4.3 Article

Cross-regional analysis of RRM design and implementation in mobile games by developers in China, the EU, Japan, and the USA

Journal

ENTERTAINMENT COMPUTING
Volume 48, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.entcom.2023.100606

Keywords

Random reward mechanism; Loot box; Gacha; Cross -regional analysis; Mobile games

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examines the implementation of random reward mechanisms (RRMs) in four regions and identifies overall trends as well as regional characteristics of RRM design. The results suggest that RRM designs in Japan show higher coherence compared to other regions.
The broad adoption of random reward mechanisms (RRMs) in digital games requires cross-regional analysis and discussions on RRMs to implement socially acceptable RRM configurations. This study clarifies overall trends, cross-regional common practices, and region-dependent characteristics of RRM design, by empirically and comparatively examining RRM implementations in four regions through an integrated qualitative coding analysis and quantitative principal component analysis (PCA). We constructed an empirically grounded taxonomy of RRMs, consisting of 73 labels in 11 categories and employed these labels in a coding analysis of 40 top-grossing mobile games by Chinese, European, Japanese, and US developers. We found 293 RRMs, to which we applied 3,223 codes and subsequently conducted a PCA with the frequency of assigned codes to identify similarities and differences in RRMs across these regions. The results indicated a higher coherence of RRM designs in Japan than in other regions, arguably owing to a relatively long history of RRMs, higher social acceptance, and robust industry-initiated self-regulation. Our integrated method of qualitative coding analysis and PCA is viable for further comparative studies on game design.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available