First, your initial argument was this:
As presented, the argument is that the sole reason to hire psychologists is to make games addictive, which you have not provided evidence with. All you have is individual facts that are linked by a set of assumptions you have not provided support for. If you want to qualify that initial statement to clarify that there’s more to psychology in games than making games addictive, that would be a start.
That being said:
That bolded bit? You haven’t proven that, because the studies you keep linking to don’t do that. And they don’t do that because the studies aren’t designed to explain causation, only correlation. Loot box purchases might lead to problem gambling, but it’s also possible (and IMO, likely) that problem gambling (or rather, personality traits that result in it) leads to higher loot box purchases.
And I’ve said this multiple times, and you still ignore the obvious fact that the studies you cite don’t (and can’t) show the causal link you claim exists. If you continue making those statements despite this, I’ll have to assume you either don’t understand the difference between correlation and causation, or choose to ignore it for the sake of your agenda.
Just for emphasis: the same studies you are quoting. The ones I bothered to look up and read.