Research and analysis

A rapid evidence review of skins gambling

Published 25 September 2025

Executive Summary

Purpose of the report

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) commissioned this report to collate evidence regarding the emerging phenomenon of skins gambling. Skins gambling, which involves the betting of virtual items (known as ‘skins’) obtained in online video games, is becoming increasingly popular and has raised concerns regarding its potential risks and harms. One key reason for these concerns is the design of skins gambling and its association with video game loot boxes, which often attract younger players. Young people, who are generally more susceptible to gambling-related harm, may be drawn into underage gambling behaviours through the traditional leisure activity of video gaming, potentially serving as a gateway to traditional forms of gambling.

Given the anonymity afforded by the platforms offering skins gambling, the absence of age verification at the point of use, and the fact these activities are largely unregulated, makes them easily accessible to individuals, particularly children and young people, regardless of laws and regulations in specific jurisdictions. This lack of regulation, the absence of acceptable responsible gambling standards on the platforms, and the potential for increased exposure, could lead to gambling-related harm that includes the development of unhealthy gambling behaviours at a young age. 

This report aimed to assess the scope and prevalence of skins gambling, its impact on participants, especially vulnerable populations (individuals who, due to their circumstances, are more susceptible to harm from gambling), and the potential gambling-related harm it may cause. It also reviewed the current research on skins gambling and compared it with traditional gambling in terms of game design, participation, and consequences. Furthermore, the report evaluated the need for regulatory intervention and it offers insights, where available, into how international jurisdictions have approached the regulation of similar activities.

Key research questions addressed included:

• How does skins gambling compare to traditional forms of gambling in terms of game design, participation, demographics, and impact on gambling-related harm?  

• What are the risks of participating in skins gambling for vulnerable groups, especially children and young people?  

• How accessible is skins gambling compared to regulated gambling, and through which platforms is it primarily offered?

By answering these questions, the report provides essential evidence to guide policy decisions regarding the regulation of skins gambling and its potential risks to public health.

Key findings

Prevalence of skins gambling and its widespread nature

Skins gambling websites are not considered legal in Great Britain (GB) and do not abide by requirements of regulated forms of gambling. The Gambling Commission, the UK government public body which regulates gambling in Great Britain, actively works to remove and block these sites for use by Britons. 

Over 50 skins gambling websites were identified that were accessible from the UK (see Chapter 1 for search strategy). Across the 45 sites where information was available regarding website traffic, 6.9 million unique visits to skins gambling websites were recorded globally for February 2025. The UK made up 3.93% of global skins gambling traffic. The top nine websites (by web traffic) each generated over one million total visits in February 2025. The most popular skins websites generated more monthly global traffic than well-established traditional online betting platforms, such as Betfred.com, Betvictor.com, Betway.com, 32red.com, and Ballycasino.co.uk. Website cross-visitation data suggested that skins gamblers tend to visit multiple skins gambling websites, and showed that Steam and popular video game streaming platforms were highly correlated with skins gambling website use. 

Vulnerable populations and harms linked to skins gambling

There was a convergence of findings from both the website analytics data and academic literature, which showed that skins gambling is disproportionately common among younger males, particularly adolescents. Research has found that individuals aged 11–14 years were more than twice as likely to engage in skins gambling as those aged 22–24 years. Such findings suggest that skin gambling may be introducing gambling behaviours to children at an earlier age than previously thought.

Across the research literature, a consistent finding is that skins gambling is associated with traditional monetary gambling and elevated problem gambling severity. Those who took part in skins gambling were more likely to have engaged in free loot box use, playing video games with gambling content, and buying loot boxes for money first, suggesting these mechanisms may be acting as skins gambling onboarding channels. Multiple studies, spanning different age groups, national contexts, and research methodologies, report that individuals who engage in skins gambling tend to score significantly higher on validated measures that assess gambling harm and problem gambling. Some studies showed more elevated problem gambling severity scores for skins gambling on games of chance, compared to esports skins betting, suggesting elevated risk associated with skins gambling on games of chance. The majority of evidence indicates that the relationship between skins gambling and problem gambling severity persists even when controlling for involvement in other forms of gambling. This suggests that skins gambling is not simply a by-product of broader gambling engagement, but may represent a distinct risk factor in its own right. Skins gambling appears to function as both a marker of more extensive gambling activity and a potential independent contributor to gambling harm.

Convergence and divergence of game design between skins gambling and traditional gambling

Many skins gambling games highly resemble those found on contemporary gambling platforms such as Stake.com. The games offered by skins gambling websites represent a mix of traditional gambling features as well as a new era of gambling with non-traditional games of chance, such as loot box (case) openings, electronic dice, mines, crash, drop, and double. The mechanics of some games highly resemble traditional gambling games. Some loot boxes for example, highly resemble slot machine features, such as near misses and variable reinforcement schedules. Double games mimic a roulette wheel, but substitute traditional numbers with video game symbols.

Several known harmful gaming features were identified, including near miss mechanics, losses disguised as wins, and high event frequency (rapid speed of play). Furthermore, many of the contemporary skins gambling games have design features that promote the illusion of control, such as allowing players to set the risk-profile of games and to make in-game decisions despite the pre-determined outcome. Some games also offer ‘player versus player’ modes, which induces competition and may exacerbate risk-taking behaviours. 

Policy implications

Key regulatory issues in skins gambling do not stem from an absence of relevant laws, but rather from challenges in enforcement and industry compliance. In jurisdictions like the GB, skins gambling, where in-game items can be staked and exchanged for real-world value, meets the legal definition of gambling and is therefore subject to gambling regulation. However, many of these platforms operate without licences, often outside the jurisdictional reach of national regulators, and are therefore functioning illegally. This creates significant challenges for consumer protection, particularly for children and young people who may access these services. Despite the legal framework, enforcement is hindered by the international nature of these sites, the ease with which operators can relocate or rebrand, and the lack of robust age verification and responsible gambling measures on many platforms. Policy implications include the urgent need for collective regulation across jurisdictions that explicitly classifies skins gambling as a form of gambling and holds operators to the same standards as traditional gambling platforms. This should include mandatory age verification, transparency, fairness, and responsible gambling protocols. Furthermore, game developers must be held accountable for the gambling-like mechanics within their games, ensuring that safeguards are built in to protect younger individuals. Closing the gaps in protections for vulnerable populations requires stricter enforcement of age restrictions and the implementation of age-based safeguards in gaming environments.

Future research should focus on understanding the long-term psychological and behavioural impacts of skins gambling, particularly among children and adolescents, and how exposure to such practices influences the development of gambling behaviours. Research into effective harm-reduction strategies and interventions within gaming environments will be crucial. Additionally, exploring the challenges and opportunities for cross-border regulation of skins gambling platforms will be necessary to address the global nature of the issue.

Recommended policy actions include enforcing stronger age verification processes. It is recommended that regulators  also address the cross-border operation of these platforms and develop international standards for monitoring and controlling skins gambling. These actions will help close regulatory loopholes, protect vulnerable individuals, and ensure that skins gambling is subject to appropriate oversight.

Introduction

1.1 The history of skins gambling

Although often discussed together, loot boxes and skins gambling are distinct. Loot boxes involve paying for a chance-based reward within a game and are not currently classified as gambling in many jurisdictions, whereas skins gambling involves wagering virtual items (often obtained through loot boxes) for the chance to win more valuable items or real-world currency, and is legally recognised as gambling in GB.

Skins gambling emerged as a phenomenon alongside the rise of in-video game cosmetic items (items that alter the appearance of weapons, characters, etc.), particularly within the Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (CS:GO) gaming community. In 2013, Valve (an American video game developer, publisher, and digital distribution company) introduced the ‘Arms Deal Update’, which allowed players to acquire virtual weapon skins through gameplay, trading, and opening cases that share the same mechanics as loot boxes. These skins quickly gained real-world value as players began trading them through Steam’s marketplace and third-party platforms, often involving real-money transactions either directly or indirectly. By 2014, third-party websites started facilitating betting using skins as a currency, leading to the rapid growth of skins gambling (Johnson & Brock, 2020).

By 2015, a range of gambling activities involving skins had emerged, including roulette-style games, jackpot games, coinflip, and case opening sites, many of which mirrored traditional gambling mechanics (King & Delfabbro, 2019). By 2016, the skins gambling market was estimated to be worth $7.4 billion (Grove, 2016). However, the illegal nature of these platforms raised concerns about underage gambling, fraud, and money laundering. This led to regulatory scrutiny, culminating in Valve issuing cease-and-desist orders to skins gambling websites in 2016. Efforts to regulate the sector have been complicated by the global nature of both the skins gambling ecosystem and major game developers like Valve, whose initial resistance to intervening and limited cooperation with regulators posed challenges. Additionally, users and operators often exploit VPNs and jurisdictional loopholes to evade enforcement. Despite these actions, skins gambling has persisted, with websites adapting by using alternative digital currencies or modifying their business models to circumvent restrictions (McLeod, 2017).

In recent years, skins gambling has continued to evolve, incorporating new game formats, ‘player versus player’ wagers, and hybrid blockchain-based gambling (Abarbanel & Macey, 2019). The market remains highly dynamic, with ongoing debates about regulation, consumer protection, and the blurred boundaries between gaming and gambling.

1.2 Skins gambling versus traditional gambling

There are clear similarities between skins gambling and traditional online gambling. Both involve risk, the possibility of financial loss, the use of websites to place bets, and the potential for addiction. However, skins gambling differs from traditional online gambling in several important ways, despite both involving the staking of something of value on outcomes determined by chance. The primary difference lies in the form of currency used, with traditional gambling utilising recognised currencies, whereas skins gambling involves virtual items with fluctuating real-world value. This distinction is significant because most gambling laws were designed with traditional currency in mind, and as a result, they often do not account for the unique nature or value of virtual goods. However, within the Gambling Commission’s (2016) report, they consider that where skins are traded or are tradable, and can therefore act as a de facto virtual currency, and facilities for gambling with those items are being offered, they consider that a licence is required.

Another key difference is the platform on which each form of gambling takes place. Traditional online gambling occurs on websites specifically created for betting with real money, which are typically regulated and licensed. In contrast, skins gambling takes place on third-party platforms with items not originally intended for gambling, and these sites often lack the regulatory oversight and player protections found on licensed gambling sites.

The complexity of applying existing laws to skin gambling arises from the fact that skins are not legally recognised as money or tangible betting instruments in many jurisdictions. Consequently, they are not subject to many traditional forms of gambling regulations and exploit legal loopholes to circumvent legal requirements. Nonetheless, the real-world monetary value of skins means they can be used similarly to money in a gambling context, raising important questions about how they should be legally classified. However, the GB Gambling Commission does consider skins gambling as gambling due to the fact that skins can often be converted and withdrawn as currency (often cyptocurrency) on skins sites or third party sites.

1.3 The role of esports in skins gambling

A key factor in the skins gambling ecosystem is esports. Esports (competitive video gaming) have become a major driver of skins gambling, with its rapid growth significantly influencing the popularity of betting virtual items such as weapon skins in games such as CS:GO and Dota 2. This phenomenon is closely tied to the rise of esports tournaments, where millions of viewers engage in online betting on matches, often using skins as an alternative to real money (Griffiths, 2017). Players and fans can bet their skins on match outcomes, creating a gambling ecosystem within the esports community (King et al., 2019).

The integrated nature of esports and skins gambling has also led to increased cross-promotion between gambling sites and esports teams or streamers, amplifying the reach of these gambling practices. Streamers, often with large audiences, are frequently sponsored by skins gambling platforms (Devor, 2024), further normalising gambling behaviours among younger audiences. The appeal lies in the ease of access and the social and competitive aspect of betting, which enhances the immersive nature of esports viewing. This combination has made skins gambling a lucrative market, but it also presents serious risks, particularly concerning gambling-related harm and gambling addiction among vulnerable players.

1.4 Prevalence of skins gambling

Estimating the exact number of individuals engaged in skin gambling is challenging due to its (often) illegal nature, but recent efforts are beginning to shed light on this issue. A 2019 report by Parent Zone found that 91% of young people reported that there were loot boxes available in the games they played, with 40% reporting paying to open one. While this does not directly confirm gambling with loot box contents, it highlights the widespread exposure to gambling-like mechanisms that may act as a gateway to skin gambling. A report by the Royal Society for Public Health (2019), consisting of 1025 11- to 17-year-olds in the UK, found that 60% classified skins betting as a form of gambling, and 67% agreeing that it was normal for peers to take part in skins gambling. Moreover, 12% had taken part in skins betting in the past week and 13% in the past month, with 7% reporting that they participated in skins betting at least once a week on a regular basis. Additionally, 7% also reported that their first gambling-related activity was skins betting. Almost twice as many 11- to 14-year olds had taken part in skins betting in the previous week (14%) than 22- to 24-year olds (7%; 15-17 years = 13%; 18-21 years = 9%). 

A more recent Gambling Commission (2024) report found that 68% of young people were aware they could pay for in-game items with 63% aware they could open loot boxes, packs or chests. Moreover, 27% reported paying for loot boxes, packs, or chests, 37% were aware they could bet with in-game items outside of the video game itself, with 4% having gambled with in-game items on websites outside of the game they were playing.

While these figures highlight the activity’s prevalence among British youth, comprehensive data on adult participation in skin gambling remains limited. The clandestine nature of many skins gambling platforms further complicates efforts to ascertain accurate participation rates across broader populations. Notably, the Gambling Commission’s ‘Young People and Gambling’ survey collects data on skins gambling among adolescents. In contrast, major adult-focused surveys, such as the ‘Gambling Survey for Great Britain’ do not currently include questions specifically addressing this form of gambling, potentially leading to underrepresentation in adult gambling statistics.

1.5 Objectives of the report

The key objectives of this report were to:

• Assess the prevalence of skins gambling and its impact on users, particularly vulnerable groups.  

• Compare skins gambling with traditional gambling products in terms of game design, demographics, and user participation.  

• Review regulatory responses to skins gambling internationally and provide recommendations for GB. 

This report aimed to assess the prevalence of skins gambling and its impact on users, with a particular focus on vulnerable groups such as children and young people. By comparing skins gambling with traditional gambling products, the report examines convergences and divergences in game design, demographics, and patterns of participation, to better understand the potential risks associated with this emerging form of gambling. Additionally, it reviews international regulatory responses to skins gambling, identifying best practices and key challenges in enforcement. Based on these insights, the report will provide evidence-based recommendations for GB, offering potential policy interventions to mitigate gambling-related harm and ensure adequate consumer protection.

1.6 Research approach

This report is informed by four complementary strands of research, each contributing a distinct perspective on the issue of skins gambling. These strands include an assessment of skins gambling websites analytical data, a structured audit of skins gambling websites, a systematic review of the academic literature, and a scoping review of the grey literature surrounding international regulation of skins gambling.

1.6.1 Skins gambling website analytics

This strand involved the analysis of data from skins gambling websites to assess the scale of participation, user demographics, and engagement patterns. By examining website activity, this research provided insights into the accessibility and popularity of skins gambling, helping to quantify its prevalence and identify key user demographics. To systematically identify active skins gambling websites, a multi-pronged search strategy was used:

Search engine queries: A structured search strategy was employed using Google and Yahoo, incorporating a range of relevant keywords (skins gambling; CS:GO gambling; Rust gambling; case opening sites; skins betting). Multiple pages of search results were reviewed to identify operational platforms.

Web traffic analysis tools: SimilarWeb Pro (pro.similarweb.com) was used as the platform to obtain analytical data from the websites identified in Stage 1 of the search, and was also used to recommend similar sites using the ‘similar sites’ function. 

Community and forum scraping: The online gaming community Reddit and its gambling-related forums were analysed to identify user discussions and shared links related to skins gambling. These sources often highlighted lesser-known or emerging gambling sites.

Snowball sampling approach: During website audits, internal links and affiliate promotions on gambling platforms were tracked to identify additional sites within the skins gambling ecosystem. This method allowed for the identification of networks of interconnected platforms.

1.6.2 Standardised skins website audit

To systematically evaluate skins gambling websites, a structured audit was conducted. This audit was informed by prior research (Bonello & Griffiths, 2017) and additional criteria were designed to assess key aspects of website functionality, responsible gambling (RG) practices, game design features, payment mechanisms, and promotional strategies. The audit focused on a representative selection of skins gambling websites to identify convergence and divergence in practices and potential consumer protection gaps. 

Twenty websites were audited in total, with eight being high global traffic sites (over 100,000 visitors in February 2025), six moderate traffic sites (between 10,000 and 100,000 visitors in in February 2025), and six low traffic sites (under 10,000 visits in February 2025). Websites from each traffic category were randomly selected using a random number generator. The audit framework comprised the following categories:

Website information:

• Website name and URL  

• Date of audit  

• Requirement for registration and account creation  

• Methods available for account creation (e.g email, social login, crypto wallet)  

• Initial age verification procedures

Responsible gambling (RG) practices:

• Presence of a dedicated RG page  

• Commitment to responsible gambling statements  

• Reference to problem gambling support organisations  

• Availability of self-assessment tests and RG tools (e.g. self-exclusion, limit setting)  

• Absence of promotional gambling materials on the RG page  

• Links to gambling filtering software (e.g. GamBlock, Betfilter)  

• RG-oriented customer support responsiveness (assessed through scripted inquiries regarding gambling control, spend limits, and addiction support)

Game and game feature analysis:

• Types of games available (e.g., case opening, upgrade, battles)  

• Presence of potentially harmful game mechanics:

  • Near-miss features (which simulate “almost winning”)  
  • Losses disguised as wins (LDWs)  
  • Rapid replay/autoplay functionality

Promotional strategies influencing gambling behaviour:

• Displaying “recent winners” or “live bets”  

• Presence of a live community chat  

• Promotion of large wins on the homepage

Deposit, withdrawals, and currency:

• Availability of deposit and withdrawal method  

• Presence of cash out limits  

• Acceptance of cryptocurrency transactions  

• Use of layered currency systems

Promotions and marketing:

• Availability of bonus codes or free bets  

• Presence of an affiliate programme

1.6.3 Systematic review of the academic literature

A systematic review of peer-reviewed research synthesised existing knowledge on skins gambling, including its psychological impact, links to gambling-related harm, and comparisons with conventional gambling behaviours. This evidence base informed the report’s understanding of the risks associated with skins gambling and provided a foundation for policy recommendations.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to ensure completeness and transparency of the review. The objectives of the review were to assess current knowledge surrounding skins gambling, including: (i) similarities or differences from traditional gambling, (ii) populations vulnerable to psychological or financial harm from skins gambling (focusing on children and young people), (iii) the accessibility of skins gambling, and (iv) identifying extant regulatory frameworks and their impact on mitigating harm from skins gambling

Papers were considered for inclusion if they: (i) discussed skin gambling or skin betting, (ii) were written in English, (iii) were peer-reviewed, (iv) contained primary empirical data, and (v) were published after 2013. This date was chosen because video game developer Valve added tradable skins as rewards in their game ‘Counter Strike: Global Offensive’ (CS:GO) in mid-2013 and following this, third-party skin gambling websites emerged.

On the March 12, 2025, four databases were searched (PsycINFO, Web of Science, PubMed, and Science Direct) using the search terms “skins” OR “skin gambl” OR “skin-gambl” OR “skin-bet” OR “skin bett” OR “skin trad” OR “VGO” OR “NFT” OR “virtual good” OR “virtual item” OR “loot box” OR “micro-transaction” OR “microtransaction” OR “in-game currenc” OR “virtual currenc” OR “CSGO” OR “Rust” OR “Epic” OR “Steam” AND “gambl” OR “esports gambl” OR “esports bet” OR “social casino gam” OR “simulated gambl”.

