2020, VOL. 20, NO. 3, 452–465
https://doi.org/10.1080/14459795.2020.1789890

A qualitative study of participant experience with skill
gaming machines in comparison to electronic gaming
machines
Sally M. Gainsbury

a

, Kahlil S. Philander

a,b

and Alex Blaszczynski

a

a

School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Science Faculty, Brain and Mind Centre, Sydney, Australia;
School of Hospitality Business Management, Washington State University, Carson College of Business,
Everett, WA, USA

b

ABSTRACT

ARTICLE HISTORY

New variants of electronic gaming machines (EGMs) are being
developed that incorporate gaming elements. Policies to govern
the use of skill gaming machines (SGMs) must be predicated on
evidence of their impact, which is currently lacking. Focus groups
(N = 21) were conducted with university students, regular EGM
players, and community members who played an EGM and SGM.
Participants clearly perceived that SGMs involved a skill component,
although most did not have a good understanding of how SGMs
work. There was evidence of greater immersion in SGMs, but this
was restricted to the feature in which money was not gambled and
time was limited. Participants reported a mixture of both negative
and positive emotions during play on both SGMs and EGMs reflect­
ing some consumers enjoying the gaming-elements to a greater
extent. The results indicate that SGMs would likely appeal to
a subset of consumers and most consumers would not have
a good initial understanding of these machines.

Received 28 April 2020
Accepted 18 June 2020
KEYWORDS

Electronic gaming machine;
skill gaming machine; game
understanding; appeal;
feature; policy

Introduction
Electronic gaming machines (EGMs) are considered controversial gambling pro­
ducts given their reported association with gambling disorders (Delfabbro, King,
Browne et al., 2020). In Australia, 8.1% of adults play electronic gaming machines
monthly and expenditure on gaming machines accounts for one-fifth of total
gambling expenditure (Armstrong & Carroll, 2017). The structural characteristics
of EGMs (e.g. continuous, rapid rates of play, and random schedules of reinforce­
ment) contribute to cognitive biases and interact with neurobiological variables to
increase risk of impaired control and gambling-related harm among a proportion of
participants (Binde et al., 2017; Delfabbro et al., 2020; Gainsbury, Angus et al., 2019;
Harrigan et al., 2014). In most countries, EGMs are subjected to strict regulatory
controls with the expansion of existing machines and/or introduction of newly

CONTACT Sally M. Gainsbury
Sydney, Australia

sally.gainsbury@sydney.edu.au

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

School of Psychology, The University of Sydney,

configured games and machines subjected to detailed scrutiny by regulatory
agencies.
Recent prevalence surveys have reported decreasing rates of participation in EGMs,
increases in sports wagering and betting through online channels, and stable or decreas­
ing reported rates of gambling disorders (Browne et al., 2019; Gambling Commission,
2020; New Zealand National Gambling Study, 2018). For example, the proportion of
NSW adults participating in at least one gambling activity significantly decreased from
69% in 2006 to 53% in 2019 and EGM participation dropped from 31% in 2006 to 16% in
2019 (Browne et al., 2019). Whether the result of changing consumer preferences, social
adaptation, effective harm minimization policies, or other factors, reduction in EGM
participation has led industry operators to question the extent to which the next genera­
tion will engage with gambling, and EGMs specifically. In response to perceived threats
to revenue and industry sustainability, several manufacturers are developing innovative
products designed to appeal to a broader consumer cohort familiar with video gaming.
These manufacturers have incorporated video game elements such as console-style
controllers, progress, achievement, narrative and skill components into EGMs
(Delfabbro, King, Gainsbury et al., 2020).
As there is no single accepted terminology, we use the term skill gaming machines
(SGMs) to refer to EGMs which have a design element enabling individual players to
influence the likelihood of winning. This is similar to other skill-based gambling activ­
ities, such as poker and blackjack where strategies are applied to optimize outcomes but
where random components impact final outcomes (e.g. cards dealt randomly). There are
many variants of products referred to as hybrid gaming machines and video-game
gambling machines (see recent review by Pickering et al., 2020). Like EGMs, SGMs are
based on random number generators set to provide minimum return to player percen­
tages were wins and jackpots occur regardless of level of skill. Superimposed on this
element, games are designed to incorporate skill components with randomly generated
opportunities to maximize outcomes. These include the use of optimal play strategies, or
separate random and skill-based components – for example, skill being confined to
a feature in which bonuses of limited sizes can be won. Just as with regular EGMs,
most players will typically lose, and some players will win. Unlike EGMs, in SGMs,
a player’s skill can enhance their chances of winning to an extent. Typically, greater skill
can influence winning prizes up to a certain level but cannot lead to a positive expected
return. Jackpots and large wins are still randomly determined and can be achieved by
players regardless of skill level.
Most jurisdictions do not currently permit EGMs where outcomes can be influenced
by player skill. Regulatory reforms were introduced in New Jersey and Nevada, allowing
elements of skill to influence payouts (Horridge, 2017), but there is very limited academic
research on the impact of SGMs making it difficult to formulate evidence-based policy
with regards to such products. GameCo was the first manufacturer to introduce a firstperson shooter SGM (although they refer to these as video game gaming machines),
locating the machine at Harrah’s Atlantic City casino in 2016 (Sieroty, 2019).
Questions that regulators should consider include the extent to which consumers can
use SGMs in an informed manner and whether SGMs exacerbate gambling problems
within a community. Informed choice is based on the principle of autonomy and the role
of the individual in having sufficient information to guide life choices (Kapp, 2007).

