Tools like GitHub Copilot assisting you with coding, ChatGPT serving as a tutor or DALL-E boosting creative projects (actually the pictures for this blog post were created using AI) can often be invaluable. Even though I have some experience using Gen AI tools, I would not call myself an expert as there are still many useful ways of implementing this technology that I have not yet discovered. Gen AI often proved to be a great brainstorming partner or a companion helping explore uncharted territories of new information whether at work or university. However, there are significant challenges I came across, with intellectual property (IP) and accuracy.
Gen AI is an amazing tool if used wisely. Nonetheless, I came across a fair deal of issues when implementing Gen AI into my tasks. The biggest difficulty I had was dealing with intellectual property such as legacy code. Do not get me wrong, Gen AI proves to be a great aid with most coding assignments, however, there are points at which it is close to useless. Developing code that is working based on legacy code is one of these examples. This is one of the biggest concerns in adopting AI at businesses, the concerns about intellectual property. In a case like this one cannot just simply copy and paste the legacy code into an AI assistant due to the obvious breach of confidentiality. In addition, AI models can reuse said code for other users increasing the number of questions around sharing IP with these models.
This image was created using ChatGPT.
I also sourced Gen AI for help with university tasks. I often asked ChatGPT to help explain a difficult topic or to help work on new ideas, however, oftentimes I run into issues when asking Chat to provide sources for the information it’s giving me. I thought it would be a clever workaround to fact-check the information provided by the model, however, it turns out that these models have a tendency to fabricate citations. I was a bit shellshocked when I found out but again this was a lesson on the need to be incredibly cautious and aware while using the assistance of AI.
In conclusion, GenAI is a force changing the world at a rapid pace and it would be unwise to not use it. However, the limitations and reliability issues must be kept in mind. I do believe that this situation will only improve, and I am looking forward to broadening the range of AI products I am familiar with but for now, I will stick to using AI as a supplementary tool to the work I do.
How are video games becoming a gateway to gambling? The world of skins and obtaining them
19
September
2024
4/5 (1)
You download a free-to-play game and you realize that other players’ characters have fancy weapons, clothes or animations – this is your introduction to the world of skins worth $50 Billion as of 2022 (Naysmith, 2022) and the world of gambling to obtain them posing questions about the ethics of the microtransaction business model.
Skins are non-functional in-game items, which usually do not enhance a player’s chance for victory. If these are not necessary, why buy them? Research shows that skins allow for a better representation of oneself by customizing one’s experience in a social context (Hamari et al., 2017), they are sometimes used as a means of self-gratification, as a way of showing support to the developers or showing off status and giving a sense of in-game authority among others (Marder et al., 2019). This phenomenon can be observed in many blockbuster games such as League of Legends or Counter Strike.
Counter Strike is a shooter game that earns a staggering amount of revenue from case unboxings and commission fees charged upon selling said skins on the Steam market (a gaming platform owned by CS’s developer). It made roughly $980 million in 2023 (Williams, 2024), with the most expensive skins ranging from hundreds of thousands of dollars to a million depending on the pattern, rarity and condition (Andersen, 2024). Thus, it is crucial to investigate how these skins can be obtained and the process resembles gambling. In Counter Strike, skins can be mostly obtained by opening cases with a small chance of drawing an expensive item. This fits the definition of gambling, the activity of betting money with the hope of multiplying one’s monetary input, however, Steam does not offer the possibility to withdraw the money from one’s account, hence the possible gain can only be realized in-game. Thus, the nature and profitability of gambling in Counter Strike led to the birth of third-party websites focused on opening cases and selling skins. Furthermore, case openings were banned in the Netherlands and Belgium in 2018 as a violation of the countries’ gambling laws (Chalk, 2018). Since then, the process of opening cases received a bit more clarity since the possibility of ‘dropping’ an item of a certain class is known beforehand. However, this raises questions about the ethics of microtransactions business models and what the future for them is.
Research shows that 51% of respondents reported both gambling and watching esports with the number rising to 67% if the respondent had purchased in-game loot boxes, oftentimes using the in-game skins to gamble online. There is a link between playing video games, buying in-game cases and gambling (Macey & Hamari, 2018) (Brooks & Clark, 2019). Other research shows that the majority of players view loot boxes as a form of gambling (Brooks & Clark, 2019). Many of the games that employ the microtransactions business model with a focus on nonfunctional in-game items have a fair share of the younger generation in their player base with many of them being younger than eighteen years old (Macey & Hamari, 2018), with some reports stating that 70% of Counter Strike skin gamblers started when they were under the age of eighteen (Stubbs, 2023). In Counter-Strike, even some professional players are younger than eighteen years old (HLTV). However, still in-game loot boxes are widely accepted and the business of skins is thriving.
In conclusion, there is a definite ethical problem with this business model. The activity of opening loot boxes may be harmful to the player base. In my opinion, this calls for a legislative intervention and perhaps more governments should follow in the footsteps of the Netherlands and Belgium. In addition, gaming platforms and third-party websites should be controlled more strictly, enforcing improved KYC systems from the current, almost nonexistent ones. All in all, there should be strict initiatives towards making games following the described business model a safer environment.
Brooks, G.A. and Clark, L. (2019) ‘Associations between loot box use, problematic gaming and gambling, and gambling-related cognitions’, Addictive Behaviors, 96, pp. 26–34. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.04.009.
Hamari, J. et al. (2017) ‘Why do players buy in-game content? an empirical study on concrete purchase motivations’, Computers in Human Behavior, 68, pp. 538–546. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.045.
Macey, J. and Hamari, J. (2018) ‘Esports, skins and loot boxes: Participants, practices and problematic behaviour associated with emergent forms of gambling’, New Media & Society, 21(1), pp. 20–41. doi:10.1177/1461444818786216.
Marder, B. et al. (2019) ‘The avatar’s new clothes: Understanding why players purchase non-functional items in free-to-play games’, Computers in Human Behavior, 91, pp. 72–83. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.09.006.