A total of 713 papers were initially identified. Once duplicates were removed, a total of 574 papers were considered for review. Paper titles and abstracts were screened, resulting in the removal of 342 papers. A total of 232 papers were then considered for review. The full-text papers were screened for relevance, resulting in the review of 19 papers.

Five reports found through manual searches for “Skin Gambling in Britain” were included due to their relevance to the topic of skins gambling and contextualisation of skins gambling in Britain. Consequently, 24 papers and reports were reviewed (see Figure 1 for the PRISMA flow diagram).

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of included studies.

1.6.4 Scoping review of wider jurisdiction regulation

This strand explores regulatory responses to skins gambling across different jurisdictions by reviewing policy reports and legal frameworks. Its aim is to identify international best practices and challenges in regulating skins gambling, offering comparative insights that inform recommendations for GB policymakers.

To gather information on skin gambling policies around the world, 53 academics in the gambling studies field were contacted and asked to provide any information they had regarding the regulation of skin gambling in their respective countries. Information was sought in the following countries: Albania, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Gibraltar, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Ukraine, and USA. Some of these academics then provided other people to contact to gain further information. Where there were notable gaps in responses, a manual search was also conducted. 

Together, these four strands provided a comprehensive assessment of skins gambling, integrating empirical data, game design analysis, academic research, and international regulatory perspectives. This multi-method approach ensured that the report delivered a robust evidence base for understanding the risks of skins gambling and shaping effective policy recommendations.

Web Analytics: Traffic and User Demographics

2.1 Section summary

Fifty-four skins gambling websites were identified, with 45 of the sites having information available regarding website traffic, and 25 of the sites having information available regarding user demographics. Skins gambling attracts a large, young, and male-dominated audience, with 6.9 million unique visits to skins gambling websites recorded in February 2025. The UK comprised 3.93% of all skins gambling traffic where such data was available. Globally, the 18- to 24-year age group accounted for 44.85% of users, compared to just 12.57% on traditional gambling sites, where the 25- to 34-year category was dominant, but actual age demographics are uncertain due to a lack of age verification measures. Publicly available survey data from the social media channel Houngoungagne suggested underage gambling is widespread, with 70.9% of 9,227 respondents reporting they first gambled between the ages of 13 and 17 years, and 82.26% stating that opening loot boxes or using CS:GO skins gambling websites was their first gambling experience. As a caveat, opening loot boxes is not considered gambling in GB, and these figures are likely inflated due to the sample being highly engaged with CS:GO-related content. 

Engagement patterns differed from traditional gambling. Skins gamblers prefer desktop access, whereas traditional gamblers prefer mobile. Despite shorter average session durations (6 minutes and 21 seconds versus 7 minutes and 37 seconds), several skins gambling sites had more global traffic than established betting platforms such as Betway, Betfred, and BetVictor, and data also showed that skins gamblers tended to visit multiple skins gambling websites. 

Cross-visitation data also highlighted strong links to gaming platforms, with Steam being the most commonly visited site alongside skins gambling. YouTube and Twitch were also frequently visited, reinforcing the connection between skins gambling and gaming culture. These findings emphasise the need for regulatory oversight given skins gambling’s rapid growth, promotion accessibility, and appeal to younger users.

2.2 Prevalence and market scope

Fifty-four skins gambling websites were identified and analysed using SimilarWeb Pro for website traffic, engagement, and user demographic information (see Appendix A for a list of websites identified). Forty-five of the sites had information available regarding website traffic, and 25 of the sites had information available regarding user demographics.

Website traffic (and all metrics) was measured for the month of February 2025. Across all sites where traffic data was available, there was a total of 6.9 million unique visits to a skins gambling website within this time period. This varied greatly across platforms, with site visits ranging from 35 (wilddrop.org) at the low end, to 1.17 million for the most visited platform (clash.gg). When looking at the percentage of UK traffic across websites, the UK accounted for 3.93% of all unique visits to a skins gambling website (271,230 unique visits for February 2025). 

An unweighted average across all websites demonstrated that 75.58% of users were male and that the 18- to 24-years age range was the dominant age category on all platforms, comprising an average 44.85% of all visits to skins gambling websites. A caveat is that users must confirm (without checks) they are at least 18 years old to use these sites, meaning that the full picture of user ages cannot be accurately determined from these data alone because underage users may falsely declare their age to gain access. 

To provide further insight on this issue, data made publicly available by the social media channel Houngoungagne showed that of 9,227 survey participants who were asked about their gambling engagement and experiences, 70.9% reported first gambling between the ages of 13 and 17 years, with 82.26% of users reporting that opening loot boxes within the game CS:GO or CS:GO skins gambling websites was their first gambling experience. However, these figures could be disproportionately high given that the survey respondents were likely highly engaged in the gaming community given the gaming focus of the channel. A Royal Society for Public Health (2019) report, consisting of 1025 11- to 17-year-olds in the UK, found that 12% had taken part in skins betting in the past week and that almost twice as many 11- to14-year-olds had taken part in skins betting in the previous week (14%) than 22- to 24-year-olds (7%: 15-17 years; 13%: 18-21 years = 9%).

The analysis showed that 66.05% of users engaged in skins gambling via a desktop or laptop, compared to 33.95% for mobile. Users averaged a 6 minute and 21 seconds duration on the websites. Of note, when the website cross-visitation behaviour of users was assessed, a common pattern was that other skins gambling websites were frequently visited by users, suggesting skins gamblers engage with multiple skins gambling platforms, likely increasing the time spent participating in skins gambling overall.  

Steam, the digital distribution platform developed by Valve Corporation that offers video game purchasing, digital rights management, multiplayer gaming, and community features, was the most frequently cross-visited website among skins gamblers. For the 37 skins gambling websites where cross-visitation information was available, Steam was the top cross-visited website by percentage of users on 21 occasions, and came in the top five on seven other occasions. As discussed in section 3 of this report, having a Steam account allows one-click login to almost all of the skins-gambling websites audited. YouTube and Twitch, popular social media gaming streaming platforms, were also highly cross-visited, appearing in the top five most cross-visited sites for users on 12 of the 37 skins gambling websites where such data was available. As a caveat, YouTube is a video-sharing platform that includes a significant amount of gaming content, but it is not exclusively a gaming streaming platform.

2.3 Comparison with traditional gambling sites

The total website traffic, user demographics, and platform engagement (for February 2025) for skins gambling websites was compared with 9 traditional online betting websites popular in the UK (based on percentage of UK traffic): 32red.com, Ballycasino.co.uk, bet365.com, Betfair.com, Betfred.com, BetVictor.com, Betway.com, Coral.co.uk, Skybet.com.

The top nine most visited skins gambling websites all had over one million total global visits, with clash.gg being the most visited with 4.3 million total visits. The mean total visits across all skins gambling platforms was 620,000. For comparison the largest traditional gambling website reviewed by total monthly visits was bet365.com, which had 57.6 million visits. However, Clash.gghad more total global monthly visits than Betfred.com (3.7 million), BetVictor.com (2.86 million), Betway.com (2.48 million), 32red.com (817,218), and Ballycasino.co.uk (803,501). 

The data showed a slightly older demographic for traditional gambling websites. On all but one skins gambling website (datdrop.com) the 18- to 24-year age category was the largest age category of users, comprising 44.85% of the total users (unweighted mean). By comparison, the 18- to 24-year age category comprised 12.57% of total users of the traditional gambling websites reviewed. The largest age category of users for traditional gambling websites was the 25- to 34-year category in nine out of the 10 sites reviewed, the exception being bet365, where the 35- to 44-year age category was the largest. 

The most popular platform for accessing skins gambling websites was via desktop, with 66.05% of users opting to use desktops versus mobile phones (33.95%). However, mobile phone was the dominant platform for accessing traditional gambling websites, with 77% of users opting to use mobile phones versus desktops (23%). Users of traditional gambling websites on average spent slightly longer on the sites (7 minutes and 37 seconds) when compared to the average duration on skins gambling websites (6 minutes and 21 seconds).

Structured Audit of Skins Gambling Websites

3.1 Section summary

This chapter presents the findings of a structured audit of 20 skins gambling websites conducted between March 12 and 18, 2025 (see Appendix B for list of sites audited). The audit assessed websites with high, moderate, and low monthly traffic, to ensure a representative sample, and required accessibility from the UK without a VPN. One site audited had a geo-blocked warning message on first accessing the site, but this was overcome by simply refreshing the web browser. The framework for the audit focused on registration procedures, age verification, responsible gambling (RG) practices, games and game features, promotional tactics, and currency, deposits and cashout options. Website-specific registration was only mandatory for engaging in gambling activities on one site, whereas the remaining sites only required a Steam login to gamble. Similarly, all but one site allowed visitors to either spectate gambling or access basic features such as ‘demo spins’ without logging in. 

The audit showed significant deficiencies in age verification procedures. None of the sites implemented robust age checks at the point of use beyond reliance on Steam’s age gate (minimum age 13 years) or self-declaration. Some sites requested a date of birth but did not verify it, and age verification was sometimes only required before withdrawals or for entry into free prize draws.

Responsible gambling practices were found to be largely inadequate. Only five sites (25%) had a dedicated RG page, and the majority lacked clearly identifiable RG resources. Proactive communication of RG information upon initial login or registration was absent on all sites. While gambling history was generally available, explicit commitments to RG were limited, and links to external support organisations were often inconspicuous and on two occasions, non-functional. RG tools were overall scarce. Although self-exclusion options were available on the majority of sites (65%), these exclusions were limited to the website in use. Deposit limits were rarely offered as an RG tool (5%). Furthermore, access to RG tools was sometimes obscured by promotional content. A ‘vault’ feature was present on a minority of sites, allowing a lockdown of funds already deposited to the site, but its intention as an RG tool was unclear. Links to gambling filtering software able to block access to websites related to gambling were not provided. Customer support chat functions demonstrated varying levels of RG awareness and helpfulness, with most positive interactions involving staff signposting the self-exclusion option, where one was available. 

The game mechanics and features observed often mirrored those on contemporary gambling platforms, featuring non-traditional gambling games with gamification elements and symbols and themes that aligned with videogames. Common game types included case openings, upgrader games, case battles, mines, dice, wheel of fortune, crash, and plinko. Several features with the potential for harm were identified, including near-miss mechanics and losses disguised as wins, which could encourage continued play. Many games featured a rapid speed of play with fast betting options, potentially leading to a loss of control. Furthermore, games frequently incorporated features promoting an illusion of control, such as allowing players to set risk profiles or make in-game decisions, despite the outcomes being chance-based and pre-determined. 

All audited websites employed promotional strategies and marketing, including deposit bonuses and ‘free’ case openings (in exchange for website activity). There was an abundance of affiliate programmes, active on most sites. Tactics leveraging social proof, such as displaying recent wins, live bets, and leaderboards, were common. Levelling-up reward systems and daily missions incentivised continued activity. Free/demo spins were widely offered and accessible before sign-up or initial login, potentially creating a misleading impression of winning probabilities. Promotional events and themes were often found to be designed to resonate with younger audiences through the use of videogame terminology and cultural references. The prevalence of sponsorships with gambling streamers and esports teams further highlighted the extensive marketing within the gaming community.

Regarding deposit methods, a wide range was supported, including skins, cash (via various payment processors), cryptocurrencies, and gift cards. No explicit deposit limits were found. Withdrawal methods were more restrictive, primarily focusing on skins and crypto assets. Layered currency systems were prevalent, where deposits were converted into in-site currencies, potentially obscuring the real value of wagers.

3.2 Website sample selection and methodology

A structured audit of skins gambling websites was conducted between March 12 and 18, 2025, using a mystery shopper approach. Twenty websites were assessed across three traffic categories, based on February 2025 traffic: eight with high monthly traffic (over 100,000 visitors), six with moderate monthly traffic (10,000–100,000 visitors), and six with low monthly traffic (under 10,000 visitors). Sites from each traffic category were selected using a random number generator. The selected websites needed to be accessible from the UK without the use of a VPN. The audit framework was guided by prior research (Bonello & Griffiths, 2017) and focused on the following areas of interest: registration process, age verification, RG practices, games and game features, promotional tactics, and currency, deposits and cashout options. This approach aimed to identify common practices, divergences, and potential gaps in consumer protection.

3.3 Website registration and account creation

Website-specific registration was only mandatory for engaging in gambling activities on one site, whereas the remaining sites (95%) only required a Steam account login to gamble, which leverages existing Steam account credentials for ease of access. Similarly, all but one site (95%) allowed visitors to either spectate gambling or access basic features such as ‘demo spins’ without logging in. A number of platforms also provided the option for email registration (75%) and in some cases, social login options (25%), such as via Discord, were available.

3.4 Age verification procedures

Generally, age verification procedures at the point of use were absent and were either based on self-declaration by ticking a box to say the individual was aged over 18 years, or are platform-specific verification methods, such as entering a date of birth, neither of which were checked for authenticity or reliability. None of the 20 websites audited conducted an age verification check at the point of use, beyond relying on Steam’s age gate or a self-declaration of age. A majority of sites (n=12; 60%) relied solely on the age verification mechanisms associated with Steam accounts, which stipulate a minimum age of 13 years. However, when tested, at the point of website use, Steam users only had to self-tick to say they were 13 or over. Only two platforms (10%) requested a date of birth during login, but did not implement any robust checks to verify this information. The remaining six sites (30%) required users to tick a box to self-declare they were aged over 18 years, again, without any subsequent verification. A common theme across most sites was that within the Terms of Use, it stated that age verification could be requested before making withdrawals, and all sites required identification verification when players entered ‘free to play’ prize draws.

3.5 Responsible gambling practices

One of the key aspects of this audit was the evaluation of responsible gambling (RG) practices across skins gambling platforms. None of the site operators sent RG information via email or an internal message to the player’s account upon first-time login or registration. Only five out of the 20 websites (25%) were found to have a dedicated RG page. Two of these sites included the RG pages in sections such as the FAQ or ‘about us’, but these were not as easily identifiable or accessible as a stand-alone RG page. Only eight of the 20 sites (40%) featured any identifiable problem gambling (PG) support information. This usually consisted of links to GambleAware, Gamblers Anonymous, and Psychguides support pages, but on two occasions, these were only mentioned by name with no working links or contact details for these organisations.

Regarding commitments to responsible gambling, only six sites (30%) made explicit statements about their commitment to promoting responsible gambling. These statements varied in prominence, ranging from highly visible standalone notices to more subtle references deep within site content. 

Gambling history was made readily available on 18 of the 20 sites (90%), usually provided via the account settings option. In terms of RG tools, only one site provided a self-assessment test, which could help players evaluate their gambling behaviour. Self-exclusion features were the most commonly offered tool, available on 13 of the 20 sites (65%), with durations ranging from one hour to five years. Permanent exclusions required direct communication with customer support. Only one site provided deposit limits, which could be set for durations of one, two, or three days. Accessing self-exclusion and deposit limit options was normally via the user’s profile, within the account settings. Ten of the 13 sites (77%) that did provide RG tools appeared to keep those pages free of promotional material. On three occasions (23%) scrolling through bonus offers and/or free reward statistics was required to access the RG tools. None of the audited websites provided links to gambling filtering software such as GamBlock or Betfilter.

Three platforms (15%) incorporated an additional feature known as the ‘vault’, which allowed users to lock their funds temporarily. Although this was unclear if intended as a money management or direct RG measure, it was mentioned by these sites in the customer service chat when asked about what RG tools are available. While this vault feature prevents gamblers from gambling money already deposited to the site, it does not prevent the depositing of additional funds, nor does it necessarily address underlying psychological factors driving problematic gambling behaviour.

3.5.1 RG customer support

Sixteen of the 20 sites (80%) had a live customer support chat function. Generally speaking, the majority of larger websites (based on monthly traffic) had fast customer support response times, often responding to customer queries within the chat function in under two minutes. Of the 16 sites with a live customer support chat function, four (25%) failed to respond to the auditor’s RG help requests within 30 minutes, which was used as the threshold for determining if a response was provided. The four websites without a live customer support chat function either required users to join Discord to contact the site support (two sites), or required users to open a support ticket or email the site directly. 

Testing of customer support chat showed varying levels of RG awareness and helpfulness. For the 16 sites with a customer support chat function, three standardised questions/statements were asked sequentially within the chat:

1. “Do you have spend limits or any other responsible gambling tools I can use?”

2. “I want to control my gambling. Do you have information?” 

3. “I feel addicted and can’t control my gambling.”

The helpfulness of responses received were rated on a three-point scale: helpful, somewhat helpful or not helpful. For Questions 1 and 2, ‘helpful’ responses were classified as those that made a direct reference to a recognised responsible gambling tool provided by the website. Where such tools were not available on the site, references to specific external sources of support were also considered helpful responses. ‘Somewhat helpful’ response included referring to the vault feature of the website, given its ability to control the spending of funds already deposited on the site, but inability to prevent additional deposits and spending. General advice on RG, with no reference to specific tools available or specialised sources of support was also considered ‘somewhat helpful’. ‘Not helpful’ responses w     ere those that provided no signposting of RG tools or RG information. 

Given the escalation of Question 3 from seeking advice about controlling gambling to indicating issues with addiction, more stringent criteria in determining a ‘helpful’ response was applied. A ‘helpful’ response was determined by the signposting of professional gambling support information, such as providing contact information for GambleAware or GamCare. ‘Somewhat helpful’ responses were determined as those that either initiated an account ban, or highlighted or re-emphasised the availability of self-exclusion or limit-setting tools. ‘Unhelpful’ responses were those that offered no support in response to this question.

“Do you have spend limits or any other responsible gambling tools I can use?”

Thirteen out of 16 responses (81%) were received for this question. Of those 13 responses, seven (54%) were considered ‘helpful’ and made reference to the self-exclusion feature on the website. Two responses (15%) were considered ‘somewhat helpful’, and referenced the availability of the vault to lockdown funds. The remaining four responses (31%) were ‘unhelpful’, and either stated they had no such features or could not help with this issue. 

“I want to control my gambling. Do you have information?”

Twelve out of 16 responses (75%) were received for this question. Seven responses (58%) were considered ‘helpful’, and reiterated the availability of a self-exclusion feature, one of which provided a direct link to the self-exclusion page, one provided a screenshot of the self-exclusion page, and one offering to initiate a period of self-exclusion. However, one of these sites first referred to the ‘vault’ to lock away funds, but then proceeded to suggest playing with the free rewards available, and only later suggesting that if still tempted, to use the self-exclusion feature. One response (8%) was considered ‘somewhat helpful’ because it advised to seek non-specific external resources for support and to only deposit what was affordable. The remaining four responses (33%) were considered ‘unhelpful’ because they either stated they could not provide such information or said they had no tools to assist. 

“I feel addicted and can’t control my gambling.”

Eleven out of 16 responses (69%) were received for this question. Only one response (9%) was considered ‘helpful’ because it advised seeking professional support and provided links to GambleAware and GamCare. Eight responses (73%) were considered ‘somewhat helpful’ because they either reiterated the availability of a self-exclusion feature with one site immediately closing down the player’s account. The final two responses (18%) were considered ‘unhelpful’ because they either stated they could not help with such issues or stated that the player takes responsibility for the risks.

3.6 Games and potentially harmful game mechanics

This section of the analysis focuses on the gambling games provided and mechanics of the games, with a particular emphasis on how these mechanics might influence gambling behaviour. It was observed that many skins gambling games highly resemble those found on contemporary gambling platforms such as Stake.com, and represent a new era of gambling, characterised by non-traditional games such as electronic dice, mines, crash, drop, and double. These games incorporate gamification elements and videogame symbols and items to create a more immersive and interactive experience that more closely aligns with the videogames themselves, potentially blurring the lines between videogame playing and gambling for users. 