S. M. GAINSBURY ET AL.

Within the context of gambling, a public health perspective argues that governments and
industry must ensure that individuals have sufficient accurate information on the opera­
tion of products to allow appropriate informed decisions (Blaszczynski et al., 2008).
Illusions of control are a subjective over-estimation of control that is greater than the
objective level of control (Langer, 1975). Studies have shown that gambling activities
which incorporate aspects of skill may increase illusions of control, increasing potential
for gambling problems (Källmén et al., 2008; Myrseth et al., 2010). If SGMs appeal to
individuals with existing gambling problems this may exacerbate illusions of control
resulting in increased or continued play (Brevers et al., 2013; Canale et al., 2019; Young &
Wohl, 2009). Therefore, it is important that consumers understand SGMs and how
outcomes are determined, so that they can make appropriate choices regarding partici­
pation and understand the relative role of skill vs. chance.
In a previous study examining consumer understanding of SGMs (Gainsbury &
Philander, 2020), 184 participants from an online sample were shown examples of
SGMs and completed an author-designed scale to assess their understanding of how
outcomes were determined and the role of skill vs. chance. Responses between those who
had previously played and had not played an SGM were compared. Individuals who had
played SGMs were younger, more likely to be male, have higher gambling problems and
cognitive distortions, and more likely to be involved in all gambling and gaming types as
compared to individuals who had not played SGMs. This is consistent with evidence of
a ‘honeymoon effect’ where existing gamblers gravitate toward new products (Gainsbury
et al., 2017). There was no between-group differences for those reporting an awareness of
involved skill but lacking an understanding of how outcomes are determined. In a similar
study of a sample of 43 US casino patrons who had interacted with an SGM, these authors
found that participants rated the role of skill vs. chance in SGMs to be similar to
blackjack, but that skill was lower than in poker and higher than EGMs (Gainsbury &
Philander, 2020). These preliminary results suggest that consumers do perceive skill to be
involved with SGMs but retain a poor understanding of how short- and long-term
outcomes are determined (Gainsbury & Philander, 2020).
To date, no academic studies have examined consumer perceptions of SGMs. The
current study aimed to investigate consumer perspectives of SGM in contrast to tradi­
tional EGM immediately following a session of play in a simulated laboratory setting (i.e.
without gambling money). Where appropriateness of research questions is not well
suited to specific quantitative studies, qualitative research assists in framing future
research perspectives (Flick, 2007). This study received ethics approval from the lead
author’s institution (protocol: 2019/738). The protocol, measures, and analysis plan were
pre-registered: https://osf.io/ba5n2/

Methods
Participants
A total of 21 participants (11 female, 8 male, 2 unreported) participated in three focus
groups. Each group comprised seven participants with n = 7 drawn from a population of
university students (aged 18 to 39 years), n = 7 regular EGM players, and n = 7 com­
munity members.

University students were recruited through an online research participant recruitment
platform where they received either course credit or payment for participation. Regular
EGM players (played at least monthly) were recruited through the database of a market
research firm and received payment for participation. Community members were
recruited through locally targeted advertisements (e.g. social media, flyers) and received
payment for their participation. Eligibility criteria included being over 18 years of age and
an Australian resident. Individuals were informed that participation would require
engagement with an electronic gaming machine and not to participate if they have
experienced gambling problems.
Procedure
The study was conducted in a university research laboratory housing three traditional
EGMs and three SGMs electronic gaming machines. Upon arrival, all participants were
met by a research assistant and brought to a waiting area where they were given a tablet
device containing the Participant Information Statement and Consent Form. Participants
were taken to the laboratory and asked to select a machine to play. Given there were
seven participants for six machines, two participants were paired on one machine, with
one observing the other play for 5 minutes before swapping places. Machines were
preloaded with credits; no money was bet or awarded as games were set in demo
mode. Participants were told to start playing their machines without further instructions
given. After 5 minutes, a research assistant triggered the SGM feature mode on those
machines, and after a further 5 minutes, told to swap to the alternative machine (i.e. from
SGM to EGM, or vice versa). Play resumed following the same procedure of 5 minutes
play before triggering the SGM feature and a further 5 minutes play.
Participants were then brought to another room for the focus group discussion. The
groups followed a semi-structured format, with questions asked followed by probing
questions where necessary. Questions assessed participant’s experience playing the
machines and elicited thoughts about aspects of the machines and game play. On
completion of the focus groups lasting approximately 1 hour, participants were provided
with a debrief sheet, and given a verbal description during which time they could ask
questions about the machines and/or study. Participants received payment for participa­
tion at completion of the study.
Stimuli
The typical EGM was a standard modern reel-based machine in which participants could
vary their bet size and number of lines using buttons or a touch screen and would see the
outcome after reels spinning. The machine had a traditional free game feature1 in which
participants can choose ‘red’ or ‘black’ on a card flip and standalone progressive jackpot
with a minimum return to player percentage of 90.5%. As this study was conducted in
Australia, the EGMs may be referred to as ‘pokies’ or ‘poker’ machines, even though the
game is predominately reel-based.
The specific SGM used in this study, Fortunes of the Brave2 by Wymac Gaming
Solutions includes two play styles. Participants start in a standard reel-spin-style game
and can vary bet size and number of lines using buttons or touch screen controls. In

