................... iii Dedication ...................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................... v Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Literature Review ............................................................................................................ 5 RQ1a: What themes generally define the “loot box” controversy?.............................. 7 RQ1b: How are they related? ..................................................................................... 7 Legal History on Video Games .................................................................................. 7 Framing Effects ....................................................................................................... 19 Games Media Research: Uses and Gratifications...................................................... 24 Gaming Pathology ................................................................................................... 32 Methods ........................................................................................................................ 46 Results ........................................................................................................................... 48 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 65 RQ1a: What themes generally define the “loot box” controversy?............................ 66 RQ1b: How are they related? ................................................................................... 67 RQ2: What comparisons can be made between MSM and GM reports on “loot boxes?” .................................................................................................................... 68 Political Intervention: An Unforeseen Conclusion .................................................... 70 Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 73 References ..................................................................................................................... 76 Appendix: Loot Box Codebook ..................................................................................... 87 vi Introduction Mainstream media (MSM) reports about video games and their effects tend to imply disaster, but this is only one half of the story. While the MSM have kept a close view on the controversial aspects of gaming for a variety of framing and agenda setting purposes (McKernan, 2013), they have not so without a reasonable warrant for such fears (Entm’t Software Ass’n v. Swanson, 2008). By that same citation, MSM coverage of games also highlight the socially beneficial characteristics of the virtual platform with references to exercise games that utilize motion controls (McKernan, 2013); negative frames of the gaming industry are frequented due to their controversial tone and the issues they evoke from critics (e.g. underage gambling, sexual objectification of women and girls, aggressive attitudes among children; Funk et al., 2017). While games scholarship continues to examine video game culture and its many traits from the inside- out (Shaw, 2010), the representation of games in popular media will—inevitably— continue to fluctuate between good and bad press (Copenhaver et al., 2017). Yet recent events regarding Star Wars Battlefront II, “a ‘Star Wars-themed online casino’” (Kim, 2017; Dingman, 2017) have brought these issues to a head while also shedding light on a taken-for-granted virtual economy within video games. In short, one qualifier of a video game is a reward upon completion of a task, whether it be the game in its entirety or a single assignment. The content of these rewards varies from game to game, but a commonly practiced, contemporary method of rewarding the player in online multiplayer games involves randomly generating a single prize from a small pool of potential winnings. These pools of rewards are referred to as “loot boxes,” “loot crates” 1 or some genre-specific variation of the name (e.g. Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six Siege, a tactical shooter in which the playable characters are “Operators” of world-wide counterterrorism units, names their loot boxes “Alpha Packs”). These loot boxes can be purchased in one of two ways: (1) by earning in-game currency through the completion of tasks, challenges and other activities; or (2) by purchasing in-game currency using real-world currency. Specifically, the more predatory loot box practices come into question here and subsequently fit the criteria for this study. Whether players of Battlefront II spend real- world or in-game currency to obtain their loot boxes, the rewards dealt by such loot crates bolster players’ performances in online multiplayer—pitting statistically-enhanced players against those who did not reap the benefits of obtaining Battlefront II loot box rewards (Good, 2018). Coincidentally, the set of rewards given by a loot box cannot be locked into a selection; the odds of obtaining a single, desired item are assigned by the game’s developers, which has shown to result in difficult consumer relationships (Lawrence, 2017), as detailed below. The emergence of randomized prizes known as “loot boxes” begins with Blizzard’s Overwatch, an objective-based first-person shooter with heavy emphasis on teamwork released on May 24, 2016. Overwatch’s loot box rewards are exclusively aesthetic customizations the player can apply to various playable characters; in no way do these rewards influence the outcome or individual performance of a game. However, EA’s Star Wars Battlefront II, the aforementioned virtual casino disguised as a third- person shooter, drew not only consumer backlash but also political counteraction after 2 including loot box rewards that directly affected gameplay. As a result, players reported an unbalanced playing field due to the advantages of a select few who obtained statistical advantages from loot boxes (Good, 2018). The intersubjective perception among gamers of corporate deception is the primary complaint of these “loot box” systems: on top of the base purchase of a game, more contemporary developers incentivize players to make small, additional purchases (e.g. typically $0.99 to $5.00 USD) within their game, in what are known as “microtransactions.” These small purchases can vary from character aesthetic