A Freedom of Information request to the UK Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has revealed that (i) DCMS is still evaluating the implementation of the #LootBox industry self-regulation published by Ukie; (ii) Ministers have yet to make a decision as to future regulation; and (iii) accordingly, DCMS chose to evade answering the question of whether self-regulation has failed when responding to media inquiries concerning our now peer-reviewed and published research (https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.250704).
We await that answer in due course. The PUBLIC research report commissioned by DCMS intended to inform policymaking was due in April 2025. Ministers should make a decision without undue delay.
(I am only sharing the final version approved by the special advisor (Spad) in the form it was disclosed to me and not any previous discussions that led to it, except to say that a senior civil servant commented that the DCMS statement should place the onus on the industry.)
1️⃣: “Ministers are yet to take decisions on loot boxes. DCMS has commissioned research on the effectiveness of the industry-led guidance, due to report in April 2025, which will inform recommendations to Ministers for a decision on next steps.”
2️⃣: “Due to the fact that we are still assessing the effectiveness of Ukie's guidance so that advice can be put to ministers, we recommend keeping our response high level at this point - with a broad statement on the importance of video game safety and some factual, explanatory background - rather than engaging with the question of whether 'self-regulation' has failed.”
Credit where credit is due. The INFORMAL resolution of a complaint against Argos before the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) through the provision of compliance advice (without a formal investigation and ruling process) led to tangible improvements. The video game brochure now discloses the presence of in-game purchases generally and loot boxes specifically as required. Well done to the ASA!
I often diss the ASA for failing to formally investigate and rule against widespread non-compliance with advertising rules in the video game context. Informal resolution through which the advertiser is merely told how to comply in the future has generally failed to change corporate behaviour: e.g., Supercell continues to not disclose loot box presence or only illegally discloses with very tiny text, despite multiple complaints that were informally resolved.
Even formal complaint rulings have failed to ensure consistent future compliance: e.g., Miniclip was previously censured (https://lnkd.in/eZm9VisB) but continues to publish a mix of ads that disclose (arguably without sufficient visual prominence) and ones that do not disclose at all.
I have therefore always been sceptical about informal resolutions and have called for stricter, formal enforcement. Notwithstanding, I am pleased to report a successful case of informal resolution.
I complained about the Spring/Summer 2024 issue of the Argos Gamer brochure a year ago for failing to disclose in-game purchases and loot boxes. The ASA informally resolved that complaint by providing guidance to Argos. I was disappointed to find that the next Autumn/Winter 2024 issue had remained non-compliant; however, the ASA advice was likely given after that second issue was already in production.
The newest Spring/Summer 2025 issue now discloses on every relevant page.
“† Indicates game offers optional, additional in game purchases for real money outside of what you can earn through playing. This includes virtual currency and consumables (energy, experience, cosmetics etc). This may also include random item purchases where a customer does not know exactly what they are getting.”
I like how the advisory text clearly explains what might be purchasable and what randomised in-game purchases entail, in contrast to the ambiguous Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) and PEGI SA “In-Game Purchases (Includes Random Items)” label. Consumers who are not very familiar with video games (e.g., grandparents) might appreciate this knowledge.
Unfortunately, some dagger symbols (†) were barely perceptible due to low-quality printing and paper and colour contrast issues; I struggled to find some even when I was specifically looking for them! This should be improved in the future with more visually prominent disclosures.
One page of the brochure literally says every game on that page includes in-game purchases, demonstrating their prevalence in contemporary games.