S. M. GAINSBURY ET AL.

addition to typical wins and loss credits, during the reel-spin participants randomly win
non-monetary currencies which can be exchanged for cosmetic character upgrades and
items that can be used within the features (e.g. weapons) to increase their ability. Once
three or more symbols appear in any place on the reels, a feature is triggered. To
commence, participants must click each button to ensure that it works and are shown
a brief explanation of how to play the feature (e.g. how to move the character).
Participants can then customize their avatar by selecting cosmetic items (e.g. armor).
In the feature, participants use their character (e.g. a knight) in one of two battle arenas
where they use a console-style hand-held controller to defeat enemy forces. The feature
lasts 4 minutes. If the participants' character is eliminated with time remaining in the
feature, they are ‘respawn’ and the battle continues. Participants accrue a point score for
successfully battling and eliminating the enemies, the points score is displayed on the
participants' screen as well as the top screen. Participants must achieve a minimum level
of points to win the first level of monetary payout, with subsequent higher payouts
requiring higher score to be achieved. The score required to achieve each payout level is
set and participants achieve this based on their performance within the feature. The size
of the payout varies depending on the jackpot parameters set, the amount of play on the
machine, and the outcomes of previous players – when a player wins, the prizes reset to
a lower level, but accrue over time if subsequent players are unsuccessful, similar to
a standard mystery jackpot. The minimum return to player percentage was 90.5%.
Analysis
Focus group sessions were audio-recoded and transcribed by a professional transcription
service. Data were subject to thematic analysis using a deductive, theoretical approach in
which the research questions guided analysis of the data (Braun & Clark, 2006). Two
research assistants independently coded the data and then collaboratively reviewed their
assessments to determine final codes and themes. Any discrepancies were referred to the
study’s principal investigator who also reviewed the transcripts and analysis. Qualitative
analysis was conducted using NVivo software, version 12. A project memo was kept
detailing methodological and analytical issues as they arose, and decisions made. Node
memos were kept to detail coders’ understanding of nodes (codes) in the focus group
data as they developed, and their relationship to each other and their overarching themes.
Quotes have been edited to remove filler words (e.g. ‘like’, ‘um’) for clarity.

Results
The thematic analysis of the focus group data identified three key themes surrounding
SGMs: an ambiguous gaming experience with confusion about how the SGM worked;
varied attitudes toward SGMs; and perceptions of the role of skill.
Ambiguous gaming-gambling experience
At the conceptual level, many participants were confused by the premise underpinning
the SGM, how the gambling and gaming elements related to each other, and who the
target user was. Several participants said the SGM failed to provide sufficient context or

premise for why EGM reels were being blended with a video game, which led to a jarring
experience for some.
“One minute you’re playing a poker machine, the next minute you’re thrown into . . . a War
Craft style thing.” (EGM player)

Participants debated whether to conceptualize the SGM as either primarily an EGM with
video game features or a new video game machine with subsidiary gambling elements.
Participants in each group said they were unclear whether they were spending money
(and in effect gambling) while they played the feature, how the feature affected how much
they would win, and the relationship between reel play and the feature.
“I was a bit confused on the feature. How do I know how much money I’m winning when I hit
the . . . insects? Does each insect have like 10 USD worth, or – it’s kind of confusing.” (Male
EGM player)
“I still didn’t know how much I was winning, or is it . . . do I make money per wave, or is it per
insect?” (Male EGM player)
“I also had no idea when I did pay for an upgrade and got it, whatever it was, whether that was
real money or whether it was just credit or something else. Was it just using points that
I earned, or was it using the real money that I put in or earned?” (Male community member)