The most common types of games included case openings (loot boxes), upgrader games, battles, mines (or variations such as ‘Defusal’), dice, wheel of fortune games, crash games, and plinko. These games include chance-based mechanics with high levels of uncertainty, and in some cases, potentially misleading features that could encourage continued play or escalate betting. A brief overview of each game is provided below.

Case openings (loot boxes): Players’ purchase or obtain digital loot boxes containing randomly assigned in-game items (skins). The outcomes are typically determined by probability algorithms, with rarer items having lower hit rates. Once opened, the visuals simulate a slot machine, where prizes of varying values spin across the screen before landing on the prize awarded to the player. 

Upgrader games: Players’ wager one or more in-game items (skins) for a chance to receive a higher-value item. The upgrade success rate is determined by the difference in value between the wagered and target item, with lower probabilities for more valuable upgrades. The game typically presents a visual representation such as a progress bar, to simulate randomness, but the outcome is dictated by predetermined probability calculations. Players may have the option to select different risk levels, affecting their chances of a successful upgrade. 

Battles: Also known as case battles, these involve multiple players opening loot boxes simultaneously, with the winner determined by the total value of items unboxed. The highest-value haul wins all of the pooled items.

Mines: A grid-based game where players select tiles, aiming to avoid hidden ‘mines’. The risk-reward dynamic allows players to cash out at any time, with potential winnings increasing the longer they continue without hitting a mine. Variants such as ‘Defusal’ use thematic videogame elements but retain the same core mechanics.

Dice: Players bet on the outcome of a virtual dice roll. Unlike traditional six-sided dice, these games typically use a probability-based system where players select a target number range and bet on whether the random number generator (RNG) will land above or below that range. The potential pay-out is based on the probability of winning, with higher-risk bets (e.g., rolling above 95 on a 100-sided scale) offer greater rewards, while lower-risk bets (e.g., rolling above 50) provide smaller returns. Dice games are designed for rapid play, with little to no downtime between bets. A new wager can typically be placed within one second of the previous wager. 

Wheel of fortune games: Players bet on different segments of a spinning wheel, each representing varying pay-out multipliers. The outcome is determined by where the wheel stops after spinning. There are ‘player versus player’ versions, where the probability of winning is typically proportional to the amount wagered. Players who risk more skins receive a larger share of the wheel’s segments, increasing their chances of winning. These games introduce a competitive, pooled gambling element, as opposed to traditional house-run wheel games where players bet against the operator. 

Crash games: Players place bets before the round begins, and a multiplier (starting at 1.00x) begins increasing in real time. The objective is to cash out before the game ‘crashes’, which happens at a pre-determined point, but gives the illusion of randomness. The longer a player waits, the higher the multiplier and potential pay-out. However, if players fail to cash out before the crash, they lose their entire wager. The multiplayer is often accompanied by a visual component, such as an aeroplane gaining altitude, stock market candles rising, or a man running. 

Plinko: A physics-based game where players drop a ball down a pegged board. The ball’s path is influenced by chance, determining which pay-out slot it lands in, with different multipliers assigned to different slots.

Jackpot games: These games operate on a lottery-style system where multiple players contribute in-game items to a shared pool or pot, and the winner takes the entire accumulated amount. The odds of winning are generally proportional to the player’s stake, with those who contribute more skins have a higher chance of winning, while players with smaller contributions have a lower chance. where the more skins a player puts into the jackpot, the greater their share of the total pool and, therefore, their probability of winning.

3.6.1 Near misses and losses disguised as wins

One of the most pervasive features observed was the presence of ‘near-miss’ mechanics, which gives the illusion of being close to winning a high-value prize, therefore providing motivation to continue playing (Clark et al., 2009). This feature was most commonly found in games such as wheel of fortune and case openings, where the outcome was visually designed to show players just missing out on a high-value win. Additionally, many games employed losses-disguised-as-wins (LDWs) mechanisms, which made small wins or returns of less than the original stake appear more positive than they truly were. This tactic was especially common in upgrader games, where players might receive a lower-value skin but the system presented it as a win or consolation prize. Where smaller consolation prizes were won, several sites offer players an instant option to re-gamble these LDWs, which encourages continued play and loss-chasing behaviours.

3.6.2 Speed of play (event frequency)

Many games reviewed included features such as 2x and even ‘max bet’ betting options, with users able to place escalating bet sizes at the click of a button quickly without taking time to reconsider their actions. Many games also featured rapid replay or autoplay functionalities, which accelerated the gambling process, encouraging users to place faster and automatic bets with the click of a button. Dice, for example, facilitate rapid play, allowing players to place a bet within one second of the previous bet. This functionality can contribute to impulsive gambling, increasing the risk of addiction. Research has showed that faster-paced gambling (high event frequency) games are generally preferred by gamblers and have a heightened appeal among individuals with gambling problems (Harris & Griffiths, 2018). Behaviourally, this research indicates that increased speeds of play with high event frequencies can lead to more wagers and extended gambling sessions. Problem gamblers in particular, may find it more challenging to cease gambling when engaged in fast-paced games. Furthermore, experimental research has shown that response inhibition performance (i.e., the control of actions) is significantly worse during faster speeds of play (​Harris et al., 2021), and that fast-paced games that induce rapid response patterns can lead to poorer decision-making within a gambling context (Harris, et al., 2018).

3.6.3 Illusion of control

It was observed that skins gambling games frequently incorporated various features that promote an illusion of control, which can lead players to believe they are able to influence the outcomes of games that are, in fact, determined by chance. This false sense of control can increase players’ engagement and gambling intensity (Joukhador et al., 2004).

One of the key ways in which these games foster the illusion of control is by allowing players to set their risk profiles on games. For example, in dice games, players can choose a target number range which adjusts the level of risk associated with their bet, such as selecting a higher or lower range for the roll. By controlling the odds, players may feel as though they are making strategic decisions that will increase their chances of winning, even though the outcome is entirely random. Similarly, in mines games, players can choose the number of mines hidden within a grid before revealing the tiles. The fewer mines there are, the more likely a player is to succeed, but the pay-out is lower, making it appear as though players can increase their chances of winning by altering the difficulty of the game. Despite this control over some aspects of the game, the outcomes are still governed by chance because the placement of mines is random. The illusion of control was perpetuated by the websites themselves, where several had ‘strategies to win at mines’ content within the ‘how to play’ sections. 

Another commonly observed feature was the ability to make decisions during gameplay. For example, upgrader games allow players to select an item to upgrade and choose their risk/reward levels. This sense of control over the upgrading process, where players must decide how much risk they are willing to take, can give them the impression that they are strategizing and applying skill to improve their chances of winning. However, the actual upgrade success or failure is still determined by a random factor, making the process inherently unpredictable. Similarly, in crash games, players have the opportunity to decide when to cash out as a multiplier increases. This creates the illusion that success can be achieved through good timing and control, when, in reality, the point at which the crash occurs is predetermined and unknown.

It was observed that some game modes include competitive ‘player versus player’ (PvP) elements, further promoting the illusion of control. In PvP wheel of fortune games, players can influence the outcome by placing larger bets, which theoretically increases the size of their segment on the wheel. The belief that a larger stake provides a greater chance of winning reinforces the sense of control, even though the outcome is ultimately random. Similarly, battle games, where players wager skins against each other, allow participants to pick different cases or odds for their bets. This creates the illusion that choosing a ‘better’ case or more favourable odds will increase their likelihood of success, when the results are governed by the same random chance. Similarly, in loot box openings, the game’s animations, such as spinning reels or slow-revealing items, give players the illusion that they can influence the outcome through timing or intuition.

Furthermore, in jackpot games, players contribute skins to a shared pot, and their chances of winning are proportional to the amount they wager. While players may feel that contributing more skins gives them greater control over the outcome, the game remains a random lottery where the only difference is the statistical weighting of larger contributions. The belief that a higher stake results in a greater chance of winning can encourage higher-risk behaviour, but this is simply a reflection of odds, not an actual influence on the outcome.

In all of these cases, skins gambling games exploit cognitive biases, particularly the illusion of control, that may enhance player engagement and prolong gambling sessions. Players may overestimate their ability to influence outcomes, leading to increased risk-taking, impulsivity, and the belief that their decisions have a direct impact on the result. This psychological effect could contribute to further participation but can also increase the potential for gambling-related harm because individuals become more convinced of their ability to ‘beat’ the system despite the inherent randomness of the games. 

This appears to be in part perpetuated by social media. Upon a cursory review of the social media platforms Reddit and YouTube, it was found that there are several discussion threads and many videos promoting various ‘strategies’ for playing mines games. Collectively, these videos have amassed several million views and appear to offer guidance on optimising gameplay, often suggesting specific patterns or techniques to enhance chances of success. However, it is important to note that these strategies are based on the belief in controlling or predicting outcomes, despite the random nature of the game mechanics.

3.7 Promotional strategies and marketing

All 20 of the audited websites had some form of deposit bonus code and/or ‘free’ case opening rewards available. Seventeen of the 20 sites (85%) had an active affiliate programme. Several promotional strategies were identified designed to encourage prolonged, more intense engagement, and additional deposits.

3.7.1 Social proof

Social proof refers to the psychological phenomenon where individuals are influenced by the actions and behaviours of others, often believing that if others are participating or endorsing something, it must be legitimate or beneficial (Cialdini, 2009). A common tactic across all sites was displaying recent wins and/or live bets, as well as giving players the option to have their ‘top wins/top case openings’ made public. Seventeen of 20 platforms (85%) prominently displayed large and ‘lucky’ wins on their homepages, which arguably create the false impression that big wins were more frequent than they actually were. Twelve sites (60%) provided live community chats, which may foster a sense of excitement and social proof.

It was found that five sites (25%) had a leaderboard system, whereby those players that had wagered the most within a set period of time would appear on an honours board accompanied by their corresponding monetary reward. This leverages the principles of social comparison and competition, both of which are well-documented psychological drivers of behaviour. Research has shown that individuals are highly motivated by the desire for social validation and recognition, especially in competitive environments. According to Festinger’s social comparison theory (1954), individuals have an innate drive to compare themselves with others, which influences their behaviour and self-evaluation. 

Velez et al.’s (2018) research on competition and motivation in gaming suggests that public recognition of achievements on a leaderboard can be highly motivating for individuals who are driven by intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. For players motivated by external validation, seeing their names on the honours board serves as an extrinsic reward, encouraging continued participation and higher wagers in an effort to remain visible or climb the rankings. Recent research has suggested an association between external motivations, such as external rewards or social status, and problem gambling severity. This relationship was mediated by intensity of microtransaction use (Gibson et al., 2024). This cycle can escalate gambling behaviour, as players strive to maintain or improve their standings, often leading to greater risks and larger wagers. 

Seventeen platforms (85%) also employed affiliate marketing strategies, offering users incentives for recruiting new players through referral links or codes. These affiliate programmes often rewarded users with a percentage of the referred players’ deposits or wagers (usually 3% to 5%, but up to 45%), further incentivising the promotion of gambling to others. This practice contributes to the normalisation of gambling and the potential for harmful gambling behaviours to spread within social circles. It was found that one site provided free access to banners and static ads promoting the website to share on social media. 

According to a 2024 report by Barron’s (Devor, 2024), a significant proportion of gaming streamers are sponsored by skins gambling sites. It highlighted that 120 out of the top 300 Counter-Strike live-streamers on Twitch had sponsorships with at least one skins gambling platforms, representing 40% of the top 300 streamers. An investigation by the popular YouTube channel Houngoungagne found that 80% of Counter-Strike streamers on YouTube had been sponsored by or promoted skins gambling sites since 2023. While Twitch and YouTube have both introduced policies aimed at restricting or prohibiting promotion of certain gambling content, particularly involving unlicensed operators, the enforcement and interpretation of these rules can vary. The continued prevalence of such sponsorships may reflect ongoing grey areas and jurisdictional challenges in platform moderation. Regardless of policy, the visibility of skins gambling promotions among streamers remains a notable feature of the gaming content ecosystem.

Through conducting this review, it was also noted that several esports teams have partnered with skins gambling and traditional betting websites, raising ethical concerns about their influence on young audiences. Notably, G2 Esports partnered with CSGORoll, an offshore skins gambling site, featuring promotional content with player Ilya “m0NESY” Osipov (Devor, 2024). FaZe Clan had a sponsorship deal with DraftKings, integrating betting services into their content (Saleh, 2021). Similarly, Ninjas in Pyjamas (NiP) is sponsored by Betway, a global gambling company, while ENCE collaborates with Rivalry, an esports-focused betting platform (Egamersworld, 2023). These partnerships highlight the growing intersection between esports and gambling (Mangat et al., 2024), prompting debates over their potential impact on player behaviour and underage gambling exposure.

3.7.2 ‘Levelling-up’ reward systems

Out of the 20 websites reviewed, 12 (60%) had a ‘levelling-up’ or ‘XP’ reward system that incentivises user activity and wagering on their platforms. These systems reward users for website activity and wagering with experience points (XP) to achieve levels, that in turn lead to being able to claim free rewards of increasing value, such as case openings. Five websites (25%) incorporated a system of daily missions or tasks which further ties rewards to continuous site activity such as depositing and wagering, as well as website promotion. For example, daily missions involved having players enabling push notifications, changing their public Steam account name to include the name of the skins gambling website, and/or engaging with the sites wider social media channels. By structuring engagement in this manner, platforms create a cycle where users are incentivised to keep participating, often by promising increasingly valuable rewards as users progress through levels or accumulate XP.

3.7.3 Free/demo spins

All 20 websites audited (100%) offered demo spins or free spin modes, allowing users to engage with gambling mechanics without wagering real money or skins. Of note, on 95% of the sites, these were found to be accessible prior to account sign-up. These modes are often positioned as a way for players to familiarise themselves with game mechanics, but they may also serve as a promotional tool to encourage real-money participation. Research on gambling psychology suggests that exposure to free-play gambling can increase perceived skill, overconfidence, and a distorted sense of winning probabilities, leading to increased likelihood of real-money gambling (King & Delfabbro, 2019). Moreover, since demo modes often provide higher-than-average pay-out rates compared to real wagers, they may create a misleading impression of profitability, reinforcing the illusion of control and encouraging users to transition to real betting (Armstrong et al., 2018). Anecdotally, during the audit process, it was found that engaging in demo loot box openings (which simulate a slot machine spin) frequently landed on higher-value skins far more than would normally be expected. These features align with broader gambling industry practices, where free-play experiences act as a soft onboarding mechanism, reducing risk aversion and normalising gambling behaviours (Griffiths, 2012).

3.7.4 Promotional events

In conducting this review, the researchers identified past promotional events that may appeal to underage users. For example, one website had previously created the ‘Back to School’ event that aligns with the academic calendar, potentially attracting school-aged individuals. Additionally, all 20 platforms reviewed frequently utilised themes and language that resonate with younger audiences, such as incorporating gaming terminology familiar to minors. Examples include ‘Level Up’, ‘Epic Loot’, ‘Unlock Rewards’, and ‘Daily Quests’, which are commonly associated with popular videogames and can create a sense of familiarity. This ease of access, combined with targeted promotional strategies, raises concerns about the exposure of minors to gambling activities as well as the harms associated with underage gambling.

3.8 Deposit methods, withdrawals, and layered currency

3.8.1 Depositing

In addition to the depositing of skins, the majority of sites supported a wide range of payment methods, including traditional options such as credit and debit cards, e-wallets, cryptocurrencies, and even gift cards that are available to purchase from several high street and online retailers. All 20 sites (100%) reviewed accepted skins as a deposit option. Nineteen sites (95%) accepted cash deposits that could be made via credit/debit cards, PayPal, Google Pay, Apple Pay and a variety of other e-wallets. Nineteen sites (95%) accepted a wide range of crypto assets as a deposit method, with the most common being Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, Tron, Tether, USDC, Dogecoin, XRP, and Litecoin. Nine sites (45%) supported the use of gift cards as a deposit option. No sites provided explicit restrictions on deposit limits.

3.8.2 Withdrawals

While deposits were easy to make, none of the sites explicitly outlined cashout limits, which raises concerns over potential delays or restrictions when players attempt to withdraw their funds. Some sites mentioned minimum withdrawal levels, particularly for cryptocurrency, but a lack of transparency could make it difficult for users to understand the rules surrounding cashouts.

Withdrawal methods as a whole were much more restrictive. The most popular withdrawal method permitted was skins, permitted on all 20 sites. This was followed by crypto assets, available as a withdrawal method on 14 sites (70%). Less common was allowing the account balance to be transferred to third-party case-opening vendors, that contained real-world items, which was found on two sites (10%). This method resembles the ‘Pachinko workaround’ which refers to a method used to bypass gambling regulations in Japan. Pachinko (a popular arcade-style game) operates in a legal grey area. Pachinko parlours, which are technically considered amusement centres rather than casinos, allow players to exchange tokens or prizes won in the game for goods, which are then redeemed for cash at a separate, unregulated establishment. Two sites (10%) permitted the instant sale of skins for cash, but this was credited to the account balance rather than being made available for withdrawal. One website promoted that a gift card withdrawal method was ‘coming soon’.

3.8.3 Layered currency

There was a prevalence of layered currency systems, where players’ skins or deposits were converted to in-site currencies, such as ‘scrap’, ‘gems’, or website-specific ‘coins’. This was found on 14 of the 20 websites audited (70%). These intermediary currencies introduce an additional layer of abstraction between the player and the monetary value of their actions. Importantly, the conversion rate is not 1:1, meaning that the value of real money becomes obfuscated.

Such abstraction mechanisms have been shown to impair users’ ability to track spending and accurately evaluate losses and gains, a phenomenon particularly pronounced among children and adolescents, who are still developing financial literacy and numeracy skills. Research on digital and virtual currencies suggests that these systems can decrease the psychological salience of spending, leading to reduced impulse control and increased expenditure (Drummond & Sauer, 2018; King et al., 2010). This mirrors the concerns raised in traditional gambling contexts where using chips or tokens (instead of cash) has been found to increase betting intensity and risk-taking behaviour (Dixon et al., 2010) or the amount of money wagered (Lapuz & Griffiths, 2010).

Furthermore, these layered currencies cannot be easily reconverted back into real-world value, which can give users a distorted impression of their potential winnings. This undermines informed decision-making and increases the risk of both over-engagement and financial harm, particularly among vulnerable groups such as children and individuals with gambling problems.

Systematic Literature Review

4.1 Section summary

This chapter synthesises the findings from a systematic review of the academic literature regarding skins gambling. After employing the search strategy and inclusion criteria, as outlined in the Chapter 1, a total of 24 studies were included in the review (see Appendix C for a summary table). The existing literature on skins gambling illustrates the increasingly blurred boundaries between videogame playing and gambling. Across a range of studies, skins gambling emerged as both a widespread and psychologically consequential phenomenon, particularly among adolescents and young adults.

Several studies reported a consistent association between skins gambling and problem gambling symptomatology. Notably, multiple studies found that skins gambling significantly predicts at-risk and problem gambling behaviours even when controlling for involvement in traditional or monetary gambling. This association was consistent across both general skins gambling and esports-specific skins betting, although the former appears more strongly associated with gambling severity. Longitudinal data further confirms that skin gambling is not only associated with but predictive of sustained gambling-related harm over time.

Adolescents and emerging adults appear particularly vulnerable. Research with adolescent samples highlights that skins gamblers often report lower wellbeing, a greater likelihood of having internet gaming disorder (IGD), and increased engagement in other forms of monetary gambling. Other findings demonstrate that skins gambling is highly prevalent among 11–16-year-olds, especially males, and is often their first point of contact with gambling-like behaviours. While some studies suggested that skins gambling does not independently predict gambling harm when monetary gambling is accounted for, the convergence between these behaviours raises concerns about gateway or reciprocal gateway pathways into broader gambling involvement.

