(AsiaGameHub) –   In his latest contribution for iGaming Expert, Šimon Vincze, Head of Sustainable and Safer Gambling at Casino Guru, examines the industry’s shift toward adopting the term ‘gaming’ and why this move is unlikely to be beneficial long-term, as other sectors increasingly adopt the gamification tactics first developed by the gambling industry.

I have never been particularly fond of using the term “gaming” to describe chance-based game products.

For years, I have viewed this as a strategic shift intended to avoid the negative associations linked to gambling and make these products more widely accepted. Even worse, it can be used to conceal the inherent risks of gambling while capitalizing on the innocent public image of mainstream gaming.

It is possible I am mistaken, and this overlapping terminology has emerged organically for a range of reasons. Even so, one point remains unambiguous: gaming is far from harmless.

While gaming is mostly enjoyed as a form of entertainment or relaxation, excessive engagement can trigger symptoms comparable to those linked to substance addiction.

Groups most vulnerable to developing gaming addiction include children and adolescents, who are especially drawn to interactive games. If you have a 7-year-old boy in your household, you likely know exactly what I am referring to.

Gaming is growing rapidly in popularity. In fact, two trends are very clear: non-gamers are becoming an increasingly small minority, especially among younger age groups.

The Rutgers Addiction Research Centre shared that recent studies from the UK, US, Germany, and Canada indicate 86% of young adults have played online games in the recent past.

Additionally, the 2023 Global Games Market report estimates that 3.4 billion people worldwide participate in gaming (Have you gambled in the past 6 months?). That equals 40% of the global population.

As more jurisdictions introduce regulations for online gambling, attention has rightfully been drawn to the risks and harms connected to chance-based games.

But at the same time, mainstream gaming has been expanding almost unnoticed, quietly integrating gambling-style features into its in-game purchase ecosystems.

These include widely criticized loot boxes, discount prize wheels, near-win outcomes, battle passes, plus widespread use of FOMO tactics and daily engagement incentive schemes.

Such gamification features are built into many products to encourage consistent customer engagement. Behavioral science now offers countless nudges and product placement strategies designed to motivate buyers to spend, ideally in ways that maximize profit for the seller.

This is a standard part of capitalist economies and the pursuit of maximum profit, but where should we draw the line when it comes to manipulation?

Interestingly, this question often comes up early in conversations about gambling. Many people’s immediate reaction to gambling still involves thoughts of misleading, fraudulent promises of large wins and rigged outcomes that give players a small taste of victory before leading them into a prolonged losing streak.

Discussing random number generators and RTP can be difficult for many people. This is hardly surprising, as the gambling industry has built its reputation over decades, and manipulative practices remain common across the sector.

For example, consider the widespread practice of delaying withdrawal requests under the pretense of KYC or other verification checks.

However, the mainstream gaming industry is not entirely innocent of manipulating players either. Traditional matchmaking in online games operated on a skill-based principle: the system paired players of similar ability to create well-balanced, enjoyable matches.

This is often not the case for many modern games, due to Engagement Optimised Matchmaking (EOMM), an algorithm designed to maximize player retention, a goal that the fairest possible matches do not support.

Sometimes that means giving a player a loss, other times a win. A Electronic Arts research paper outlines how this system assesses what outcome is needed to keep players engaged, then groups players accordingly.

Another major gaming company, Activision Blizzard, went even further with its patent for monetization-influencing matchmaking, which is explicitly designed to maximize the likelihood of in-game purchases by pairing players in specific configurations.

In practice, this could involve deliberately putting a player on a losing streak against more skilled opponents who own a specific in-game skin (a cosmetic upgrade for a weapon). After each lost match, the player then receives prompts to purchase that same skin.

If they make the purchase and equip the new skin, the dynamic shifts completely. They are then matched with less skilled opponents and dominate matches, closing the manipulative loop.

Keep this in mind the next time you play Call of Duty. These research papers and patents have existed for nearly 10 years now, but most players still believe matchmaking operates in the traditional, skill-based way.

Unsurprisingly, none of these companies have admitted to using these algorithms in their games. They have also paid little attention to criticism over their use of gambling features like loot boxes as part of their monetization strategies, or to complying with restrictions on these features that exist in some countries.

The well-documented fact that gambling can be addictive and cause significant harm makes people especially susceptible to the behavioral tactics the industry uses.

Practices that are rarely discussed or criticized in other industries face intense scrutiny when they appear in the gambling sector. There are both logical and emotional reasons for this dynamic.

However, I would not be surprised if current developments in the mainstream gaming industry lead this critical perspective to spill over to gaming as well, given that the sector already has its own well-documented addiction issues.

Global prevalence estimates for gaming disorder are not far behind those for gambling disorder, sitting at roughly 3% of the population. Player participation and industry revenue have both been rising for years, driven in part by the integration of gambling-style features.

Up until now, this negative reputation has been assigned almost exclusively to the slot machine industry, but the public is gradually gaining a full understanding of the broader issues across both sectors.

We may eventually end up referring to all these activities as gaming, but that rebranding is unlikely to improve the overall reputation of the sector going forward.