Additionally, some participants questioned whether choosing different customized
appearances for their character was a functional or purely esthetic consideration. Other
participants said they perceived a connection between the reels and feature, correctly
identifying that bonuses could be gained in reel spins that could be used to access
additional features in the feature (e.g. power-ups which provided a game advantage).
One described the feature as a welcome ‘time out’ from reel play, while another suggested
that wins in reel play could be used to upgrade their character in the feature game and
this made the reel-spin component more interesting.
“I liked the fact that when you are doing the more boring element of just the real spinning, you
can see the different colour gems, and how to level up to your character, which will help later.
So it gave – there was a purpose to it in that regard. Not just the luck chance bit, but you could
see when the little green gems filled up the green bar, the red ones filled up the red bar, it made
sense. So, I like that.” (Male community member)

On a practical level, there was a perceived lack of clarity around the rules of the game and
instructions for how to play in the feature. Three participants commented on the need for
a tutorial within the game to set out basic play functions, with one favoring a tutorial over
written instructions.
I felt with the newer game, it probably would have been good to have some sort of
explanation of how the skill element connects to the gambling element, because I wasn’t
sure . . .. (Student)

Difficulty in mastering the machine’s controls and/or the character’s movement in the
game was noted by several participants.
In the fighting part there’s a complete lack of instruction on what’s actually happening, or
how to do anything. Like the little upgrades . . . that you can buy the suit and armour and
whatever else, they seem to be purely cosmetic. (EGM player)

S. M. GAINSBURY ET AL.

Varied attitudes toward SGMs and EGMs
Across the three focus groups, participants reported a mixture of both negative (bore­
dom, confusion) and positive (interest, enjoyment) emotions during play on both
machines. Several reported feeling frustration or boredom, with numerous participants
commenting that the EGM was ‘slow’ and/or ‘boring.’ Others said they found both the
SGM and EGM to be monotonous and a further participant described the reels section of
the SGM as boring.
I thought the newer one was much more fun, because you could actually . . . control the game
more, and I felt . . . I didn’t really notice the time . . . but with the slots, I was kind of just
repeatedly pressing the button, and it got quite . . . monotonous in that way. (Student)

Several participants reported feeling confused while playing the SGM, with some attri­
buting this confusion to their lack of understanding of the concept underpinning the
game (as mentioned above) and the game’s rules. Participants were not certain how often
a feature would occur in relation to reel spins when playing SGMs. Conversely, one
reported he found the EGM plays a confusing experience.
Numerous participants said they felt immersed or engrossed while playing the SGM,
particularly the game’s feature, with some of these commenting that they felt more
engrossed in the SGM as compared to the EGM. Participants spoke generally of video
gaming as being an immersive experience.
“[The SGM] is more engrossing and interactive . . . when you play that game, you’re actually
playing a game, whereas [with] the poker machine you’re kind of mindlessly just staring into
a void.” (EGM player)
“You can include your personality in the – in the gaming one. You are actually involved in it
directly, and you’re doing something. But with the poker machine you’re not really doing very
much.” (Female EGM player)

Feelings of amusement, curiosity, and interest in relation to SGM play were reported by
participants, with some commenting on a greater level of enjoyment during the game’s
feature. Participants described the SGM as being ‘fun’ and/or more fun than the EGM. In
several instances, the greater enjoyment was related to ‘value for money’ or a greater
focus than the gambling element.
“I feel like I’m getting more of my money’s worth with the video game style”. (Male EGM
player)
“I figured if I was paying money and I’m actually – even I didn’t win anything, I’ve paid for the
enjoyment of playing the game, like you would at one of the arcades or something.” (Male
community member)
“And I also noticed that I was way less concentrated on the money aspect [chuckles] and the,
you know, battle game.” (Female community member)
“When you’re playing the game play and the fighting bits, you totally forget about money and
then you forget you’re gambling. You’re just focussing on winning as much as possible.” (Male
community member)

A few participants found aspects of the EGM enjoyable or interesting, such as being able
to ‘gamble’ wins on card flips.

So, I was . . . doing the gambles, because . . . that’s more interesting than just like pressing.
(Female community member)

Some participants commented on their dislike of the roving camera angle in the SGM
feature and remarked on their difficulty in using the handheld controller. In contrast,
others made positive remarks about the handheld controls. Several said they did not like
the fighting aspect of the game’s feature, with one describing it as ‘stressful’ and another
as ‘confusing’. Some participants remarked that the graphics in the game’s feature were of
a poor quality.
“I think the graphics could be improved. . . . if you see other games which are in the market
right now, they have much better graphics . . . ” (Student)