The research demonstrated that skins gamblers tend to be more heavily involved in esports either as players or spectators. Motivation studies show that individuals gamble with skins to enhance their esports viewing experience, to compete, or to gain financial or status-related rewards. Notably, motivations centred around financial gain or emotional regulation were consistently associated with increased rates and severity of gambling harms.

The structural and regulatory environment also plays a key role. Games hosted on platforms such as Valve’s Steam allowed for item trading through open APIs (application programming interfaces), effectively transforming virtual cosmetic items into quasi-currency. Despite technical violations of terms of service, these practices remain largely unregulated and, in some cases, monetarily beneficial to game developers. Furthermore, some platforms and third-party websites exploit legal loopholes by prohibiting cash-outs while still offering gambling-like mechanics with high-stakes value in skins. However, the GB Gambling Commission (2017) has clarified that such models would typically still be considered illegal, even when the cash-out function is externalised to a separate site, effectively closing this perceived loophole in the GB context.

Cultural context appeared to be an important factor because in some regions, such as India, societal and familial perceptions of gambling act as a deterrent, although competitive esports play still encourages skin gambling among some subgroups. Conversely, in jurisdictions such as China, regulatory grey areas have allowed skin gambling to persist at scale, despite attempts at oversight.

Importantly, skins gambling does not occur in isolation. It often co-occurs with loot box engagement, esports betting, and other digital gambling practices. Several studies suggest pathways in which simulated gambling and loot box purchasing precede or feed into skins gambling. This pattern of sequential engagement aligns with concerns regarding a normalisation of gambling through videogame mechanics and media exposure, particularly in environments where loot boxes and skin gambling are embedded seamlessly into game economies.

In sum, the empirical literature indicates that skins gambling is both prevalent and harmful, particularly among young males engaged with esports and digital games. It appears to be part of a broader ecosystem of gamified practices that promote and reinforce risk-taking behaviour. Skins gambling is consistently associated with gambling problems even when controlling for more traditional forms of betting, and it raises important questions about regulation, age verification, and the design of digital gaming environments.

4.2 Skins gambling within the spectrum of videogame-related gambling

Skins gambling is best conceptualised not as a standalone phenomenon but as a behaviour deeply embedded within the broader ecology of videogame playing. It often co-occurs with other gambling-like practices native to gaming environments, including loot box purchasing, esports betting, and virtual item trading. These activities share overlapping structural and psychological features, such as variable rewards, perceived skill involvement, and digital asset valuation, that may mutually reinforce each other. Together, they represent a convergence of gaming and gambling mechanics that blurs traditional boundaries and contributes to a cumulative risk profile.

While most research supports this integration, some nuances complicate the picture. For example, Macey et al. (2021) found no significant association between time spent playing videogames and engagement in skins gambling. They attributed this finding in part to the increasing ability to obtain skins outside of gameplay environments through third-party marketplaces enabled by application programming interfaces (APIs). This suggests that although skins originate in games, their use for gambling has evolved into a quasi-autonomous ecosystem that can operate independently of direct game engagement.

Nonetheless, the broader body of empirical evidence reinforces the view that videogame playing remains a central gateway into skins gambling. Greer et al. (2023) demonstrated that individuals who purchase skins, typically acquired within or for videogames, are significantly more likely to gamble with them in games of chance. Similarly, Hing et al. (2022) found that individuals who wager skins on esports events exhibited psychological profiles and gambling behaviours comparable to those betting with real money, indicating that both groups may be part of a broader class of digitally-mediated gamblers shaped by gaming culture.

Demographic data further reinforces the integration of skins gambling within the broader spectrum of videogame-related gambling. Studies by Coloma-Carmona et al. (2024) and Macey and Hamari (2019) identified younger males as the demographic most commonly involved in gambling activities that emerge from gaming environments, including loot boxes, esports betting, and skins gambling. This group often displays cognitive distortions, such as an inflated sense of control or belief in personal skill influencing random outcomes, biases that are frequently nurtured in competitive gaming settings. Notably, these individuals also reported elevated levels of gambling-related harm compared to those engaged in more traditional gambling forms. These demographic patterns not only highlight the risks associated with gaming-related gambling, but also underscore how videogames serve as a key entry point and risk amplifier for skins gambling.

While the transactional infrastructure surrounding skins may increasingly operate outside of core gaming platforms, the motivations, acquisition pathways, and user profiles associated with skins gambling remain strongly rooted in videogame engagement. Far from being an isolated or anomalous behaviour, skins gambling occupies a central and high-risk position within a broader constellation of gambling activities tied to gaming ecosystems. As such, it represents a significant point of concern for those examining the intersections of gaming, gambling, and public health.

4.3 Pathways to skin gambling: Loot boxes and simulated gambling

Understanding how individuals arrive at skins gambling is key to identifying potential points of intervention. A growing body of evidence indicates that many users first experience gambling-like activities through engagement with loot boxes, broadly characterised by randomised reward mechanisms that are frequently embedded within popular videogames. Despite acknowledged similarities to gambling, Loot boxes are not considered gambling in a legal sense in most jurisdictions, including the UK, where it was determined that the prize does not normally have real-world monetary value outside of the game, and its primary utility is to enhance the in-game experience (DCMS, 2022). 

Loot boxes mirror many structural features of traditional gambling, including variable ratio reinforcement and the excitement of random rewards (Griffiths, 2018). However, this similarity is more than cosmetic, with longitudinal research and self-report data suggesting that loot box engagement may serve as a gateway to more explicit forms of gambling, including betting with skins. 

Hing et al. (2024), Macey and Hamari (2019), and Russell et al. (2023) all report significant correlations between loot box purchasing and later involvement in skin gambling, implying a developmental progression from one to the other. For example, Macey and Hamari (2019) found that 121 (of 177) respondents who purchased loot boxes also reported using skins to gamble. Of those who did not pay to open loot boxes (n = 13), three reported using the skins obtained from free loot boxes to gamble. This suggests a potentially cascading effect following loot box purchase (i.e., loot boxes are purchased to obtain skins with the purpose of using skins as wagers).

Simulated gambling games, which mimic gambling mechanics without involving real money or items (King et al., 2010), may also prime users for later engagement in skin gambling. These games, often presented as harmless entertainment, have been shown to increase familiarity with gambling concepts and desensitise players to risk, thereby creating the conditions for future gambling-related behaviours (King et al., 2014). When combined with the appeal of owning rare or valuable digital items, these mechanisms can create a powerful motivational incentive that attracts users into the gambling ecosystem.

4.4 Skins gambling and esports engagement

Esports has rapidly grown into a global entertainment phenomenon, engaging hundreds of millions of viewers worldwide and generating billions in revenue. In 2025, the global esports audience is estimated to surpass 640 million people, comprising both dedicated fans and casual viewers (DemandSage, 2025). Major tournaments such as the 2024 League of Legends World Championship held at The O2 Arena in London attracted millions of concurrent viewers and sold out the arena’s capacity. Similarly, popular esports titles like CS:GO and Fortnite regularly draw millions of viewers to their championship events, illustrating the wide-reaching appeal of competitive gaming (Escharts, 2025). This rapid expansion, fuelled by sponsorships and media deals, has positioned esports as a central pillar of modern digital entertainment (GlobeNewswire, 2025).

A prominent finding in recent literature is the strong relationship between skins gambling and esports participation. Esports titles such as Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (CS:GO), Dota 2, and Team Fortress 2, are frequently cited as the most popular games associated with skins gambling. However, the fact these specific games are frequently associated with skins gambling is not coincidental, given that they are also among the most prominent in the global esports scene. 

To highlight this relationship, in Macey and Hamari’s (2018) investigation into the relationships between video game playing, spectating esports, and gambling, the overall findings suggest that engagement with video game playing did not have a large relationship with video game-related gambling. Rather, it was esports consumption that had the largest relationship with video game - related gambling. Other research supports this relationship, with Greer et al. (2023) finding that esports skins betting was significantly correlated with skins gambling frequency.

Although the study focused on esports gambling more generally and not via the use of skins, Greer et al. (2021) found that despite both esports gamblers and traditional sports gamblers being mostly male, there was a greater representation of females among esports gamblers than among sports gamblers. Esports bettors were, on average, significantly younger than sports bettors, more likely to have a university degree, be employed (both part-time and full-time) and speak a language other than English. The study also highlighted key associations between esports betting and traditional gambling, with 98% of esports gamblers reporting having participated in at least one traditional form of gambling in the previous 12 months. On average, scores on the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) were higher for esports bettors (M = 10.03, SD = 6.59) than sports bettors (M = 3.70, SD = 4.91), with 64.8% of esports bettors meeting the criteria for problem gambling. 

Wardle et al. (2020) found that esports bettors (including those that bet with skins), compared to non-gamblers, were more likely to be male (74% vs. 49%), older (78% aged 20-24 vs 63%), from non-white/white British ethnic groups (26% vs. 17%), living in more deprived areas (33% vs 20%), to be a student (59% vs. 42%) and have higher impulsivity scores. The study also found that paying to open loot boxes and betting for skins either privately or on external websites were more strongly associated with being an esports bettor. This relationship may reflect that esports bettors are more likely to engage in video game-related gambling activities, or that esports betting leads to engagement in gambling-like practices.

Moreover, Hing et al. (2022) found that playing and watching esports games was a predictor of participation in esports betting, especially skins betting. The findings also indicated that past-month esports skins bettors were more likely to report higher impulsivity levels than those who had not recently engaged in skins betting. 

Esports fandom often brings with it increased exposure to desirable digital items, particularly weapon skins, which are used to customise the appearance of in-game avatars or equipment. Macey et al. (2021) argue that for many users, the primary route to acquiring such skins is not through direct purchase but through gambling. This dynamic creates incentives for fans to engage in skin gambling as a way of keeping up with peers or enhancing their own virtual prestige. Moreover, the social and competitive context of esports may amplify the appeal of skin gambling. As players and viewers strive to differentiate themselves in an increasingly saturated digital environment, owning rare or desired skins becomes a marker of status and expertise (Macey & Hamari, 2018). This, in turn, encourages a culture of consumption and risk-taking that feeds into the skin gambling economy.

4.5 Demographic and psychological correlates of skins gambling

Corroborating the findings of the website analytics data provided in Chapter 2, a consistent finding in the available literature demonstrates that skins gambling is disproportionately common among younger males, particularly adolescents and young adults. Survey research from the GB Gambling Commission (2024), Parent Zone (2018), and the Royal Society for Public Health (2019) all indicated that awareness and participation in skin gambling are widespread, even in jurisdictions where such activities are illegal or unregulated. This is of particular concern given that early exposure to gambling-like behaviours is a known risk factor for the development of future gambling problems (Derevensky et al., 2004). For example, the Royal Society for Public Health (2019) found that individuals aged 11–14 years were more than twice as likely to engage in skins gambling as those aged 22–24 years. 

Such findings suggest that skin gambling may be introducing gambling behaviours to children at an earlier age than previously observed. Wardle (2019) reported that past-month rates of skins betting rose with age among minors, from 4% for those aged 11-12 years to 7% for those aged 15-16 years. Gambling on other activities did not vary significantly by age. The study showed that skins gambling was the most popular gambling activity among boys, but one of the least popular among girls. Skins gambling did not vary significantly by ethnicity, self-reported academic performance or receipt of free school meals. 

Similarly, a study of Australian adults identified several demographic (distal) risk factors that significantly predicted greater levels of gambling harm were being younger, male, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, speaking a language other than English at home, being less well-educated and being single (Tulloch et al., 2024). The study was a focus on gambling behaviours more widely, but did include skins gamblers within the sample, which was identified as one of the most significant predictors of elevated gambling harm. 

On a psychological level, skin gambling has been associated with lower levels of well-being, increased symptoms of internet gaming disorder, and cognitive distortions related to luck and control. Studies by Hing et al. (2021) and Wardle (2019) suggest that these psychological vulnerabilities may not only predict skin gambling involvement but may also be exacerbated by it, creating a feedback loop of escalating harm.

4.6 Motivations and social influences

Research indicates that both intrinsic motivations, such as desire for excitement or prestige, and extrinsic motivations from peer norms and cultural narratives around gaming and success, create motivations for skins gambling engagement. Snodgrass et al. (2024) found that esports competitors in particular, often engage in skin gambling to acquire rare or high-status items, which confer both symbolic and practical advantages (e.g., increased visibility and team cohesion) in the gaming world.

This desire for prestige is often reinforced by peer groups and online communities, where rare skins are admired and emulated. According to the Royal Society for Public Health (2019), many adolescents perceive skins gambling as normalised within their social circles, which can reduce perceived risks and increase participation. Their findings suggested that 67% of young people agree that it is normal for peers to take part in skin gambling. In effect, skins gambling becomes not just a personal behaviour, but a socially endorsed practice embedded within the wider culture of competitive gaming. Wider research has indicated that extrinsic motivations can exacerbate the relationship between gambling engagement and problematic gambling behaviour (Gibson et al., 2024).

Research has shown subtle differences in motivational structures when comparing esports skins betting and other forms of skins gambling with esports cash betting. Greer et al. (2023) found that the most endorsed motivation for esports skin betting and other forms of skins gambling was enhancement (e.g., to enhance the viewing experience and excitement associated with viewing esports). This was followed by motivations for skin acquisition (e.g., to win skins for their collection, to win skins to exchange for other skins, to win skins to use in videogame play), financial (e.g., to win money, to win skins to exchange for money) and competition/challenge motives (e.g., to compete with others, for the challenge). This differed slightly for esports cash betting, where the highest endorsement was for financial motives, followed by enhancement, and competition/challenge. 

Furthermore, the research has highlighted that motivations such as using gambling to manage mood or to escape from problems are strongly associated with gambling-related harm. Greer et al. (2023) found that individuals who gamble with skins for these reasons tend to score higher on measures of problem gambling and are more likely to experience adverse outcomes. Higher financial motivation scores also predicted greater gambling-related harm for skins gambling only. These findings underscore the need to distinguish between recreational and risk-laden motivations when assessing harm.

4.7 Associated harms and problem gambling severity

Across the literature, a consistent theme is that skins gambling is associated with traditional monetary gambling and elevated problem gambling severity. For example, Russell et al. (2023), found that lifetime engagement with simulated gambling forms (except free loot boxes) was associated with monetary gambling engagement during the lifetime, within the past 12 months, and gambling harms and problems. Engaging in free loot box use was not associated with any gambling behaviour, problems or harm outcomes, even when controlling for monetary comparisons. Those who took part in skins gambling were more likely to engage in free loot box use, playing videogames with gambling content, and loot box purchasing first. 

Tulloch et al. (2024) identified a range of risk factors that significantly predicted greater levels of harm, which included more frequent participation in skins gambling, loot box purchasing, and esports betting. Other risk factors included more frequent participation in electronic gaming machine (EGM) gambling, sports betting, and horse race betting. Skins gambling and loot box purchasing were identified as among the most harmful forms of gambling (with EGMs, poker, race betting, sports betting and scratch-cards), even when controlling for demographic factors.

Multiple studies, spanning different age groups, national contexts, and research methodologies, report that individuals who engage in skins gambling tend to score significantly higher on validated measures of gambling harm and dependence (Coloma-Carmona et al., 2024; Hing et al., 2022; Macey & Hamari, 2019). Greer et al. (2021) found that among esports bettors, more frequent esports skins betting and skins gambling on other games of chance were significant predictors of problem gambling assessed using the PGSI. 

Qualitative research by Hing et al. (2024) found that among an at-risk/problem gamblers sample (n = 34), 53% had bet using skins in the previous 12 months. Of the non-problem gambler sample (n = 41), only 12% had bet using skins in the previous 12 months. Among skins gamblers, it was found that in later adolescence, at-risk/problem gamblers reported escalating their gambling from scratch-cards to higher-risk forms of gambling, including sports betting and skins gambling. During adolescence, most participants had engaged with simulated gambling through gaming activities and social interactions, with some beginning to spend real money on loot boxes. While non-gambler and non-problem gamblers in the sample reported experiencing little interest in monetary gambling as a result of simulated gambling, at-risk/problem gamblers described how simulated gambling had increased their interest in monetary gambling, with some drawing connections between their simulated gambling and harmful excessive skins gambling. When looking at current gamblers only, Wardle and Tipping (2023) found that past-year gambling with skins was significantly related to having higher PGSI scores. Skins betting had the strongest relationship to PGSI scores, increasing scores by a factor of 2.32.

In their study examining gambling motivations for esports cash betting, esports skins betting, and skins gambling, Greer et al. (2023) found that 30.6% of esports skins bettors were problem gamblers and 27.8% were moderate-risk gamblers. Moreover, 33.8% of skins gamblers were problem gamblers and 30.2% were moderate risk gamblers. By comparison, 29.3% of esports cash bettors were problem gamblers, with 30% being moderate-risk gamblers. Counter to the general findings from the literature more widely, this study found that neither the frequency of skins gambling nor frequency of esports skins betting significantly predicted greater frequency of individual traditional gambling activities. In fact, higher levels of skins gambling were associated with lower frequency of monetary sports betting. One of the most striking findings from this study was that when factoring an individual’s involvement in all gambling activities, only three activities significantly contributed to both being a high at-risk gambler and experiencing gambling-related harm. These were skins gambling on games of chance, electronic gaming machines, and sports betting.

Greer et al’s. (2023) findings also suggest that those who bet on esports with skins and those who gamble with skins on games of chance may represent behaviourally and psychologically distinct subgroups, with differing pathways to harm. The most robust finding was that engaging in skins gambling on games of chance was uniquely associated with elevated risk of problem gambling (as assessed using the PGSI) and greater experience of gambling-related harms, even after accounting for involvement in traditional gambling activities. 

Notably, this association did not hold for esports betting using skins, suggesting a meaningful distinction between these forms of gambling. In other words, it was the use of skins as a currency for chance-based gambling, rather than for esports skins wagering, that was more strongly associated with gambling harm. The authors proposed two plausible explanations for this pattern. First, skins may function as a readily accessible and psychologically less salient form of currency, allowing individuals, particularly younger players, to gamble in ways that contribute to harm. Second, the structural design of games of chance involving skins mirrors that of high-risk gambling products such as casino table games or electronic gaming machines (EGMs), which are characterised by features such as rapid event frequency, near misses, and the potential for continuous play. Such features are all known to facilitate loss-chasing and impaired control (Parke & Griffiths, 2007). In contrast, esports betting, whether using skins or cash, typically involves discrete outcomes with natural breaks between wagers, potentially limiting the opportunity for escalation.

The majority of evidence indicates that the relationship between skins gambling and problem gambling severity persists even when controlling for involvement in other forms of gambling. This suggests that skins gambling is not simply a by-product of broader gambling engagement, but may represent a distinct risk factor in its own right. For instance, Wardle and Tipping (2023) found that the association between skins gambling and problem gambling remained stable over time, strengthening the case for a potentially causal link. However, findings are not entirely uniform. In an earlier study, Wardle (2019) reported that when accounting for other gambling behaviours, skins gambling alone was not significantly associated with being classified as an at-risk gambler. Instead, it was the combination of skins gambling with other gambling activities that raised concern. This implies that the co-occurrence of multiple gambling behaviours may compound risk, particularly among children and adolescents.

Taken together, the evidence suggests that while skins gambling often occurs alongside other forms of gambling, it cannot be dismissed as merely a proxy for general gambling involvement. Rather, it appears to function as both a marker of more extensive gambling activity and a potential independent contributor to harm. However, the extent of harm is still a subject of debate. While some studies report high levels of self-reported harm associated with skins gambling, the picture may be more nuanced, with harm varying based on age, motivational factors, and patterns of use. Nonetheless, the weight of evidence points towards skins gambling as a behaviour deserving of regulatory scrutiny and public health attention.

