Competitive video gaming (esports) is a growing multinational , billion-dollar industry. Esports cultures replicate traditional sports cultures, involving elite athletes, teams, league sponsorships, large viewing audiences, high profile leagues and championships, and opportunities to bet on outcomes. However, little is known about people who bet on esports, it is generally considered a niche practice. Using data from the Emerging Adults Gambling Study, a nonprobability survey of 3549 people aged 16-24 living in Great Britain, the profile of esports bettors was compared with those who bet on other sports and non-gamblers. Those who bet on esports were more likely to be male, to be from nonwhite ethnic groups, to be heavily involved in playing digital games themselves, and to have higher rates of gambling involvement and problem gambling. Multivariate analysis showed a strong relationship between engaging in gambling-like practices within digital games and esports betting (for example, the purchase of loot boxes for money, or betting skins on external websites). Frequency of playing digital games was not associated with esports betting, suggesting it is not how often someone engages with digital games that is correlated with esports betting, but rather the different type of practices they undertake when playing video games.

Technological shifts within the video game industry have enabled many games to evolve into platforms for repeated expenditure, rather than a one-time purchase product. Monetising a game as a service is challenging, and there is concern that some monetisation strategies may constitute unfair or exploitative practices which are not adequately covered by existing law. We asked 1104 players of video games to describe a time when they had been exposed to transactions which were perceived to be misleading, aggressive or unfair. We found 35 separate techniques over eight domains: game dynamics designed to drive spending, product not meeting expectations, monetisation of basic quality of life, predatory advertising, in-game currency, pay to win, general presence of microtransactions and other. Notably, several of these reported practices seem to not align with existing UK consumer protection regulations. We discuss this potential misalignment, as well as the implications of identifying what players believe to be problematic monetisation techniques.

No abstract

STUDY QUESTION How did coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) impact on medically assisted reproduction (MAR) services in Europe during the COVID-19 pandemic (March to May 2020)? SUMMARY ANSWER MAR services, and hence treatments for infertile couples, were stopped in most European countries for a mean of 7 weeks. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY With the outbreak of COVID-19 in Europe, non-urgent medical care was reduced by local authorities to preserve health resources and maintain social distancing. Furthermore, ESHRE and other societies recommended to postpone ART pregnancies as of 14 March 2020. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A structured questionnaire was distributed in April among the ESHRE Committee of National Representatives, followed by further information collection through email. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The information was collected through the questionnaire and afterwards summarised and aligned with data from the European Centre for Disease Control on the number of COVID-19 cases per country. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE By aligning the data for each country with respective epidemiological data, we show a large variation in the time and the phase in the epidemic in the curve when MAR/ART treatments were suspended and restarted. Similarly, the duration of interruption varied. Fertility preservation treatments and patient supportive care for patients remained available during the pandemic. LARGE SCALE DATA N/A LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Data collection was prone to misinterpretation of the questions and replies, and required further follow-up to check the accuracy. Some representatives reported that they, themselves, were not always aware of the situation throughout the country or reported difficulties with providing single generalised replies, for instance when there were regional differences within their country. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The current article provides a basis for further research of the different strategies developed in response to the COVID-19 crisis. Such conclusions will be invaluable for health authorities and healthcare professionals with respect to future similar situations. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) There was no funding for the study, apart from technical support from ESHRE. The authors had no COI to disclose.

Video game monetisation has changed rapidly in recent decades: not long ago, upfront payment was the only time a transaction was needed to guarantee a full gameplay experience. However, in recent years, technological shifts have facilitated rapid remote payments, enabling many games to evolve into platforms for repeated expenditure, rather than products in and of themselves. Monetising a game as a service is challenging, and there is concern that some monetisation strategies may constitute unfair or exploitative marketplace practices. However, thus far, no piece of academic research has asked for a stakeholder perspective on what these practices might be by surveying gamers. In the current work, we asked 1104 gamers to describe a time when they had been exposed to transactions which were perceived to be misleading, aggressive or unfair, using the lens of the UK Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. We found 35 separate techniques that players perceived to be misleading, aggressive, or unfair over 8 broad domains: intentional design to drive spending, product not meeting expectations, monetisation of basic quality of life, advertising, in-game currency, pay to win, general presence of microtransactions and other. Notably, several of these transactions seem to be in discord with existing UK consumer protection regulations. We discuss these potential contraventions, and offer recommendations for future steps towards consumer protection within the games industry.

As the profit model in the video game industry shifts from upfront payment to continuous exposure to in-game microtransactions, new forms of monetisation are on the rise. One such example is battle passes: time-limited content which provides players with an opportunity to access rewards not available within the main body of the game. However, there has been minimal scrutiny of the battle pass and its effects on players to date. In this paper, we apply a mixed-methods approach to conduct an in-depth examination of the Battle Pass feature in Dota 2. We consider 1) quantitatively, the prevalence of the Battle Pass within the Dota 2 player community, and 2) qualitatively, player attitudes towards this feature. Quantitative findings show that, despite the rising profitability of the Battle Pass, its presence has little to no effect on player uptake in Dota 2. Qualitative findings indicate complex player attitudes in which positive views on the Battle Pass contrast with concerns over elitism and difficulty in achieving rewards without spending money.

No abstract

Imbuing robots with personality has been shown to be an effective design approach in HRI, promoting user trust and acceptance. We explore personality design in a non-anthropomorphic voice-assisted home robot. Our design approach developed three distinct robot personas: Butler, Buddy, and Sidekick, intended to differ in proactivity and emotional impact. Persona differences were signaled to users by a combination of humanoid (speech, intonation), and indirect cues (colors and movement). We use Big Five personality theory to evaluate perceived differences between personas in an exploratory Wizard of Oz study. Participants were largely able to recognize underlying personality traits expressed through these cue combinations in ways that were consistent with our design goals. The proactive Buddy persona was judged as more Extravert than the more passive Sidekick persona, and the Butler persona was perceived as more Conscientious and less Neurotic than either Buddy or Butler personas. Users also had clear preferences between different personas; they wanted robots that mimicked but accentuated their own personality. Results suggest that future designs might exploit abstract cues to signal personality traits.