The role of skill
Most of the participants variously described the SGM as being ‘skilled-based’ and/or
requiring or depending more on skill than the EGM. One participant said that young
people would see the SGM as being skill-based and therefore affording them a better
chance of winning. In terms of wins and losses, several participants referred to the
element of greater user control and skill in the SGM as being linked to the amount of
money that a player would win or ‘earn’, with a perception among some that a ‘good
gamer’ would win greater amounts of money.
“I think if you put gambling aside, and if a person truly has skills, like good gaming skills, such
kind of machines can prove to be an alternate source of revenue for the person.” (Student)
“Oh, it’s actually kind of nice, because . . . you think you have more control of how much
money you’re winning. So if you actually got good at it, . . . I’d probably play that machine
rather than the other one, where you’re just hoping something good . . . will come down.” (Male
EGM player)
“As you increase you get better using it. If I play something new like that, I’ll only bet low until
I get the hang of it a bit, and then I’ll increase my bid as I feel I’m getting more confident with
it.” (Male EGM player)

In relation to the role of skill, one participant specifically discussed the opportunity of
features to enable players to win back losses in the chance-based reel-spin component:
“Your win or potential winnings is based on how well you do . . . So even if I’ve been unlucky
before, I can make up for it in this”. (Male community member)

Some participants referred to EGMs as being a chance-based game and others described
the reel section of the SGM as being chance-based.
Further discussions emerged about the likely impact of the skill component on wins
and losses. Although one participant remarked that they would lose less playing the SGM
as compared to the EGM due to time spent in the feature game, others argued a player
would lose more given the amount they would have to spend learning how to play, and
some participants said money would be spent getting to the next level. The cost of
acquiring skill in the SGM feature was discussed by several participants some commented
that users would have to spend money on repeated plays so as to practice and develop

S. M. GAINSBURY ET AL.

abilities in the game’s feature, and others argued regular gamers would acquire skill in the
SGM relatively quickly.
“ . . . when you’re just at home playing regular video games, you have nothing to lose, so you
can just kind of chill, learn the games as you go. But . . . this . . . you are actually putting
money – you’re gaining or losing money with it, and that’s . . . a very real thing.” (Student)

Relating to the confusion described previously, there was confusion among participants
about how outcomes within the skill feature component would impact monetary prizes.
“I felt with the newer game, it probably would have been good to have . . . some sort of
explanation of how the skill element connects to the gambling element, because I wasn’t
sure . . . – okay, so you won . . . – I don’t know, . . . a shield or something. I don’t know what that
was.” (Female student)
“I didn’t get evidence in my . . . experience of playing [SGM]that the money went back into my
kitty.” (Female community member)
“is that just where it’s going, . . . to help me with the game in level – . . . to get to level four, or is
it helping me earn money in the real world.” (Female community member)

Discussion
The purpose of this research was to gain an understanding of individuals’ subjective
perceptions of playing EGMs and SGMs. Overall, a range of sentiments were expressed
toward SGMs, with some participants enjoying the gaming aspects and others finding it
confusing, difficult, and even stressful. The difficulty and stress appeared mostly related
to the lack of familiarity and comfort with the gaming genre and controls. Conversely,
some participants felt that the SGM was more entertaining and thus represented better
value for money than reel-spin-based products. Although participants did not speak
about their previous gaming experience, our results suggest that SGMs are likely to
appeal to a subset of consumers with greater comfort with this format and gaming-style
and mechanics. Prior research on SGMs indicates that intent to play is predicted by more
favorable attitudes (Gainsbury et al., 2019) and SGMs are more likely to be played by
those with existing gaming preferences and experience (Gainsbury & Philander, 2020).
Gaming is extremely popular across society, for example, over two-thirds of Australians
play video games (Brand et al., 2019). If comfort with and enjoyment of gaming is related
to positive perceptions of SGMs, this suggests that these may be relatively popular
gambling activities. However, more research is required to determine how gamers
would interact with SGMs given their gambling elements and cost of play.
There were no substantial differences in perceptions of and attitudes toward SGMs
and EGMs between the three recruitment groups. None of the three groups appeared to
exhibit more positive or negative appraisal of the SGMs, although a proportion of regular
EGM and community participants thought that the SGMs would be more popular among
young people. Nonetheless, the student group, which were a younger age cohort, did not
report any greater positive sentiment than the other groups. Prior research suggests that
SGMs are more popular with existing EGM customers and younger players (Gainsbury &
Philander, 2020; Pickering et al., 2020). Of note, regular EGM players are more likely to
be exposed to SGMs if these were legalized or trialed in venues, so they may be more