4.8 Platform dynamics facilitating skins gambling

Some of the literature reviewed highlights that not all games that include skins are equal (Thorhauge & Nielsen, 2021; Xiao & Henderson, 2024). Some, where the platforms have an ‘open market’ where items, including skins, can be traded or sold enable greater and unregulated access to skins gambling. This changes the nature of skins, whereby skins become currency or have financial value. Virtual items that can be traded, sold or gambled can be classed as ‘money’s worth’, and therefore constitute gambling in Britain (Gambling Commission, 2016; 2017). Valve and the Steam platform are highlighted in the literature as a concern, due to Steam’s application programming interface (API), the popularity of particular Valve games, their involvement in esports (particularly CS:GO, Dota2, and Team Fortress 2) and Valve’s financial gain from skins gambling. 

A study conducted by Xiao and Henderson (2024) examining 165 Steam platform games found that 36 (21.8%) were identified as containing transferable loot boxes, whose content was also transferable. One of the 36 entries was not identified as a ‘game’ but was Steam’s ‘meta’ trading card feature (users purchase digital trading cards with real-world money which can be transferred between users, and possess real-world monetary value). None of the 35 game entries were marked with loot box presence warning labels, and only one of these games (Killing Floor 2) had warning label following a longitudinal follow-up. The games were numbered by position on the Steam Community Market page. The top entries that included transferable content were: CS:GO (including CS 2), Dota 2, Killing Floor 2, PUBG (PlayerUnknown’s Battleground), Rust, Steam platform’s trading card feature, Team Fortress 2, and Unturned.

The ability to access third-party skins gambling websites is of particular concern for those under the age of 18 years (Parent Zone, 2018), due to the lack of age verification involved. Some popular games available on Valve’s Steam platform that include transferrable content (CS:GO, Dota2, PUBG, Team Fortress 2) do not have loot box presence labels, meaning parents may not be aware of the accessibility of skins gambling to children from these games (Xiao & Henderson, 2024). One study (Zhang, 2023) highlights that some third-party websites utilise loopholes in law or policy to bypass regulations, including being connected to the esports industry, operating under the guise of community or forums, or by only allowing for virtual assets to be cashed out (rather than currency), regardless of perceived value of the items.

Scoping Review of Regulation

5.1 Section summary

This chapter provides an overview of current international policies and regulatory approaches toward skins gambling. Drawing on responses from academic experts across over 50 countries, the chapter highlights the largely unregulated status of skins gambling globally and underscores the fragmented, inconsistent, and nascent nature of policy development in this area.

The majority of respondents indicated that skin gambling remains largely unaddressed in national legislation. In most jurisdictions, gambling laws either pre-date the emergence of digital wagering practices or focus more broadly on loot boxes and other forms of simulated gambling. Regulatory recognition of skin gambling is uncommon, with most countries lacking specific legal definitions or frameworks.

Notable exceptions include Australia, where a federal parliamentary inquiry recommended classifying skins betting as gambling and called for a national awareness campaign; Denmark, which applies a functional definition of gambling based on value, chance, and the opportunity to win, using web crawlers to block unauthorised sites; Sweden, (where similar to GB) regulatory enforcement actions have been taken against skins betting platforms operating without a licence; and France, which has highlighted the need to protect minors from gambling-like mechanics embedded in videogames. Other countries such as Finland, Norway, and Poland have acknowledged the issue within broader conversations about loot boxes and online harms, but without direct legislative consequences for skins gambling itself.

In Brazil, Spain, and Poland, regulation remains limited, with skins gambling falling outside existing definitions of gambling or lacking political will for reform. Conversely, Turkey maintains strict criminal prohibitions on all forms of unauthorised gambling, although enforcement mechanisms for digital forms such as skins betting remain ambiguous. 

The Gambling Commission (GC) has acknowledged the risks associated with skins betting, particularly its appeal to children, but maintains that its remit is limited where in-game items are not formally exchangeable for money or prizes. This has left enforcement efforts focused largely on unlicensed third-party operators.  However, recent DCMS-led developments, such as the Ukie-agreed loot box principles, demonstrate that games companies themselves are beginning to take more responsibility. These principles include commitments to “continue to tackle the unauthorised external sale of items acquired from Paid Loot Boxes for real money, and to invest in IP protection to combat such activity (Ukie, 2023). 

Despite growing academic and public concern, regulatory responses to skins betting remain fragmented and limited. Most jurisdictions lack targeted legislation, leaving skins gambling to exist in legal grey areas. Where action has been taken, it tends to repurpose existing gambling or consumer protection laws, often without explicitly addressing the unique mechanics of skins economies.

Key recommendations include recognising the monetary value of skins, enforcing robust age restrictions, enhancing cross-sector collaboration, and proactively monitoring unlicensed operators. Without coherent and forward-looking policy, the convergence of gaming and gambling risks outpacing the capacity of existing frameworks to protect consumers, particularly young and vulnerable users.

5.2 International regulation and policies on skins betting

To gather information on skins gambling policies around the world, 53 academics in the gambling studies field were initially contacted and asked to provide any information they had regarding the regulation of skins gambling in their respective countries. Information was sought in the following countries: Albania, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Gibraltar, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Ukraine, and USA. Some of these academics then provided other people to contact to gain further information. 

The vast majority of those contacted said that they were unaware of any policies, regulation or legislation regarding skins gambling in their respective countries. Most of the limited information received related more to loot boxes rather than skins gambling (e.g., Canada, Czech Republic, Slovakia). The Netherlands and Belgium have classified loot boxes (often associated with skins betting), as gambling. This has led to major changes in how such games are sold and operated in these countries (Dineen, 2024). Most noted that skins gambling was not a topic that had been discussed or researched in their jurisdiction, and that skins gambling and the buying of loot boxes was not covered in their gambling legislation. The response received from Brazil was typical of the information received. Regulation of gambling in Brazil has been evolving, particularly with the recent legalization of sports betting and ongoing discussions about broader gambling regulations. However, skins gambling remains a grey area, largely unregulated and not explicitly covered in existing laws. The main regulatory body overseeing gambling-related matters is the Secretaria de Prêmios e Apostas (SPA) under the Ministry of Finance, but their focus has been primarily on more traditional forms of betting.

In Australia, there was a parliamentary inquiry into online gambling and its impacts on problem gamblers, following a referral from the Minister for Social Services, the Hon Amanda Rishworth MP. A report was published by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs (2023). One of the chapters in the final report (‘Simulated gambling and gambling-like activities’) raised concerns about ‘skins betting’ because it was a popular activity among underaged young people and allowed them to gamble for money on websites that did not enforce age restrictions. A key concern that was raised was that      third party websites allowing      virtual items to be gambled were operating in breach of Australia’s gambling laws. The committee concluded that skins betting websites were ‘gambling services’ and should be regulated under Australian gambling laws. In the report, it was recommended that (i) there should be a public information campaign across all media platforms to educate parents, caregivers, teachers and young people on all elements of simulated gambling including “loot boxes, skins, gambling with virtual currency, chance based microtransactions and emergent features” (Recommendation 27), and (ii) the Australian government should convene a working group “to develop and implement minimum consumer protections for interactive games and make suggestions for legislative mechanisms to implement tighter controls on simulated gambling and its advertising” (Recommendation 30). Here, special note was given to skins betting because it is an activity that is “occurring at the interface between games that are largely marketed towards young people and the black market for online gambling, where operators may have links to organised crime and money laundering”. They concluded that the regulator should monitor and block skins gambling websites and take strong enforcement action against the website owners. However, since the publication of the report, no major policy changes have taken place.

In Denmark, the Danish Gambling Authority (n.d.) has had a special focus on skins betting and loot boxes over the past few years, and the topic has received great political attention at a national level. They have used their own web crawler to stop illegal skins betting websites. Skins betting is not necessarily covered by their Danish Gambling Act, and therefore does not necessarily require a permit from the Danish Gambling Authority. An operator requires a permit from the Danish Gambling Authority to offer games if the following three criteria are met: (i) there must be a deposit (the skins can be converted into financial funds), (ii) there must be an element of chance, and (iii) there must be a possibility of a win (the skins can be converted into financial funds). To be covered by the Danish Gambling Act, the game must either be offered or arranged in Denmark. However, if a game is specifically offered in another country, it may fall under the Danish rules if it is clearly aimed at Denmark (i.e., is in the Danish language, uses Danish currency, has a payment card that only works in Denmark, has a Danish customer service, has a game offering that is directly aimed at the Danish market, is marketed directly to Danish players [e.g., through direct mail]). Game providers are not permitted to accept bets from individuals under the age of 18 years when it concerns a game that requires a permit from the Danish Gambling Authority. To date, no gaming providers have yet applied for a permit to offer skins betting in Denmark. At the beginning of 2018, the Danish Gambling Authority was successful in blocking a number of websites that offered games with skins betting without permission from the Danish Gambling Authority. On March 25, 2019, the Danish Gambling Authority was also successful in its case at the Copenhagen District Court in blocking 25 websites that offered illegal gambling in Denmark.

In Sweden, there is no specific regulation on skins betting, but the scope of the Swedish Gambling Act (2018:1138) covers skins betting (Swedish Gaming Authority [SGA], 2025). It is not possible to be granted a license for skins betting because licensed operators are obliged to use Swedish currency. Therefore, all skins betting operations take place on the unlicensed market (SGA, 2025). The SGA have issued a number of bans towards skins betting websites. The skins betting websites were considered to be providing gambling because:

1. The winnings hold economic value. The skins can be sold for real money. The actual tradability of the skins, in combination with the fact that information on the websites and the marketing of the websites alludes to the fact that they hold economic value, motivates that skins do hold economic value.

2. A wager is required to participate in the game. To be able to participate in the games, individuals have to wager either real money or a skin. As noted above, skins are considered to hold economic value.

3. The games are games of chance. The outcome of the games on the website is dictated by chance.

For a gambling website to be considered illegal, it has to be directed towards Swedish consumers. The way that the skins betting websites are targeting Swedish consumers varies from case to case. In all the SGA’s cases, the websites or companies affiliated with the websites had marketing directed towards Swedish consumers. In some cases, the websites even had information in Swedish. One of the decisions was appealed to the administrative court. However, the appeal was rejected in court due to the court considering the SGA’s decisions on illegal gambling as non-appealable (this applies to all decisions on illegal gambling and is not exclusive to skins betting).

In Norway, the Family and Culture Committee (Stortinget, 2025) made a very recent recommendation which has asked the Norwegian government to introduce regulations for (and possibly consider a ban on) lottery mechanisms (loot boxes) in computer games in Norway, as well as to consider introducing regulation of, or possibly banning, the use of virtual currency and skins gambling in videogames.

In Finland, only the state monopoly provider (Veikkaus) is licensed to provide gambling services, so technically any third-party gambling site (whether they use skins or not) is illegal. The monopoly system is currently under review and legislation introducing a new, more liberalised system is currently going through parliament. According to Macey et al. (2022), many third-party skins betting sites are located in countries where Finnish (and EU consumer laws more generally) do not apply. They also noted that there is a lack of regulatory oversight which means that skins betting is prone to both unethical and criminal activities (e.g., surreptitious advertising, fraud).

In France, the Autorite Nationale dex Jeux (National Gambling Authority, 2019) produced a report and noted that skins gambling (such as loot box buying) can be considered a form of gambling. The report asserted that skins gambling targeted a more traditional audience, playing primarily on computers and using virtual currencies, whereas loot box buying targeted all videogame players, including very young gamers. They noted that      considering skins gambling and loot box buying as forms of gambling would provide consumer protection for minors. They also noted that consumer associations believe that monetary control mechanisms within videogame playing should be designed with parents in mind. They said this could include creating a parental account linked to the child’s account, with specific parameters such as capping in-app purchases during a specific period or requiring parents to validate the payment method linked to their child’s account. 

Education awareness campaigns to parents regarding these newer types of gambling/gaming activity were recommended. At a European level, these educational initiatives could be incorporated within the European Strategy for a Better Internet for Children (BIK Strategy) and the #SaferInternet4EU campaign. The report recommended that national authorities responsible for consumer protection, health, education, and digital and financial regulation should continue to engage in the debate on the risks posed by the blurring of the boundaries between gambling and other forms of electronic entertainment such as video games (i.e., skins betting, loot boxes, online social casino games, and the use of gambling-related content in video games accessible to children). It was also asserted that video game and social gaming operators should provide more detailed information to consumers. They said these measures could include the possibility of acquiring the same content differently through the direct sale of in-game content delivered by loot boxes, as well as the possibility of exchanging in-game content and obtaining refunds.

In Poland, the issue of loot boxes (and to some extent skins gambling) is well known. Given the high value that children place on game progression, this has become a significant issue. Polish authorities have seemingly taken the position that loot boxes and skins gambling do not meet the criteria of gambling games as defined in Article 2(1)–(5a) of the Gambling Act (Cudo, 2025). Furthermore, the prevailing interpretation is that the catalogue of gambling games is closed, meaning that only activities explicitly fulfilling the criteria listed in Article 2(1)–(5) can be classified as gambling. However, the final decision in such matters ultimately rests with the minister responsible for public finance (Cudo, 2025). In line with this, a 2019 legal opinion stated that games incorporating loot boxes (and consequent skins gambling) do not meet the criteria of any gambling games specified in the closed list of the Act. The stance of state authorities, including the minister responsible for public finance, continues to be based on the 2009 Gambling Act. There is no indication that this position has changed. The Gambling Act allows blocking sites offering gambling illegally (without a Polish license), but this only applies to sites offering officially recognised gambling. Therefore, skins gambling does not constitute gambling (Cudo, 2025). 

In Spain, the government tried in 2022 to pass a new law regulating loot boxes and skins gambling, but they failed and withdrew the law (Lopez-Gonzalez, 2025). In 2024, the government passed a law regarding digital protection for minors. However, this is not specifically about gambling but it contains clauses about loot boxes (but not skins gambling).

In Türkiye, Article 228 of the Turkish Penal Code defines providing a place and opportunity for gambling as a criminal offense. Additionally, other regulations impose judicial sanctions on those who facilitate gambling, transfer money for gambling purposes, or encourage participation (Green Crescent Society, 2025). Individuals who engage in gambling themselves are subject to administrative penalties. Games of chance and betting are regulated under various laws, including Law No. 7258 (Regulation of Betting and Games of Chance in Football and Other Sports Competitions). These regulations stipulate that gambling can only be conducted by individuals licensed by official institutions. Skins gambling and similar games, where financial gain depends on chance, fall within the definition of “gambling” as regulated under Turkish law (Green Crescent Society, 2025). It has been observed that access to websites offering skins gambling is blocked by the Information and Communication Technologies Authority under the category of “illegal betting” making them inaccessible from Türkiye. On the Safe Web website managed by the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (BTK), which oversees the telecommunications sector in Turkey, it has been emphasized that “loot boxes which may contain skins” are associated with gambling addiction and that in-game purchases may contribute to the normalisation of gambling among children (Green Crescent Society, 2025). 

In the US, the legality of online gambling is complex and the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) has a key role at federal level. However, it is up to individual US states to determine what is legal or illegal. Skins betting is a grey area in US law and the UIGEA was enacted before skins betting existed. The Washington State Gambling Commission has deemed skins betting illegal. It ordered Valve (a US video game developer) to stop the transfer of skins for gambling activities on the CS:GO video game through its Steam platform (McAloon, 2016). Valve claimed it was doing nothing illegally and said they would shut down any Steam accounts that were being used for gambling purposes and shut them down for violating the terms of their agreement. In New Jersey, the Division of Gaming Enforcement has decreed that skins betting websites require a gambling license (Dineen, 2024). However, most US states have yet to address the issue of skins betting directly.

In China, in the section on the determination of illegal gambling funds in the Supreme People’s Procuratorate of China’s (n.d.) gambling policy, if funds are directly or indirectly exchanged for virtual currency, in-game items, or other virtual assets and then used for gambling, the amount of gambling funds shall be determined based on either the monetary value required to purchase those virtual assets or the actual amount paid. Therefore, skins gambling is considered illegal in China. However, while the law may be clear, actual practice is ambiguous. This ambiguity is one of the key reasons why skins gambling has been able to develop in China.

5.3 GB regulatory concerns

In GB, skins betting has been an issue of regulatory concern for many years and are one of the few countries to take a proactive approach to skins betting regulation. The Gambling Commission (GC) recognises the ability to transfer skins into currency and includes skins gambling within its regulatory framework. Therefore, any operator offering skins gambling services to those living in GB must obtain an operating license. In their position paper (Virtual currencies, eSports, and social casino gambling), the GC note that skins betting was a “predominant example of in-game item gambling”. The GC has continued to work with domestic and international regulators in an effort to protect consumers (and especially minors), and disrupt the provision of illegal skins gambling. They are fully aware that the videogame industry does not appear to promote or encourage gambling activities, and that the use of skins for betting takes place on third party sites. However, they are also of the view that the videogame industry should not be a passive when it comes to skins betting particularly because the activity is a by-product of something that they as an industry developed (i.e., games developers are the source the virtual currency being used for illegal gambling activity). The GC note that “where a player loses their entire ‘skin’ inventory having staked them unsuccessfully on gambling activities, one option for them is to purchase new ‘skins’ from the games publishers, either for use within the game or for further gambling stakes”. The GC has said​ that because players are able to withdraw real money, skins gambling sites require a license. They have successfully prosecuted GB websites that promote gambling using virtual assets on charges of encouraging underage gambling and advertising unlawful gambling.

5.4 Regulatory challenges and recommendations

Worldwide, the legal and regulated landscape is (at best) fragmented. In moving forward, there has to be collaboration between the primary stakeholders (regulators and the gambling industry’s innovators). More cohesive and future-proof regulatory frameworks are needed. Dineen (2024) has recommended that skins betting regulation ought to prioritise the following areas:

• Robust consumer protection: Players need shielding from fraudulent skins betting websites and ought to be designed to inhibit the development of problematic behaviour (e.g., gambling addiction). Such websites should embed safer gambling policies and tools into their everyday practices providing a ‘safety net’ for anyone engaging in skins betting. Any consumer protection laws and regulations must be both rigorous and enforceable.

• Support for innovation: Although regulatory frameworks ought to have consumer protection as its focus, it should be acknowledged that the gambling industry is continuing evolving and that regulatory measures should not stifle innovation and creativity. Dineen (2024) asserts that “overly stringent regulations could stifle the very innovation that makes the gaming sector vibrant and economically significant”.

• Clarity and consistency: To bring about stability, increased harmonization of skins betting laws is needed both within states and across countries. Legislation that has clarity and consistency would benefit all stakeholders (including the players and the policymakers). 

• Flexible legislation: Any laws and regulations that are developed ought to be flexible so that they can “adapt to the ever-evolving landscape of digital currencies and virtual goods” (Dineen, 2024).

Synthesis of Findings and Policy Considerations

6.1 Summary of cross-cutting themes

This report synthesised findings across multiple methodological strands which include web analytics, a systematic audit of skins gambling websites, a systematic review of the academic literature, and an international scoping review of regulation. Together, these strands have built a layered and data-driven picture of the current skins gambling ecosystem.

A core, cross-cutting theme is the increasing convergence of videogame playing and gambling. The boundaries between the two activities are becoming increasingly blurred, particularly in online environments where digital assets such as skins can be wagered, traded, or cashed out. Mechanisms such as loot boxes and esports wagering reinforce these intersections, creating experiences that are simultaneously recreational and risk-laden.

Young people emerge consistently across all research strands as a particularly vulnerable group. Many minors encounter gambling-like mechanisms such as loot boxes and skins betting before reaching the legal age for gambling, with many not recognising these as gambling activities. The result is a pathway into gambling harm that begins in seemingly innocuous gaming environments.

The audit and literature both indicate that gambling-like practices are becoming increasingly normalised within gaming communities, particularly those centred around esports. Streamers, influencers, and online content creators frequently engage with or promote these behaviours, contributing to their social legitimacy (Koncz et al., 2023).

