Gacha: A case of gamebling
Clicks: 2
ID: 287023
2025
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
0.3
/100
2 views
0 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #2,212 of 3,757 articles by views in Malay Journal
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 3,757 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Gambling has consistently been understood academically and legally as an activity involving initial stake, uncertain outcome and potential reward. The categorical relation between games and gambling however continues to only become more convoluted; the paper focuses particularly where some of the features and mechanics of the latter have been adopted and applied to the former—what can be termed as gamblification. One prevalent form of these gamblified games are known as “gacha games,” live-services structured on a freemium model that capitalizes revenue through player microtransactions on game currency which allow the acquisition of randomized virtual content through their respective loot box mechanisms. Literature on gacha games within the context of gambling mostly focus on either conceptual analysis or psychological quantitative studies that help better determine its ontological status, most of which point towards the opinion of it being a form of gambling. The paper hopes to contribute to the field of game and gambling studies by situating itself in the discussion of gacha games by taking upon itself a skeptical position, that we are unable to truly determine whether gacha games are forms of gambling or games without considering the greater implications of the gacha system to the game as a whole. To do so, the author first attempts at differentiating games and gambling. The ontology of games remains in contention unlike the latter that has seen more consistency in terms of definition. To aid with the differentiation, the paper refers to Katie Tekinbas and Eric Zimmerman’s definition which effectively renders it as the paper’s framework. After which, it is shown how gacha games are equally valid to be taken as games by primarily putting into question the role of the gacha system as a game element. Though it is true that the gacha system is not the (gacha) game itself, it is erroneous to take it as merely an element of the game that renders it a form of gambling when much of player decision and game state entirely hinges on interactions with it. The paper thus claims that gacha games are not just gamblified games but blurs to the distinction of games and gambling.
| Reference Key |
persistent_1760660358_68f18b86d2673
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Lagamayo, Patrick James Chua |
| Journal | Malay Journal |
| Year | 2025 |
| DOI |
DOI not found
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.