likely to engage with these than the average community member who would not be
visiting venues to have the same access opportunities. As our sample was small and not
representative of general gambling venue or community populations further research is
required to understand who would be most likely to engage with SGMs. This could
include an ecologically valid field trial, or a laboratory or other simulated environment
including free choice for participants regarding their preferred type of machine with
which to engage.
Most participants perceived that SGMs involved skill while EGMs were chance based.
Our findings are consistent with previous research that consumers understand that
SGMs involve skill to a greater extent than EGMs, but do not have a good understanding
how outcomes are determined and the relative roles of skill and chance (Gainsbury &
Philander, 2020). Participants discussed how it may be possible for some players to
overestimate their skill, however there was no evidence amongst the group that any
participants viewed themselves as being more skilled than any other consumer, or that
they personally would engage in repetitive play to ‘practice’ and increase their skills.
The current research contributes new insight to literature by describing specific aspects
of game design that contribute to player misunderstanding. There was confusion about the
how reel play related to the skill features, and how much money was being wagered and
won during the features. These findings are useful to inform the development of player
information strategies which should focus on increasing understanding of how outcomes
are determined and the role of chance in determining outcomes (Wohl et al., 2010). Future
research should examine whether illusions of control, or overestimates of the chance of
winning, vary based on prior experience with gaming or perceived gaming skill. Future
studies should consider whether these cognitive distortions influence the likelihood of
playing SGMs or how players engage with these products.
Some participants reported that the SGM feature was highly engaging and immersive
to the extent that they were not focused on time or money spent. However, these
experiences were related to the feature in which money is not actively wagered and it is
automatically time limited. Immersion in this machine’s feature would not result in
greater gambling expenditure as has been observed in the immersion during reel-spinstyle EGM play (Imperatori et al., 2017; Schluter & Hodgins, 2019; Stewart & Wohl,
2013). The feature ends automatically, which may create a natural break in play whereby
players can decide whether they want to continue to engage with reel-spins. The impact
may be more similar to the indirect impact of smoking bans within gambling venues,
which resulted in a reduction in EGM revenue (Lal & Siahpush, 2008; Tanner et al.,
2017). However, preliminary research has shown that forced breaks in gambling can
increase urges to continue (Blaszczynski et al., 2016). Further research is required to
investigate the impact of the break in continuous play created by the feature and whether
engaging in a different activity during a break in play has a positive impact on increasing
sustainable gambling.
The research design included participants engaging in non-monetary-simulated play in
a laboratory setting that precludes any comment made on patterns of play, gambling
behavior, or impact on problem gambling. A small number of non-representative parti­
cipants were included so the results are not intended to be extrapolated to a broader
population. Specifically, people with existing gambling problems or a history of gambling
problems were instructed not to participate as part of the ethics approval requirements.

S. M. GAINSBURY ET AL.

Given the nature of focus groups, the results are limited to verbalized personal cognitions.
This trial included one type of SGM that is not representative of the broad array of these
machines and caution is needed to generalize the results to other SGMs.

Conclusions
This is the first qualitative study of player experience following engagement with SGMs in
comparison to traditional EGMs. It provides in-depth insight into whether consumers under­
stand SGMs and EGMs and their related attitudes. Many participants expressed positive
attitudes toward SGMs and the skill-based gaming-style feature as being more engaging and
entertaining than reel play. However, some participants did not understand the skill feature
and how it was related to the reel-spin component, and this made them uncomfortable. All
participants perceived that skill was involved in the outcomes of SGMs. However, one session
of play does not appear to be sufficient to understand the precise role of skill vs. chance in
determining outcomes. Future research is needed to explore some of the longer term impacts
of SGM play, including whether consumers would play SGMs repeatedly in an attempt to
develop ‘skill’ and increase their chances of winning, and whether this could contribute to
gambling problems. Many of the key questions around the potential impact of SGMs on
gambling and gambling harms are difficult to answer without an independently run ecologi­
cally valid trial of SGMs in a gambling venue with a comparison to similar EGMs across
a substantial time period to investigate immediate adoption and use of machines and ongoing
use among consumers using exit surveys, loyalty/tracking metrics, and machine data.

Notes
1. A ‘feature’ in an EGM refers to an event involving special sound, music or lighting effects
typically associated with the player receiving an opportunity to win bonus credits or other
special bonuses.
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ga7UC6zL_s.

Disclosure statements

Funding
This work received funding from Wymac Gaming and was supported by an Australian Research
Council Discovery Early Career Research Award [DE1060100459] awarded to Dr. Sally Gainsbury.
Wymac Gaming provided further support for this research by providing EGMs and SGMs which
were housed at a laboratory at the University of Sydney. Liquor and Gaming NSW approved the
use of EGMs for the purpose of this research. Neither Wymac Gaming, Liquor and Gaming NSW
or the ARC had any involvement in any aspects of the research including, but not limited to, the
research questions, methodology, selection of research participants, research conduct, or analysis
of results.

Constraints on publishing
The funding body placed no constraints on publishing and had no requirements to review this
manuscript before submission or publication.