Globally, regulation remains inconsistent, outdated, and often unenforceable. While a few countries have begun to engage with the issue, most jurisdictions lack any meaningful legal recognition of skins gambling. Regulatory frameworks often rely on narrow or monetary definitions of gambling that do not account for the secondary markets and digital asset ecosystems emerging in games.

Finally, many skins gambling operators appear to operate in legal grey zones, using obfuscation tactics to avoid detection or jurisdiction. This includes vague or missing terms of service, misleading age gates, and offshoring of servers and legal entities to avoid regulatory oversight.

6.2 Key risks and harms identified

One of the most concerning patterns across the research is the extent to which children and adolescents are participating in skins gambling. Exposure can occur through gameplay, watching influencers, or exploring third-party marketplaces. Skins betting is often a child’s first experience with gambling, sometimes as young as 11 years of age.

Strong associations between skins gambling and problem gambling behaviours were identified in the peer-reviewed literature. These include higher scores on validated measures of gambling harm, greater impulsivity, and increased time and money spent gambling. Loot boxes and other gambling-like mechanisms are often used in parallel with skins betting, forming a broader ecosystem of gambling-like practices that may reinforce risky behaviours. These systems often share core features such as monetary value, chance outcomes, and variable reinforcement.

The audit showed a lack of meaningful age verification and an absence of consumer protection tools across most skins gambling websites. While some sites claim to restrict minors, these claims are rarely substantiated by technological safeguards or monitoring.

Many regulatory frameworks fail to recognise skins gambling as a legitimate form of gambling, leaving a legal vacuum in which harms can proliferate unchecked. Where regulation does exist, enforcement is often focused on punishing unlicensed operators rather than preventing access or mandating harm-minimisation measures.

6.3 Policy considerations

It is recommended that game developers and publishers are held accountable for the gambling-like systems embedded in their games. This includes loot boxes, tradable items, and third-party APIs that enable external betting markets. Their duty of care ought to include safeguards against misuse.

Legislation ought to allow for flexible, future-proof frameworks capable of evolving with new digital forms. Regulation ought to avoid overly rigid definitions that may quickly become obsolete. Collaboration across sectors will be vital. Regulators, industry actors, consumer advocacy groups, and academic researchers must form multi-stakeholder working groups to design and monitor safe digital gaming environments.

Prevention efforts ought to include public awareness campaigns, school-based education, and parent guides. These should explain how skins gambling works, the risks involved, and signs of harm. Academics at Nottingham Trent University have already begun prototype development of school-based education resources and parent guides pertaining to loot box and skins gambling.

6.4 Policy recommendations

6.4.1 For the UK government and DCMS

• Launch national awareness and harm-prevention campaigns around skins gambling.

The UK government ought to launch a nationwide campaign aimed at raising awareness of the risks associated with skins gambling. This initiative ought to focus on educating the public, especially parents and young people, about the potential dangers of gambling with virtual items. The campaign ought to include information on recognising the signs of problem gambling, how to seek help, and resources available for support. By increasing public awareness, the government can empower individuals to make informed decisions and prevent the proliferation of gambling-related harm in the gaming community.

6.4.2 For the GB Gambling Commission

• Require skins gambling operators to obtain licenses and comply with age verification, fairness, and harm reduction standards.

The GB Gambling Commission ought to implement stricter regulatory measures for skins gambling operators. These operators ought to be required to adhere to age verification processes, fairness protocols, and responsible gambling practices. Age verification systems must be robust, preventing minors from accessing gambling-like features within games. Furthermore, operators ought to be held accountable for monitoring in-game transactions and ensuring that virtual items used in gambling activities are fair and transparent. By establishing clear licensing requirements, the Gambling Commission can maintain a safer environment for players and curb illegal gambling activities.

6.4.3 For game developers

• Build age-based safeguards into loot boxes and skin trading systems.

Game developers ought to be required to implement age-based safeguards within their loot boxes and skin trading systems. This could include requiring players to verify their age before accessing gambling-like features or limiting the ability to trade items based on age. By building these protections into the game’s infrastructure, developers can ensure that minors are not exposed to gambling elements, while still providing age-appropriate content for older players. Additionally, developers should consider implementing features such as parental controls, allowing parents to manage their children’s access to in-game purchases and gambling-like elements.

• Monitor third-party misuse of game items and take action against enabling external gambling.

Developers ought to actively monitor the misuse of their virtual items by third-party gambling platforms. If external websites or services are enabling players to gamble using skins, game developers should take swift action to block these platforms and prevent further misuse of their in-game items. This could involve working with law enforcement or regulators to identify and dismantle illegal gambling operations. By preventing third-party platforms from exploiting their game items, developers can help ensure that players are not unwittingly engaging in illegal gambling.

• Avoid creating skins with APIs that enable illegal gambling.

Developers ought to refrain from designing skins or other in-game items that can be traded or used in illegal gambling activities via APIs (Application Programming Interfaces). APIs that allow the exchange of virtual items between external platforms can facilitate illegal gambling, bypassing official regulatory mechanisms. By ensuring that skins and other digital items are contained within a controlled in-game economy, developers can reduce the risk of players engaging in unlicensed gambling activities. This also aligns with broader efforts to safeguard players from the negative consequences of skins gambling, by keeping all in-game transactions within the game’s regulated environment.

• Collaborate with regulators and researchers to develop best practices for digital item design.

Game developers ought to work closely with regulators and academic researchers to establish best practices for designing digital items and in-game economies. This collaboration should focus on creating systems that reduce the potential for exploitative gambling mechanics while promoting fair and responsible play. By involving experts in psychology, addiction, public health, and regulation, developers can create games that are not only engaging but also protect players from gambling harm. This could include designing loot boxes and other in-game purchases that are transparent, with clear odds and responsible limits on spending.

6.4.4 For educators and youth services

• Incorporate skins gambling into broader digital resilience and financial literacy education.

Educators and youth services ought to integrate the risks of skins gambling into broader educational curricula on digital resilience and financial literacy. This would involve teaching young people about the potential dangers of virtual gambling and how to make informed choices about in-game purchases. Providing students with knowledge about how skins gambling works, the risks it poses, and how to resist peer pressure to participate in such activities can help them develop the critical thinking skills needed to navigate the online gaming world safely.

• Provide resources for parents and young people on recognising and managing risks associated with gaming-related gambling.

It is essential that both parents and young people are equipped with the resources to identify and manage the risks associated with gaming-related gambling. Educators and youth services ought to provide accessible materials, workshops, and seminars to help families understand the signs of problem gambling, how to set healthy boundaries, and where to seek support. These resources can empower parents to have conversations with their children about online gaming, providing guidance on how to manage in-game purchases and avoid gambling-like activities that could lead to addiction or financial harm.

Research Strengths, Limitations and Future Directions

7.1 Research strengths and limitations

This report is strengthened by its comprehensive, multi-method approach, incorporating four complementary strands of research that together offer a robust and nuanced understanding of skins gambling. The integration of website analytics provides insight into user engagement and platform popularity, while the structured audit of gambling sites systematically evaluates consumer protection measures and game design features. The systematic review of academic peer-reviewed literature synthesises current empirical evidence on behavioural and psychological harms, and the scoping review of international regulatory frameworks offers a comparative policy perspective. This triangulation of data sources enables a rich, interdisciplinary analysis that not only captures the complexity of the skins gambling ecosystem but also grounds the report’s recommendations in a strong empirical foundation.

While the analytics data of skins gambling websites provided valuable insights, there was an inherent limitation in the accessibility of data from all skins gambling websites identified. For example, of the 54 websites identified, 45, 25, and 37 had information available regarding traffic, demographics, and cross-visitation data respectively. Not all platforms may disclose detailed user information or full engagement data, and some sites may deliberately obscure or make it difficult to access due to their clandestine nature or dynamic operational status. Consequently, the data analysis might not capture the full scope of the skins gambling ecosystem, especially for lesser-known or emerging platforms. Furthermore, the breakdown of user geographical location may be obscured by the use of VPNs. This limitation highlights the need for cautious interpretation of findings and underscores the importance of developing more robust methods for monitoring and evaluating the full extent of the skins gambling landscape. It is also important to note that gambling activity varies seasonally, with February often representing a quieter period due to fewer major sporting events and limited seasonal promotions. Additionally, as the shortest month of the year, February naturally offers fewer days for user engagement. As a result, website analytics data collected during this period may underestimate typical monthly gambling activity.

The structured audit of skins gambling websites provided valuable insights into the game functionality and RG practices of the platforms. However, the audit was limited in that it did not involve active participation in gameplay on the sites. Consequently, the audit could not account for how site administrators may target active users with bespoke messages, offers, or promotions based on their individual gaming habits and behaviours. This lack of direct interaction means that the analysis may not have captured all tailored features or targeted marketing strategies employed by these platforms to influence user engagement. 

Due to practical reasons, the audit of customer support responsiveness was conducted with a 30-minute response time limit for each question/statement related to responsible gambling. Despite getting responses from 81%, 75%, and 69% of sites with a support chat function for the Questions 1, 2, and 3, respectively, it is possible that the minority of websites that did not respond may have responded if given longer, providing a more detailed picture of RG-oriented customer support across all platforms.

The majority of the peer-reviewed research covered in the systematic review relied on cross-sectional data and snapshots of the skins gambling ecosystem, with limited longitudinal analysis to track trends over time. This is particularly important for understanding the long-term effects of skins gambling on user behaviour, addiction, and the development of effective regulatory frameworks. Moreover, most of the studies relied on self-report data that are subject to well-known biases (e.g., social desirability, memory recall).

Although the scoping review of international regulatory frameworks encompassed numerous jurisdictions, it relied on the availability of responses from 53 academics, which could introduce biases based on the regions that were more actively engaged in gambling studies. Furthermore, international regulation was limited or recent, making assessment of effective enforcement, implementation, and long-term outcomes difficult. This constraint may have limited the ability to identify best practices or fully evaluate the success of emerging regulatory models in mitigating harms associated with skins gambling.

7.2 Future directions

Longitudinal studies tracking skins gambling behaviour over extended periods could provide insight into the long-term psychological and financial impacts on users. This would help to identify emerging patterns in gambling behaviour and the sustained effectiveness of regulatory measures. Future research could also explore the evolving nature of skins gambling and how emerging technologies (such as NFTs [non-fungible tokens] and blockchain) might influence user engagement.

Only two qualitative studies were identified within systematic review, meaning there is scope for research to take a more user-centric approach, investigating the experiences of those engaging in skins gambling. In-depth qualitative research, such as interviews and case studies, could provide insights into how individuals perceive the risks of skins gambling, how it affects their self-identity, and what specific mechanisms lead to harm. Understanding the motivations underlying users’ engagement in these platforms is critical to developing targeted responsible gambling interventions.

The present research showed significant variability in responsible gambling practices across different platforms. Further research could focus on evaluating the effectiveness of the RG measures currently in place, such as self-exclusion tools, limit-setting, and educational resources within a skins gambling context. Investigating the role of game developers and gambling operators in promoting responsible behaviour, and understanding the barriers to users adopting RG tools, will be crucial to inform more effective interventions.

A key future direction involves assessing the effectiveness of existing, emerging, and future regulatory frameworks for skins gambling. Comparative studies across jurisdictions could identify best practices, potential regulatory harmonisation, and gaps in current laws. Additionally, the role of self-regulation by industry players ought to be further explored to determine how effective it is in addressing consumer protection and preventing harm.

Conclusions

The findings of this report highlight the urgent need for comprehensive regulation and policy reform regarding skins gambling. Across multiple research strands, a clear pattern emerges. The convergence of video game playing and gambling is increasingly evident, with young people being particularly vulnerable to engaging in gambling-like activities through in-game items such as skins. The normalisation of these behaviours within gaming communities, often amplified by influencers and content creators, further reinforces the risks faced by young players, many of whom are unaware that they are engaging in gambling practices.

The global regulatory landscape remains inconsistent, outdated, and frequently unenforceable. Most countries have yet to address skins gambling directly, leaving a legal vacuum in which operators exploit regulatory gaps. Where regulation does exist, it often fails to consider the complex dynamics of digital asset ecosystems and gambling mechanics embedded within games. In particular, the lack of specific legislation to govern skins gambling leaves many players, especially minors, at risk of harm, as evidenced by the association between skins gambling and problem gambling behaviours, and problem gambling severity.

Key recommendations from this report emphasise the need for legislative clarity and reform. The UK government, alongside international regulatory bodies, must recognise skins gambling as a distinct form of gambling, ensuring it falls under appropriate regulatory oversight. This would not only enable better consumer protection but also ensure that operators are held accountable for safeguarding young and vulnerable players. Game developers must also shoulder responsibility, implementing age-based safeguards and monitoring third-party misuse of in-game items, to prevent illegal gambling. Furthermore, stakeholder collaboration between regulators, industry actors, researchers, and consumer advocacy groups, will be crucial in developing flexible, future-proof policies that can evolve alongside emerging gaming technologies.

Prevention efforts must also be prioritised. Public awareness campaigns, school-based education, and parental guidance are all essential components of a holistic strategy to mitigate the risks of skins gambling. By addressing these concerns through comprehensive legislative reform and coordinated preventive measures, society can protect young people from the harmful effects of gambling and create safer gaming environments that prioritise player well-being.

Ultimately, the regulation of skins gambling requires a concerted effort from all sectors and stakeholders, ensuring that players are better informed, protected, and supported as the gaming landscape continues to evolve.

References

Abarbanel, B., & Macey, J. (2019). VGO, NFT, OMG! Commentary on Continued Developments in Skins Wagering. Gaming Law Review, 23(1), 23–25. https://doi.org/10.1089/glr2.2019.2312. 

Armstrong, T., Rockloff, M., Browne, M., & Li, E. (2018). An exploration of how simulated gambling games may promote gambling with money. Journal of Gambling Studies, 34(4), 1165–1184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-018-9742-6. ​

Autorite Nationale dex Jeux [National Gambling Authority] (2019). Synthèse des travaux du groupe de travail “jeux en ligne” du GREF sur la mise en œuvre de la ‘Déclaration des régulateurs de jeux d’argent à propos de leurs préoccupations sur la porosité des frontières entre jeux d’argent et d’autres formes de jeux’. Located at: https://anj.fr/sites/default/files/2019-12/Synth%C3%A8se%20des%20travaux%20du%20groupe%20de%20travail%20GREF.pdf

Bonello, M. & Griffiths, M.D. (2017). Analysing consumer protection for gamblers across different online gambling operators: A descriptive study. Gaming Law Review and Economics, 21, 278-285. https://doi:10.1007/s11469-021-00695-9. 

Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (5th ed.). Pearson Education.

Clark, L., Lawrence, A. J., Astley-Jones, F., & Gray, N. (2009). Gambling near-misses enhance motivation to gamble and recruit win-related brain circuitry. Neuron, 61(3), 481–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2008.12.031.

Coloma-Carmona, A., Carballo, J. L., Sancho-Domingo, C., Rodríguez-Espinosa, S., Miró-Llinares, F., & C Aguerri, J. (2024). Engagement in new gambling practices and its association with gambling disorder, impulsivity, and cognitive distortions: Findings from a nationally representative sample of Spanish gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-024-10361-z.

Cudo, A. (2025). Personal communication. March 16, 2025.

Danish Gambling Authority (n.d.). Skin betting and loot boxes – Video gaming or gambling? Located at: https://www.spillemyndigheden.dk/en/skin-betting-and-loot-boxes-video-gaming-or-gambling.

DemandSage. (2025). Esports statistics and trends 2025. https://www.demandsage.com/esports-statistics.

Department for Culture, Media and Sport. (2022). Government response to the call for evidence on loot boxes in video games. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/loot-boxes-in-video-games-call-for-evidence/outcome/government-response-to-the-call-for-evidence-on-loot-boxes-in-video-games. 

Derevensky, J. L., Gupta, R., Messerlian, C., & Gillespie, M. (2004). Youth gambling problems: Risk and protective factors. In J. L. Derevensky & R. Gupta (Eds.), Gambling problems in youth: Theoretical and applied perspectives (pp. 59–83). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1189-1_4.

Devor, N. (2024, February 26). Counter-Strike is one of the world’s most successful videogames. How it also became a gateway to gambling. Barron’s. Located at: https://www.barrons.com/articles/counter-strike-csgo-skins-gambling-gateway-videogames-b21ceef0. 

Dineen, A. (2024). Skin gambling law in USA. Centennial, February 14. Located at: https://www.2020centennial.org/skin-gambling-law-in-usa/. 

Dixon, M. J., Harrigan, K. A., Sandhu, R., Collins, K., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2010). Losses disguised as wins in modern multi-line video slot machines. Addiction, 110(5), 795–803. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03050.x.

Drummond, A., & Sauer, J. D. (2018). Video game loot boxes are psychologically akin to gambling. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(8), 530–532. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0360-1. 

Egamersworld. (2023, April 10). These eSports teams are sponsored by casinos. Located at: https://egamersworld.com/blog/Nama-e-urheilun-tiimit-ovat-sponsoroitu-kasinoiden-toimesta-A7Ds_Mx5ui. 

Escharts. (2025). Top games by peak viewership. https://escharts.com/top-games. 

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202. 

Gambling Commission (2016). Virtual currencies, eSports and social gaming – discussion paper. Birmingham: Gambling Commission. 

Gambling Commission (2017). Virtual currencies, eSports and social casino gaming – position paper. Birmingham: Gambling Commission. 

Gambling Commission (2024). Young people and gambling 2024: Official statistics. Birmingham: Gambling Commission. 

Gibson, E., Griffiths, M. D., Calado, F., & Harris, A. (2024). The role of videogame micro-transactions in the relationship between motivations, problem gaming, and problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies. Advance online publication https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-024-10365-9. 

GlobeNewswire. (2025). Esports market outlook report 2025: A $5.5 billion market by 2029.https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2025/04/11/3059910/28124/en/Esports-Market-Outlook-Report-2025-with-Profiles-of-Twitch-YouTube-Afreeca-TV-and-Naver-TV-A-5-5-Billion-Market-by-2029.html.

Green Crescent Society (2025). Personal communication. March 17, 2025.

Greer, N., Hing, N., Rockloff, M., Browne, M., & King, D. L. (2023). Motivations for esports betting and skin gambling and their association with gambling frequency, problems, and harm. Journal of Gambling Studies, 39(1), 339–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-022-10137-3.

Greer, N., Rockloff, M., Hing, N., Browne, M., & King, D. L. (2023). Skin gambling contributes to gambling problems and harm after controlling for other forms of traditional gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 39(1), 225–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-022-10111-z.

Greer, N., Rockloff, M. J., Russell, A. M. T., & Lole, L. (2021). Are esports bettors a new generation of harmed gamblers? A comparison with sports bettors on gambling involvement, problems, and harm. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 10(3), 435–446. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2021.00039.

Griffiths, M. D. (2012). Internet gambling, player protection and social responsibility. In R. Williams, R. Wood & J. Parke (Eds.), Routledge handbook of internet gambling (pp.227-249). Routledge.

Griffiths, M. D. (2017). The psychosocial impact of professional gambling, professional video gaming, and eSports. Casino and Gaming International, 28, 59–63.

Griffiths, M. D. (2018). Is the buying of loot boxes in videogames a form of gambling or gaming? Gaming Law Review, 22(1), 52-54. https://doi.org/10.1089/glr2.2018.2216

Grove, C. (2016). Understanding skin gambling. Located at: https://www.thelines.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Skin-Gambling-White-Paper-V2.pdf. 

Harris, A. & Griffiths, M. D. (2018). The impact of speed of play in gambling on psychological and behavioural factors: a critical review. Journal of Gambling Studies, 34(2),393-412. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-017-9701-7. 

