Close
today i learned (til)

Gacha or Gambling?

April 24, 2026

When someone tells you that they have a gambling addiction, what is the first thing you think of? The most stereotypical image would be a person in the casino, playing on slot machines. Perhaps the first thing that comes to mind is online sports betting instead. But has anyone considered video games?

 

Rising in Popularity: GACHA

One of the most popular genres of games that have developed throughout the past few years include a “gacha” system. The term stems from the Japanese word “gachapon”, which refers to small machines where people can exchange coins for a random toy capsule (Reyes, 2025). 

According to Epic Games, some of their most popular games include Genshin Impact, Honkai Star Rail, Wuthering Waves, Zenless Zone Zero, and Where Winds Meet all employ a gacha system. While these games are free to play, they often include gacha systems as a way to win prizes such as playable characters, weapons, or cosmetics. Users can either play the game and earn in-game currency or pay real money to buy “pulls” for these games. The “pulls” are then used in the gacha system, where players try their chances at getting the prize that they need. These are often characters or cosmetics that are quite rare, incentivizing players to keep playing or spending money to get the prizes that they want. 

In a way, this can be seen as gambling. Players are often paying real money for the random chance at winning a prize that is not guaranteed to them. Although real money is not required, some games make it difficult to earn pulls through gameplay only. 

 

The Psychology of Addiction

 Addiction lacks a universal definition in psychology, making it difficult to determine what is truly an addiction or not. According to one article, some have defined addiction as “continual, excessive use and ‘loss of control’” of something to the point of dependence (Wanigaratne, 2006). In other words, addiction can be defined as the use of something to the point where it is no longer controllable for a person. They simply keep going back to it, as if they are dependent on it. With this definition, anything can be an addiction, not just substances. Sure, things like drugs and alcohol are some of the most common ideas associated with addiction, but with this definition, recreational activities such as games or gambling can be addictive as well.

There are several different theories that psychologists have come up with to try and explain addiction. Some have theorized that it is a result of conditioning, where the results of the addictive behavior can act as positive reinforcers the same way food or sex have been used in the conditioning process (Wanigaratne, 2006). For example, gacha games often offer the most desirable prizes as the rarest ones, making it quite difficult for players to get the item that they want. However, these games often have a “pity system”, where there is a guaranteed chance of receiving a rarer item based on the number of times a player has already pulled (Reyes, 2025). Although the specific item that the player wants is not guaranteed, they are given a reward for continuing to feed into the behavior more and more. Additionally, once the player receives the item that they want, the event can act as a positive reinforcer, conditioning players to continue to buy more pulls as they did before. 

 

Issues with Gambling on the Internet

As always, enjoying mobile games or betting does not always equal addiction. However, it is important to understand how making such games available to the general public can be dangerous. For instance, the games on the Internet have certainly made gambling much more accessible, which can make it easier for people to develop harmful habits. Some studies have noted that mobile app users typically visit the apps on their phone on a frequent, habitual basis, putting those who gamble on the Internet at a higher risk than those who do not (James, O’Malley, & Tunney, 2016). Most of the games mentioned before are available on mobile devices as well, making them extremely easy to play at any time, anywhere. Although this does not necessarily mean that they can result in harmful habits, it is certainly easy for a person to play the game every single day and regularly come back to paying for more pulls whenever they want.

This does not mean that gacha games should be banned overall, but it is important for parents and players to be careful when playing. Make sure to take breaks and think before making any big purchases on a game!

 

Wanigaratne, S (2006). Psychology of addiction. Psychiatry, 5(12), 455-460. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.mppsy.2006.09.007 

James, R.J.E., O’Malley, C., Tunney, R.J. (2016). Understanding the psychology of mobile gambling: A behavioral synthesis. British Journal of Psychology, 108(3), 608-625. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12226 

Reyes, J. (2025). Gacha games explained: Banners, pulls, pity systems, and more. Epic Games. https://store.epicgames.com/en-US/news/gacha-games-explained-banners-pulls-pity-systems-and-more 

0Likes
About Author

Hey hi! I'm a CS major here at Georgia Tech that enjoys learning all things art and design.

You May Also Like

Articles, today i learned (til)
Has Plastoline made gasoline renewable and free?
Funny Bone, today i learned (til)
Badass Biology: Toxoplasma gondii
today i learned (til)
The Apple M1 Chip: A Breakthrough in Personal Computing
today i learned (til)
Medieval Medicinal Remedies Not to Try at Home

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.