Competing Interest
Sally Gainsbury and Alex Blaszczynski are Editors of International Gambling Studies and were
blinded from the review and editorial process. Their competing interests are declared on the IGS
website. Since 2016, Kahlil Philander has received research funds from the Washington State
Gaming Commission, Manitoba Gambling Research Program, UNLV International Centre for
Gaming Regulation, U.S.-Japan Business Council, Board of Regents of the Nevada System of
Higher Education. He has received consulting payments from British Columbia Lottery
Corporation, Responsible Gambling Council of Canada, Intralot, the Commonwealth of The
Bahamas, West Virginia Lottery, Indiana Gaming Commission, and iDevelopment and
Economic Association. He has received reimbursement for travel from the National Conference
of State Legislators, National Council for Problem Gambling, International Association of Gaming
Advisors, National Centre for Responsible Gambling, Responsible Gambling Council of Canada,
North American State and Provincial Lottery Association, Evergreen Council on Problem
Gambling, Global Gaming Expo Asia, and Alberta Gambling Research Institute. He is a member
of the National Council for Problem Gambling, and formerly was the Director of Social
Responsibility at the British Columbia Lottery Corporation.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge and thank Darragh O’Keefe, Su Jeong Cho, Kristin Economou,
Brittany Keen and Thomas Swanton for their assistance with this research.

Data availability statement
The qualitative data described in this article is not available due to ethical restrictions. However,
the protocol was pre-registered and the measures used are available here: https://osf.io/ba5n2/.

Open scholarship
This article has earned the Center for Open Science badge for Open Materials and Preregistered.
The materials are openly accessible at https://osf.io/ba5n2/.

Notes on contributors
Dr. Sally Gainsbury is Associate Professor in the School of Psychology and Co-Director of the
Gambling Treatment and Research Clinic within the University of Sydney. Her research focuses
on understanding the impact of new technology on gambling and behavioural addictions and
interventions to minimise harms.
Kahlil Philander is an Assistant Professor at Washington State University's Carson College of
Business, and an Honorary Lecturer at the School of Psychology at the University of Sydney. His
research interests are in the socio-economic impacts of gambling.
Alex Blaszczynski is Emeritus Professor in the School of Psychology and Co-Director of the
Gambling Treatment and Research Clinic within the University of Sydney.

ORCID
Sally M. Gainsbury
Kahlil S. Philander

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9641-5838
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0747-0772

S. M. GAINSBURY ET AL.

Alex Blaszczynski

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1476-0791

References
Armstrong, A. R., & Carroll, M. (2017). Gambling activity in Australia: Findings from wave 15 of
the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey. Australian
Gambling Research Centre and the Australian Institute of Family Studies. https://aifs.gov.au/
agrc/publications/gambling-activity-australia
Binde, P., Romild, U., & Volberg, R. A. (2017). Forms of gambling, gambling involvement and
problem gambling: Evidence from a Swedish population survey. International Gambling
Studies, 17(3), 490–507. https://doi.org/10.1080/14459795.2017.1360928
Blaszczynski, A., Cowley, E., Anthony, C., & Hinsley, K. (2016). Breaks in play: Do they achieve
intended aims? Journal of Gambling Studies, 32(2), 789–800. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899015-9565-7
Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., Nower, L., & Shaffer, H. (2008). Informed choice and gambling:
Principles for consumer protection. The Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, 2(1),
103–118. http://www.ubplj.org/index.php/jgbe/article/view/527
Brand, J., Jervis, J., Huggins, P., & Wilson, T. (2019). Digital Australia 2020. IGEA. https://igea.net/
wp-content/uploads/2019/08/DA20-Report-FINAL-Aug19.pdf
Braun, V & Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brevers, D., Cleeremans, A., Bechara, A., Greisen, M., Kornreich, C., Verbanck, P., & Noël, X.
(2013). Impaired self-awareness in pathological gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 29(1),
119–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-012-9292-2
Browne, M., Rockloff, M., Hing, N., Russell, A., Boyle, C., Rawat, V., Tran, K., Brook, K., &
Sproston, K. (2019). NSW gambling survey, 2019. NSW Responsible Gambling Fund. https://
www.responsiblegambling.nsw.gov.au/research2/research/nsw-gambling-survey–2019
Canale, N., Cornil, A., Giroux, I., Bouchard, S., & Billieux, J. (2019). Probing gambling urge as
a state construct: Evidence from a sample of community gamblers. Psychology of Addictive
Behaviors, 33(2), 154–161. https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000438
Delfabbro, P., King, D., & Gainsbury, S. M. (2020). Understanding gambling and gaming skill and
its implications for the convergence of gaming with electronic gaming machines. International
Gambling Studies, 20(1), 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/14459795.2019.1662824
Delfabbro, P., King, D. L., Browne, M., & Dowling, N. A. (2020). Do EGMs have a stronger
association with problem gambling than racing and casino table games? Evidence from a decade
of Australian prevalence studies. Journal of Gambling Studies, 36(2), 499–511. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10899-020-09950-5
Flick, U. (2007). What is qualitative research?. In Flick, U. (Ed.), Qualitative Research kit: Designing
qualitative research (pp. 2–15). London: SAGE Publications, Ltd. doi: 10.4135/9781849208826
Gainsbury, S. M., Abarbanel, B., & Blaszczynski, A. (2017). Intensity and gambling harms:
Exploring breadth of gambling involvement among esports bettors. Gaming Law Review, 21
(8), 610–615. https://doi.org/10.1089/glr2.2017.21812
Gainsbury, S. M., Angus, D. J., & Blaszczynski, A. (2019). Isolating the impact of specific gambling
activities and modes on problem gambling and psychological distress in internet gamblers.
BMC Public Health, 19(1), 1372. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7738-5
Gainsbury, S. M., & Philander, K. S. (2020). Skill gambling machines and electronic gaming
machines: Irrational cognitions and understanding of the role of skill [Pre-print publication].
Open Science Framework. https://osf.io/w5hm3/
Gainsbury, S. M., Philander, K. S., & Grattan, G. (2019). Predicting intention to play random and
skill-based electronic gambling machines using the theory of reasoned action. Journal of
Gambling Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-019-09915-3