Harris, A., Gous, G., De Wet, B. & Griffiths, M. D. (2021). The relationship between gambling event frequency, motor response inhibition, arousal, and dissociative experience. Journal of Gambling Studies, 37, 241-268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-020-09955-0. 

Harris, A., Kuss, D., & Griffiths, M. D. (2018). Gambling, motor cautiousness, and choice impulsivity: an experimental study. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7(4), 1030-1043. http://doi.org/10.1556/2006.7.2018.108. 

Hing, N., Lole, L., Russell, A. M. T., Rockloff, M., King, D. L., Browne, M., Newall, P., & Greer, N. (2022). Adolescent betting on esports using cash and skins: Links with gaming, monetary gambling, and problematic gambling. PloS One, 17(5), e0266571. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266571.

Hing, N., Russell, A. M. T., Bryden, G. M., Newall, P., King, D. L., Rockloff, M., Browne, M., & Greer, N. (2021). Skin gambling predicts problematic gambling amongst adolescents when controlling for monetary gambling. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 10(4), 920–931. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2021.00078.

Hing, N., Thorne, H., Lole, L., Sproston, K., Hodge, N., & Rockloff, M. (2024). Influences on gambling during youth: Comparisons between at-risk/problem, non-problem and non-gambling adolescents in Australia. Journal of Youth Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2024.2378288.

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs (2023). You win some, you lose more: Online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harm. Canberra: Parliament of Australia.

Johnson, M., & Brock, T. (2020). The ‘gambling turn’ in digital game monetization. Journal of Gaming & Virtual Worlds, 12, 145-163. https://doi:10.1386/jgvw_00011_1. 

Joukhador, J., Blaszczynski, A., & Maccallum, F. (2004). Superstitious beliefs in gambling among problem and non-problem gamblers: Preliminary data. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20(2), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOGS.0000022308.27774.2b. 

King, D. L., & Delfabbro, P. H. (2019). Predatory monetization in video games (e.g., ‘loot boxes’) and internet gaming disorder. Addiction, 114(10), 1967–1975. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14286. 

King, D. L., Delfabbro, P. H., & Griffiths, M. D. (2010). The convergence of gambling and digital media: Implications for gambling in young people. Journal of Gambling Studies, 35, 521–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-009-9153-9. 

King, D. L., Delfabbro, P. H., Kaptsis, D., & Zwaans, T. (2014). Adolescent simulated gambling via digital and social media: An emerging problem. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 305–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.048.

Koncz, P., Demetrovics, Z., Griffiths, M. D. & Király, O. (2023). The potential harm of gambling streams to minors. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 62, 713-715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2023.01.020

Lapuz, J. & Griffiths, M. D. (2010). The role of chips in poker gambling: An empirical pilot study. Gambling Research, 22(1), 34-39.

Lopez-Gonzalez, H. (2025). Personal communication. March 10, 2025.

Macey, J., Cantell, M., Tossavainen, T., Karjala, A., & Castrén, S. (2022). How can the potential harms of loot boxes be minimised?: Proposals for understanding and addressing issues at a national level. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 11(2), 256-266.

Macey, J., & Hamari, J. (2018). Investigating relationships between video gaming, spectating esports, and gambling. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 344–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.027.

Macey, J., & Hamari, J. (2019). Esports, skins and loot boxes: Participants, practices and problematic behaviour associated with emergent forms of gambling. New Media & Society, 21(1), 20–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818786216.

Macey, J., Hamari, J., Sjöblom, M., & Törhönen, M. (2021). Relationships between the consumption of gamblified media and associated gambling activities in a sample of esports fans. Proceedings of the 5th International GamiFIN Conference Levi, Finland, April 7-9, 2021, 120–129. https://researchportal.tuni.fi/en/publications/relationships-between-the-consumption-of-gamblified-media-and-ass.

Mangat, H. S., Griffiths, M. D., Yu, S.M., Felvinczi, K., Ngetich, R.K., Demetrovics, Z. & Czakó, A. (2024). Understanding esports-related betting and gambling: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Gambling Studies, 40, 893-914. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-023-10256-5 

McAloon, A. (2016). Washington state authority orders Valve to stop allowing CS:GO skin gambling. Gama Sutra, October 5. Located at: https://web.archive.org/web/20161006151941/http:/www.gamasutra.com/view/news/282773/Washington_state_authority_orders_Valve_to_stop_allowing_CSGO_skin_gambling.php. 

McLeod, C. (2017). More than skin deep: Why it’s time to go ‘all-in’ on skin gambling regulation. Located at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3159661. 

Parent Zone (2018). Skin gambling: Teenage Britain’s secret habit (pp. 1–12). https://parentzone.org.uk/sites/default/files/2021-12/PZ_Skin_Gambling_2018.pdf

Parke, J. & Griffiths, M. D. (2007). The role of structural characteristics in gambling. In G. Smith, D. Hodgins & R. Williams (Eds.), Research and measurement issues in gambling studies (pp.211-243). Elsevier.

Royal Society for Public Health (2019). Skins in the game: A high-stakes relationship between gambling and young people’s health and wellbeing? Located at: https://www.gambleaware.org/our-research/publication-library/articles/skins-in-the-game/.

Russell, A. M. T., Hing, N., Newall, P., Greer, N., Dittman, C. K., Thorne, H., & Rockloff, M. (2023). Order of first-play in simulated versus monetary gambling. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 12(4), 992–1005. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2023.00069.

Saleh, T. (2021, November 18). FaZe Clan teams up with DraftKings in multi-faceted deal. Sportcal. https://www.sportcal.com/sponsorship/faze-clan-teams-up-with-draftkings-in-multi-faceted-deal/. 

Snodgrass, J. G., Lacy, M. G., Polzer, E., & Upadhyay, C. (2024). Gaming lounges in India afford socially productive gambling: The moral economy and foundations of play in Udaipur, Rajasthan. Ethos, 52(4), 480–490. https://doi.org/10.1111/etho.12443.

Stortinget (2025). Komiteens tilråding. Located at: https://www.stortinget.no/globalassets/pdf/innstillinger/stortinget/2024-2025/inns-202425-152s-vedlegg.pdf. 

Supreme People’s Procuratorate of China (n.d.). [Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate and the Ministry of Public Security on several issues concerning the application of law in handling online gambling crime cases]. Located at: https://www.spp.gov.cn/flfg/gfwj/201208/t20120830_2438.shtml. 

Swedish Gaming Authority (2025). Personal communication. March 26, 2025.

Thorhauge, A. M., & Nielsen, R. K. L. (2021). Epic, Steam, and the role of skin-betting in game (platform) economies. Journal of Consumer Culture, 21(1), 52–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540521993929.

Tulloch, C., Hing, N., Browne, M., Russell, A. M. T., Rockloff, M., & Rawat, V. (2024). Harm-to-self from gambling: A national study of Australian adults. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 13(2), 635–649. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2024.00025.

Ukie. (2023, July 18). New loot box principles agreed by industry. https://ukie.org.uk/news/new-loot-box-principles-agreed-by-industry. 

Velez, J. A., Ewoldsen, D. R., Hanus, M. D., Song, H., & Villarreal, J. A. (2018). Social comparisons and need fulfilment: Interpreting video game enjoyment in the context of leaderboards. Communication Research Reports, 35(5), 424–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2018.1525352​. 

Wardle, H. (2019). The same or different? Convergence of skin gambling and other gambling among children. Journal of Gambling Studies, 35(4), 1109–1125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-019-09840-5.

Wardle, H., Petrovskaya, E., & Zendle, D. (2020). Defining the esports bettor: Evidence from an online panel survey of emerging adults. International Gambling Studies, 20(3), 487–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/14459795.2020.1826559.

Wardle, H., & Tipping, S. (2023). The relationship between problematic gambling severity and engagement with gambling products: Longitudinal analysis of the emerging adults gambling survey. Addiction, 118(6), 1127–1139. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.16125.

Xiao, L., & Henderson, L. (2024). Illegal video game loot boxes with transferable content on steam: A longitudinal study on their presence and non-compliance with and non-enforcement of gambling law. International Gambling Studies, 24(3), 498–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/14459795.2024.2390827.

Zhang, J. (2023). Skin gambling in mainland China: Survival of online gambling companies. Cogent Social Sciences, 9(2), 2265209. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2265209.

Appendix A: Identified skins gambling websites and their associated traffic

Website Name	Unique Monthly Visits (Feb 2025)	Total Monthly Visits (Feb 2025)
https://bandit.camp	151,906	898,000
https://casedrop.eu	24,052	58,011
https://clash.gg	1,172,000	4,302,000
https://cscase.io	17,099	48,499
https://csfail.live	N/A	N/A
https://csgetto.app	N/A	N/A
https://csgo.net	151,825	478,000
https://csgo500.com	105,205	420,489
https://csgobig.com	77,536	234,000
https://csgoempire.com	527,253	1,630,000
https://csgoempire.tv	18,469	49,700
https://csgofast.com	103,346	319,000
https://www.csgolive.com	N/A	N/A
https://csgoluck.com	82,617	300,000
https://www.csgoroll.com	571,522	2,674,000
https://www.csgorolltr.com	1868	4700
https://daddyskins.com	27,656	105,908
https://datdrop.com	54,680	175,000
https://drop.skin	N/A	N/A
https://epicdrop.one	N/A	N/A
https://farmskins.com	761,341	3,566,000
https://flamecases.com	731	1500
https://forcedrop.app	N/A	N/A
https://ggdrop.com	67,844	189,129
https://ggrust.org	5970	17,358
https://hellcase.com	612,579	2,854,000
https://hellstore.org	N/A	N/A
https://hotpizza.gg	15,863	43,645
https://howl.gg	49,894	156,000
https://hyper-drop.com	41,557	139,333
https://insane.gg	14,427	32,000
https://insane.gl	1519	2349
https://key-drop.com	450,374	1,568,000
https://knifex.com	8582	30,681
https://plg.bet	70,363	196,000
https://r1-skins.com	2214	4753
https://rain.gg	252,583	1,332,000
https://rustbet.com	857	2015
https://rustcases.com	4504	11,394
https://rustclash.com	390,291	1,535,000
https://rustix.io	67	100
https://rustmoment.com	204	875
https://rustreaper.com	7115	17,736
https://ruststake.com	5506	13,169
https://rustyloot.gg	78,047	242,716
https://rustypot.com	52,739	168,000
https://skin.club	864,902	3,927,000
https://skinbet.gg	2263	5305
https://skinbox.io	N/A	N/A
https://skindrop.net	86	172
https://skinlords.com	27,492	68,000
https://topskin.cc	65,570	179,757
https://wilddrop.org	35	80
https://www.wtfskins.com/crash	N/A	N/A
Total	6,942,553	28,001,374

Appendix B: Websites audited

Website name	Associated videogame	Traffic Category (Unique Monthly Users)
https://clash.gg	CS:GO/CS2, Rust	>100,000
https://csgoempire.com	CS:GO/CS2	>100,000
https://hellcase.com	CS:GO/ CS2, Rust, DOTA 2	>100,000
https://skin.club/en	CSGO/CS2	>100,000
https://www.csgoroll.com	CS:GO/CS2	>100,000
https://rustclash.com	CS:GO/CS2, Rust	>100,000
https://rain.gg	CS:GO/CS2	>100,000
https://bandit.camp	CS:GO/CS2, Rust, DOTA 2, TF 2	>100,000
https://csgoluck.com	CS:GO/CS2	10,000-100,000
https://rustyloot.gg	CS:GO/CS2, Rust, DOTA 2, TF2	10,000-100,000
https://csgobig.com	CS:GO/CS2	10,000-100,000
https://plg.bet	CS:GO/CS2	10,000-100,000
https://howl.gg	CS:GO/CS2	10,000-100,000
https://hyper-drop.com	CS:GO/CS2	10,000-100,000
https://ggrust.org	Rust	<10,000
https://ruststake.com	Rust	<10,000
https://r1-skins.com	CS:GO/CS2	<10,000
https://rustbet.com	Rust	<10,000
https://rustcases.com	Rust	<10,000
https://insane.gl	CS:GO/CS2	<10,000

Appendix C: Summary of papers included in systemic review (grouped by country)

Author and year: Greer, N., Rockloff, M., Russell, A. M. T., Lole, L. (2021). Title: Are esports bettors a new generation of harmed gamblers? A comparison with sports bettors on gambling involvement, problems, and harm. Country: Australia Method: Online survey Sample: 598 Australian participants aged 18 and over (71.2% male, age range 18-77). 598 M = 38.92 years, SD = 12.03). Two sub-groups were sampled, esports bettors (bet on esports at least fortnightly in the past 12 months with either money or skins; n = 298) and sports bettors (bet at least fortnightly in the past 12 months on sports, excluding esports or fantasy sports, did not bet on esports in the past 12 months with cash or skins, did not watch esports in the past 12 months; n = 300). Skins Gambling key findings: For esports bettors, more frequent esports skin betting and skin gambling on other games of chance were significant predictors on PGSI scores.

Author and year: Hing, N., Lole, L., Russell, A.M.T., Rockloff, M., King, D.L., Browne, M., Newall, P., Greer, N. (2022). Title: Adolescent betting on esports using cash and skins: Links with gaming, monetary gambling, and problematic gambling. Country: Australia Method: Online survey Sample: 1,667 residents in New South Wales (NSW) Australia (62.2% male), aged 12–17 years, responded to an online survey. Participants were recruited via an online panel aggregator (Qualtrics sample, n = 826) and via adverts (Advert sample, n = 841). Skins Gambling key findings: Skin betting significantly predicted both at-risk and problem gambling symptomology in both samples. In the Qualtrics sample, at-risk/problem gamblers were more likely to report past-month cash and skin betting compared to non-problem gamblers. Skin betting significantly predicted at-risk and problem gambling even when controlling for participation in other forms of gambling.

Author and year: Hing, N., Russell, A. M. T., Bryden, G. M., Newall, P., King, D. L., Rockloff, M., Browne, M., Greer, N. (2021).
Title: Skin gambling predicts problematic gambling among adolescents when controlling for monetary gambling. Country: Australia Method: Online survey Sample: Two samples were recruited. Inclusion criteria for both samples were adolescents aged 12–17 years, residing in NSW (the funding agency’s jurisdiction), having parental permission to participate, and the participant’s informed consent. The first sample (advertising sample; n = 843; mean age = 14.61; 69.3% male; 52.2% not Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander; 86% did not have a paid job; 63.3% had parents living together, 33.1% had separated or divorced parents) were recruited through email and online advertising (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and other online communication channels). The second sample (Qualtrics sample; n = 826; mean age = 14.81; 55.1% male; 89.8% not Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander; 70.2% did not have a paid job; 77.1% had parents living together, 17.7% had separated or divorced parents) were recruited through multiple Qualtrics panels. Skins Gambling key findings: In both samples, problem gamblers were more likely to have participated in skin gambling in the last four weeks, compared with non-gamblers/non-problem-gamblers. In the Qualtrics sample, at-risk gamblers were also likely to have participated in skin gambling in the past four weeks. In both samples, past-month skin gambling significantly predicted at-risk/problem gambling, even when controlling for past-month gambling on each monetary form. These results were consistent across both samples when controlling for the total number of monetary gambling forms.

Author and year: Hing, N., Thorne, H., Lole, L., Sproston, K., Hodge, N., Rockloff, M. (2024). Title: Influences on gambling during youth: comparisons between at-risk/problem, non-problem and non-gambling adolescents in Australia. Country: Australia Method: Qualitative semi-structured interviews and ‘traditional’ online communities (akin to focus groups) Sample: 89 NSW Australian 12- to 17-year-olds were recruited by three recruitment agencies through their participant pools and online advertising. All participants provided parental or legal guardian and their own consent. Participants could take part in the interviews, online communities or both. 47 participants took place in the interviews and 47 participants took place in the online communities. Of the interview sample (n=47), 25 were aged 12-14 years (14 of the 25 were female, 11 male) and 22 were aged 15-17 years (11 were male, 10 were female, and one identified as other gendered). Of the interview sample, 18 were at-risk or problem gamblers, 22 were non-problem gamblers and seven were non-gamblers. Of the online community sample (n= 47), 23 were aged 12-14 years (13 female, 10 male) and 24 were aged 15-17 years (12 male, 11 female, one identified as other gendered). Of the online community sample, 21 were at-risk or problem gamblers, 19 were non-problem gamblers and seven were non-gamblers. Skins Gambling key findings: At-risk problem gamblers (ARPGs) were much more likely to engage with skin betting than non-problem gamblers (53% vs 12%), this may indicate a gateway, or reverse gateway effect. In later adolescence, ARPGs tended to extend their gambling from scratch tickets to higher-risk forms of gambling - sports betting and skin gambling. During adolescence, most participants had engaged with simulated gambling through gaming activities and social interactions. Some began to spend real money on loot boxes. Non-gamblers and non-problem gamblers experienced little interest in monetary gambling as a result of simulated gambling. However, some ARPGs described how simulated gambling had increased their interest in monetary gambling, with some linking simulated gambling and harmful gambling through excessive skin gambling. There was a direct link between video gaming and skin gambling (skins must be acquired through gameplay, including through loot box purchasing before they can be wagered).

Author and year: Russell, A. M. T., Hing, N., Newall, P., Greer, N., Dittman, C. K., Thorne, H., Rockloff, M. (2023). Title: Order of first-play in simulated versus monetary gambling. Country: Australia Method: Online survey Sample: 1,026 young adults aged 18-25 years (59.1% female; 64.7% single never married; 39% completed Year 12 or equivalent; 79.1% born in Australia; 93.3% neither Aboriginal nor Torres Strait Islander; 16.5% problem gambler, 7.0% moderate-risk gambler, 5.3% low-risk gambler, 10.4% non-problem gambler, 60.8% non-gambler). Participants had to be residents of Australia (50% from Victoria, the location of the funding body), aged 18–25 years, and have played video games (not necessarily simulated gambling games) within the past 12 months. Skins Gambling key findings: Of the 1,026 participants, 13.7% had taken part in skin gambling in their lifetime, with 11.4% taking part in the last 12 months. The mean first age of taking part in skin gambling was 19.3 (SD = 3.3). 17% of skin gamblers had taken part before the age of 18. Lifetime engagement with simulated gambling forms (except free loot boxes) was associated with monetary gambling engagement during the lifetime and last 12 months, and gambling harms and problems. Free loot boxes were not associated with any gambling behaviour, problems or harm outcomes, even when controlling for monetary comparisons. Those who took part in skins gambling were more likely to take part in free loot boxes, playing video games with gambling content and paid loot boxes first. These were statistically significant, even when controlling for multiple comparisons.

Author and year: Tulloch, C., Hing, N., Browne, M., Russell, A.M.T., Rockloff, M., Rawat, V. (2024). Title: Harm-to-self from gambling: A national study of Australian adult. Country: Australia Method: Telephone survey Sample: 15,000 were used for analysis, these were past-year gamblers (n = 5,254). The sample were 55.92% male; aged 18–19 years (3.52%), 20–24 years (7.00%), 25–29 years (7.54%), 30–34 years (7.99%), 35–39 years (7.63%), 40–44 years (7.71%), 45–49 years (9.14%), 50–54 years (8.47%), 55–59 years (9.99%), 60–64 years (10.45%), 65+ years (20.57%); 46.22% married; 41% held an undergraduate or postgraduate degree; 80.73% non-problem gamblers, 11.34% low-risk gamblers, 5.77% moderate-risk gamblers, 2.16% problem gamblers. Skins Gambling key findings: Skin gambling and loot box purchasing were among the most harmful forms of gambling (with EGMs, poker, race betting, sports betting and scratch-cards), even when controlling for demographic factors.

Author and year: Zhang, J. (2023). Title: Skin gambling in mainland China: Survival of online gambling companies. Country: China Method: Case study Sample: Three websites were analysed: Max+, Vpgame and C5game. Skins Gambling key findings: Skin gambling websites may be operating without regulation due to loopholes and vague definitions of gambling in relation to emerging forms of gambling with virtual items. This means that the ambiguity surrounding skin gambling may be leading to undetected harm.

Author and year: Macey, J., Hamari, J., Sjöblom, M., Törhönen, M. (2021). Title: Relationships between the consumption of gamblified media and associated gambling activities in a sample of esports fans. Country: Finland Method: In-person survey Sample: Of the final sample (n = 255), 85% were under the age of 30 years (range 12-47 years), 79% were male, 59% played video games for 15 hours a week or more, 28% played video games for 30 hours a week or more and 1% did not play games, 33% watched esports online once a week or more, 10% reported never watching esports, 29% reported watching esports online for an average of five hours a week or more, 2% reported watching esports for an average of 25 hours a week or more; 64% reported never participating in the four types of gambling, 8% reported participating once a week or more. Skins Gambling key findings: The most popular activity was betting on esports matches (31%), following by loot box opening (22%), then skin lotteries (14%) and finally, playing fantasy esports (3%). These were not mutually exclusive, with 20% indicating participating in more than one activity in varying combinations. Of those who participated in the gambling activities, 20% were over the age over 25. 60% of both monthly and weekly gamblers were under 18 years, while 50% of daily gamblers were under the age of 18 years. Findings related to skin gambling. Gender and frequency of watching esports online were found to be statistically significant predictors of participation in skins lotteries.

Author and year: Gambling Commission. (2016). Title: Virtual currencies, eSports and social gaming – discussion paper. Country: Great Britian Method: Discussion paper Sample: N/A Skins Gambling key findings: In the Gambling Commission’s 2015 Crime LCCP Consultation document, digital currencies are classified ‘money or money’s worth’ under the Gambling Act and therefore their use in gambling does constitute real money gambling. They highlight that any operator wishing to accept digital currency as a means of payment (either directly or through a payment processor which accepts digital currencies) must satisfy themselves and the Commission that they can meet their obligations for anti-money laundering and for social responsibility. Any operator wishing to offer gambling facilities to consumers in Great Britain, including use of digital currencies for real money gambling, must hold an operating licence. Where ‘skins’ are traded or are tradeable and can therefore act as a de facto virtual currency and facilities for gambling with those items are being offered, we consider that a licence is required. To date, the Commission has written to more than 100 unlicensed online gambling websites informing them that they should cease offering facilities for gambling to British customers. A significant number of those websites were offering facilities for remote gambling of digital currencies.

Author and year: Gambling Commission. (2017). Title: Virtual currencies, eSports and social casino gaming – position paper. Country: Great Britain Method: Position paper Sample: N/A Skins Gambling key findings: Where in-game items or currencies which can be won, traded or sold can be converted into cash or exchanged for items of value, under gambling legislation they are considered money or money’s worth. Where facilities for gambling with tradable in-game items are offered to British consumers a licence is required. Based on open-source research, the volume, variety and sophistication of websites advertising opportunities to exchange in-game items for cash, indicates that to term such circumvention of regulation as ‘occasional’ risks understates the extent of this issue.

Author and year: Gambling Commission. (2024). Title: Young people and gambling 2024: Official statistics. Country: Great Britian Method: Online survey Sample: From a sample frame of 660 schools in England, Scotland and Wales, 70 took part in the 2024 Young People Omnibus survey. Overall, 3,869 pupils aged 11- to 17-years-old (24 were aged 18 years) from the 70 schools completed the survey online, representing an average of 55 pupils per school. Skins Gambling key findings: 37% of young people were aware they could bet with in-game items, with 4% having gambling with in-game items on websites outside of the game they were playing. Boys were more likely than girls to be aware that they could bet with in-game items on websites outside of the games they were playing (43% vs. 30%) and were more likely to have done so (5% vs. 1%).

Author and year: Parent Zone. (2018). Title: Skin gambling: Teenage Britain’s secret habit. Country: Great Britain Method: Mixed methods Sample: Survey participants (n = 1001) were aged 13-18 years. Focus group Focus group participants in 6 UK secondary schools were aged 12-16 years. A case study investigation using the identity of a 14-year=old was conducted. Skins Gambling key findings: 30% of 13- to 18-year-olds had heard of skin gambling. Of the 6 focus groups, 4 were aware of skin gambling and had a ‘sophisticated’ understanding of the process. 10% of 13- to 18-year-olds had gambled with skins in some form (rough estimate 448,744 children in the UK aged 13-18 years). One in five of these children were female, four in five were male. 46% of the 13- to 18-year-olds interviewed reported that they could access 18+ websites if they wanted to. Most of the children surveyed who had skin gambled had done so with real money, using pocket money or gift money from parents or family. Using the 14-year-old’s details, Parent Zone were able to: sign up for a Pockit current account, registered for a Paypal account (date of birth was required, but no other checks), deposited cash from the pockit account to the paypal account, signed up for a Steam account providing paypal details and an email address (no age verification required), transferred cash from the Paypal account to the steam account, purchased Dota 2, PUBG and CS:GO skins from other users through Steam Market, signed into numerous skin gambling sites using the steam account and exchanged skins they won for cash on numerous sites.

Author and year: Wardle, H. (2019). Title: The same or different? Convergence of skin gambling and other gambling among children. Country: Great Britain Method: Secondary analysis of survey data Sample: 446 secondary schools were randomly chosen from the Edubase list in England and Wales and from a listing provided by the Scottish Government in Scotland. Within each participating school, one curriculum year group (Year 7 to Year 11) was selected to participate at random for each school. All members of the randomly-selected class group were asked to fill out a paper self-completion survey. Overall, 103 selected schools participated, giving a school-based response rate of 23%. Questionnaires were obtained from 2881 pupils aged 11–16 years. Skins Gambling key findings: Children who engage in both skin gambling and other forms of gambling should be considered an at-risk group for experiencing harms, due to their increased engagement in gambling-like activities. 3% of children reported gambling on both skins and other forms of gambling in the past month. Among skin bettors, 39% had bet on other forms of gambling whilst 61% had bet on skins alone. 16% of children who gambled on other forms had also bet on skins in the past month. At-risk and problem gambling rates were significantly higher among those who had both bet with skins and engaged in other forms of gambling activity in the past month (23%) than those who gambled on other activities alone (8%). However, when controlling for engagement in other activities, skin gambling was not associated with at-risk gambling. Overall findings skin gambling and gambling on other activities were common among British 11- to 16-year-olds, despite restrictions. Skin gambling was the most prevalent gambling activity among boys.

Author and year: Wardle, H., Petrovskaya, E., Zendle, D. (2020). Title: Defining the esports bettor: evidence from an online panel survey of emerging adults. Country: Great Britain Method: Online survey Sample: The Emerging Adult’s Gambling Survey collected data from 3549 16- to 24-year-olds. Participants were drawn from YouGov’s online panel of over one million people living in Britain and were eligible if they were aged between 16 and 24 years, living in Britain and had not taken part in any other YouGov study on gambling in the past year. Skins Gambling key findings: Esports bettors were more likely to have used loot boxes or to have bet on skins, with the biggest difference being skin betting on external websites (58% for esports bettors vs. 7% for sports bettors and 2% for non-gamblers). The odds ratio of being an esports bettor was higher among those who purchased loot boxes with their own money fairly often and among those who had bet skins privately or on external websites. Overall esports betting (including betting with skins) seems to be popular among 16- to 24-year-olds, with 6.4% of past year gamblers engaging, similar prevalence to 16- to 24-year-olds who visit casinos, bookmakers or play fixed odds betting terminals. Video game-related gambling activities like paying to open loot boxes and betting for skins either privately or on external websites were more strongly associated to being an esports bettor.

Author and year: Wardle, H., Tipping, S. (2023). Title: The relationship between problematic gambling severity and engagement with gambling products: Longitudinal analysis of the Emerging Adults Gambling Survey. Country: Great Britain Method: Online survey Sample: Participants were recruited from YouGov’s panel of over one million people living in Britain. Participants were eligible if they were aged 16 to 24 years (at Wave 1), living in Britain and had not participated in another YouGov study on gambling in the past year at baseline. E-mail invitations were sent by YouGov to selected panellists inviting participation in a survey, without advertising its content. Retention rate from Wave 1 to Wave 2 was 58.6% with a final sample of 2536 who completed both waves of the study. Wave 2 was collected during the COVID-19 pandemic, and most land-based gambling venues closed between March-July 2020, and live sports events were cancelled between March-June 2020. At Wave 1, participants were 53.6% female, had a mean age of 20.5 years (SD = 2.4), were 86.8% white, 35.7% lived with parents, family or did not pay rent and 31.3% rented from a local authority or housing authority, 67.4% were single with no partner, 87.7% were in education, employment or training, 69.4% did not have a degree or higher, 57.5% had parents with a degree of higher. A total of 283 participants gambled in both waves. At Wave 1 the gambler sample were 58.8% male, had a mean age of 21.2 years, were 89.8% white, 33.1% rented from a local authority or housing authority and 27% lived with parents or family/friends and did not pay rent, 59.6% were single with no partner, 86.5% were in education, employment or training, 55.5% did not have a degree or higher, 52.6% had parents with a degree or higher. Skins Gambling key findings: When looking at current gamblers only, past-year gambling with skins was significantly related to having higher PGSI scores across both waves. Skin betting had the strongest relationship to PGSI, increasing scores by a factor of 2.32. The interaction terms between waves for skin gambling did not change (i.e., the relationship between the activities and PGSI scores did not change). Loot box gambling was significant in the first, but not the second parsimonious model and may suggest that loot box use and skin betting concurrently is what drives higher PGSI scores.

Author and year: Snodgrass, J.G., Lacy, M. G., Polzer, E., Upadhyay, C. (2024). Title: Gaming lounges in India afford socially productive gambling: The moral economy and foundations of play in Udaipur, Rajasthan. Country: India Method: Mixed methods Sample: 48 responses (100% male) to the field questionnaire were received, which is representative of the entire population of serious CS:GO players in Udaipur. Of the 48 respondents, 83.3% were students, 36.2% were aged 16-19 years, 31.9% were aged 20-21 years, and 31.9% were aged 22-33 years. 21.7% of respondents played games for 0-9 hours a week, 43.5% played for 10-19 hours a week and 34.8% played for 35-55 hours a week. 78.7% of respondents were middle class, 21.3% were considered to be wealthy. 66.7% of respondents were not currently working. 39.6% of respondents preferred “King’s Landing” gaming lounge, 27.1% preferred “Chill Zone”, 22.9% preferred “Gamers Forever!” and 10.4% were unaffiliated. Skins Gambling key findings: Morality, religious and social norms played a key role in CS:GO players’ attitudes towards and engagement with skins gambling. There was a conflict between CS:GO culture, whereby attaining desirable skins was a marker of status and gaming skill and encouraged skin gambling, and the religious, social and moral code of Udaipur. More “serious” environments and players were seen to enjoy skin gambling more than “casual” environments and players, suggesting that distorted cognition related to gambling and gaming could impact involvement with skin gambling.

Author and year: Macey, J., Hamari, J. (2018). Title: Investigating relationships between video gaming, spectating esports, and gambling. Country: International Method: Online survey Sample: 613 respondents with a modal age range of 18-21 years (31.5%); 98.2% played games once a week or more; 50.1% watched esports once a week or more; 32.8% gambled offline within the previous 12 months, 34.4% had gambled online and 47.5% had gambled in relation to video games; 91.4% were male. Skins Gambling key findings: Increased engagement with video gaming did not have a large relationship with video game related gambling, instead esports consumption had the largest relationship. Video game related gambling had a significant and strong relationship with problem gambling severity. There was a strong relationship between online gambling and video game related gambling, potentially indicating a gateway or reverse gateway effect.

Author and year: Macey, J., Hamari, J. (2019) Title: Esports, skins and loot boxes: Participants, practices and problematic behaviour associated with emergent forms of gambling. Country: International Method: Online survey Sample: A total of 582 responses were included in the analysis (1.9% aged 14 years or under, 25.1% aged 15-17 years, 31.3% aged 18-21 years, 16.5% aged 22-25 years, 11.9% aged 26-29 years, 5.3% aged 30-33 years, 2.1% aged 34-37 years, 1,9% aged 38-41 years, 1.7% aged 42-45 years, 0.3% aged 46-49 years, and 0.2% aged 50 years and over; 91.9% male; 55.7% student). Participants were eligible if they had played video games, watched esports, gambled or purchased loot boxes in the previous 12 months. Skins Gambling key findings: Almost 75% of the sample that had participated in gambling connected to video games (including skin betting and gambling) and esports were aged 25 years and under, indicating the younger demographic involved in potentially illicit and unregulated websites offering video game-related and esports betting. Loot box purchasing was found to be the most popular form of gambling-related activity, with 122 of those purchasing loot boxes also reporting using skins to gamble.

Author and year: Thorhauge, A.M. & Nielson, R. K. L. (2021). Title: Epic, Steam, and the role of skin-betting in game (platform) economies. Country: International Method: Comparative analysis Sample: Two online multiplayer games, Counter Strike: Global Offensive and Fortnite. Skins Gambling key findings: For Valve or Steam, skin-betting has economic advantages, regardless of potential harms. Skin-betting could represent a vital role in Valve’s economic strategy. Players are encouraged to become entrepreneurs and blurs boundaries between game economies and wider economies.

Author and year: Xiao, L.Y., Henderson, L .L. (2024). Title: Illegal video game loot boxes with transferable content on steam: a longitudinal study on their presence and non-compliance with and non-enforcement of gambling law. Country: International Method: Content analysis Sample: 165 Steam games were reviewed. The longitudinal sample contained 36 games. Skins Gambling key findings: As of 2024, Steam platforms allows for the transfer of in-game content from 36 games. The top 10 entries that included transferable content were: CS:GO [including CS 2], Dota 2, Killing Floor 2, PUBG, Rust, Steam Platform’s trading card feature, Team Fortress 2, and Unturned. Longitudinal results confirmed that all 36 entries continued to offer transferable loot boxes with transferable content. One game (Killing Floor 2) was the only game of the 36 to have a loot box presence warning label.

Author and year: Coloma-Carmona, A., Carballo, J.L., Sancho-Domingo, C., Rodríguez-Espinosa, S., Miró-Llinares, F., Aguerri, J.C. (2024). Title: Engagement in new gambling practices and its association with gambling disorder, impulsivity, and cognitive distortions: Findings from a nationally representative sample of Spanish gamblers. Country: Spain Method: Online survey Sample: 921 Spanish males and females aged 18-65 years who were classified as gamblers (participants reported past-year participation in any of the traditional gambling activities assessed in the EDADES survey). Participant mean age was 40 years (SD=12.1; 52.2% males; 46.3% single, 50.6% having a university education or higher, 69.3% employed; 55.9% with monthly incomes between 1000 and 2000 euros per month). Skins Gambling key findings: 2.5% of participants reported video game/streaming gambling (e.g., skin gambling, esports betting), with 5.5% involved in all three gambling types (traditional gambling [TG], trading, and video game gambling). Those engaging in video game gambling were significantly younger (mean age ~32–33) than those only in TG groups (~40–41). Males and students were more prevalent among video game gambling participants. The group engaging in all three forms (TG + trading + video game gambling) showed the highest problem gambling severity (62.7% PGSI ≥5), highest impulsivity and cognitive distortions (notably illusion of control), and highest substance use rates. They also had the greatest online gambling involvement (82.4%) and largest single-day bet amounts. Findings suggest simultaneous engagement in TG, trading, and video game gambling represents a higher-risk profile than TG alone or TG combined with one other form.

Author and year: Greer, N., Hing, N., Rockloff, M., Browne, M., King, D. L. (2023). Title: Motivations for esports betting and skin gambling and their association with gambling frequency, problems, and harm. Country: USA, UK, Canada, Ireland Method: Online survey Sample: Participants were eligible to take part if they had engaged in esports cash betting, esports skin betting, or skin gambling in the past six months. Participants were recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk and through social media posts (Facebook, Twitter, Reddit) specifically targeting online gaming, esports and gambling communities. A final sample of 736 participants (Mean age = 28.98 years, SD = 8.07; 80.2% male; 73% USA, 16.2% UK, 9.6% Canada, 1.2% Ireland; 60.5% single never married; 59% obtained a bachelor’s degree or higher; 85.6% employed) was used for data analysis (esports cash betting, n = 576, esports skin betting, n = 180, and skin gambling on games of chance, n = 325). Skins Gambling key findings: Greater endorsement of the regulation of internal states motivation predicted being in a higher at-risk category (PGSI), when controlling for age and gender. Financial motivation for esports skin betting and skin gambling significantly predicted being in a higher at-risk gambling category. Main motivations for skin gambling were closely aligned with those for esports skin betting, with winning skins for non-monetary gain being just as important as for financial gain. Stronger competition/challenge motives were associated with more frequent skin gambling, but not problem gambling or gambling related harm. Similar to esports skin betting, higher motivation to skin gamble for regulation of internal states and financial gain was associated with higher problem gambling severity and gambling-related harm. This highlights the similarity between skin gambling and monetary forms of gambling. Functionally these are similar, with the only difference being that the currency used to wager is skins rather than flat currency.

Author and year: Greer, N., Rockloff, M., Hing, N., Browne, M., King, D.L. (2023). Title: Skin gambling contributes to gambling problems and harm after controlling for other forms of traditional gambling. Country: USA, UK, Canada, Ireland Method: Online survey Sample: 737 participants (80.2% male) ranging between 18 and 64 years of age (M =28.97 years, SD =8.07). Participants were sampled from four countries (73% USA, 16.1% UK, 9.6% Canada, 1.2% Ireland), 60.4% were single never married, 59% had a bachelor’s degree or higher, 85.6% were employed. Skins Gambling key findings: Skin gambling on games of chance (but not esports skin betting) uniquely contributed to being at greater risk of problem gambling (PGSI) and experiencing gambling related harms (SGHS) when factoring in traditional gambling. That is, using skins as currency for more traditional forms of gambling was related to gambling problems and harm rather than betting specifically on esports.

Author and year: Royal Society for Public Health. (2019). Title: Skins in the game. Country: UK Method: Mixed methods Sample: 79 young people across England, Scotland and Wales took part in focus groups. In each country, a focus group was held for participants aged 11-16 years and another for participants aged 17-24 years. To take part in the survey, participants had to be a young person aged between 11 and 24 years, living in the United Kingdom. A total of 1,025 (83% male; 70% aged 11-17 years, 30% aged 18-24 years) participants took part in the survey. Skins Gambling key findings: 69% of young people think that skin betting could be addictive, with 60% classifying skin betting as a form of gambling. 67% of young people agreed that it was normal for peers to take part in skin gambling. Young people felt that young males were more likely to play games where skin betting was more prominent. 17- to 24-year-olds felt that games were designed to be difficult or not enjoyable without microtransactions. Of the total sample (n = 1,025), 12% had taken part in skin betting in the last week and 13% in the last month, with 7% reporting that they take part in skin betting at least once a week on a regular basis. 7% also reported that their first gambling-related activity was skin betting. 15% of those who took part in skin betting or bought loot boxes said they had done so in order to reach a certain level in a game. There was particular concern towards younger players, who had not had experience of games without microtransactions, and so considered these elements to be a normal part of games. Almost twice as many 11- to 14-year-olds had taken part in skin betting in the previous week (14%) than 22- to 24-year-olds (7%; 15-17 = 13%, 18-21 = 9%). Those who had taken part, said they did “to have fun” and that they felt a sense of excitement when a skin bet meant that they could progress or perform better in the game they were playing.