Gambling Commission. (2020). Gambling participation and problem gambling. https://www.gam
blingcommission.gov.uk/news-action-and-statistics/Statistics-and-research/Levels-ofparticipation-and-problem-gambling/Gambling-participation-and-problem-gambling.aspx
Harrigan, K., MacLaren, V., Brown, D., Dixon, M. J., & Livingstone, C. (2014). Games of chance or
masters of illusion: Multiline slots design may promote cognitive distortions. International
Gambling Studies, 14(2), 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/14459795.2014.918163
Horridge, K. (2017). Skill-based gambling machine manufacturer Gameco targets Australia, but
hurdles remain. Casino.org https://www.casino.org/news/skill-based-gambling-machine-manu
facturer-targets-australia/
Imperatori, C., Innamorati, M., Bersani, F. S., Imbimbo, F., Pompili, M., Contardi, A., & Farina, B.
(2017). The association among childhood trauma, pathological dissociation and gambling
severity in casino gamblers. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 24(1), 203–211. https://doi.
org/10.1002/cpp.1997
Källmén, H., Andersson, P., & Andren, A. (2008). Are irrational beliefs and depressive mood more
common among problem gamblers than non-gamblers? A survey study of Swedish problem
gamblers and controls. Journal of Gambling Studies, 24(4), 441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899008-9101-0
Kapp, M. B. (2007). Patient autonomy in the age of consumer-driven health care: Informed
consent and informed choice. Journal of Legal Medicine, 28(1), 91–117. https://doi.org/10.
1080/01947640601180398
Lal, A., & Siahpush, M. (2008). The effect of smoke-free policies on electronic gaming machine
expenditure in Victoria, Australia. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 62(1), 11–15.
https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2006.051557
Langer, E. J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality, 32(2), 311–328. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.32.2.311
Myrseth, H., Brunborg, G. S., & Eidem, M. (2010). Differences in cognitive distortions between
pathological and non-pathological gamblers with preferences for chance or skill games. Journal
of Gambling Studies, 26(4), 561–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-010-9180-6
New Zealand National Gambling Study: Wave 4 (2015). (2018). Ministry of Health NZ. https://
www.health.govt.nz/publication/new-zealand-national-gambling-study-wave–4–2015
Pickering, D., Philander, K. S., & Gainsbury, S. M. (2020). Skill-based electronic gaming machines:
A review of product structures, risks of harm, and policy issues. Current Addiction Reports, 7(2),
229–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40429-020-00309-9
Schluter, M. G., & Hodgins, D. C. (2019). Dissociative experiences in Gambling Disorder. Current
Addiction Reports, 6(1), 34–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40429-019-0238-y
Sieroty, C. (2019, April 25). Skill-Based slots does not accurately describe video game gambling,
GameCo CEO says. Gambling Compliance. https://gamblingcompliance.com/premium-content
/insights_analysis/skill-based-slots-does-not-accurately-describe-video-game-gambling
Stewart, M. J., & Wohl, M. J. A. (2013). Pop-up messages, dissociation, and craving: How monetary
limit reminders facilitate adherence in a session of slot machine gambling. Psychology of
Addictive Behaviors, 27(1), 268–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029882
Tanner, J., Drawson, A. S., Mushquash, C. J., Mushquash, A. R., & Mazmanian, D. (2017). Harm
reduction in gambling: A systematic review of industry strategies. Addiction Research & Theory,
25(6), 485–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/16066359.2017.1310204
Wohl, M. J. A., Christie, K.-L., Matheson, K., & Anisman, H. (2010). Animation-based education
as a gambling prevention tool: Correcting erroneous cognitions and reducing the frequency of
exceeding limits among slots players. Journal of Gambling Studies, 26(3), 469–486. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10899-009-9155-7
Young, M. M., & Wohl, M. J. A. (2009). The gambling craving scale: Psychometric validation and
behavioral outcomes. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 23(3), 512–522. https://doi.org/10.
1037/a0015043