If you go to your local video game store (or, more likely these days, sit at home and browse an online retailer) and check out the games rated PEGI 18+, you might see some anomalies. Red Dead Redemption 2, Grand Theft Auto V, God of War Ragnarök and… Balatro? And why can’t you go and play slots at the Game Corner in the Pokémon Brilliant Diamond/Shining Pearl remakes?
PEGI, the body responsible for helping customers make decisions by giving games a recommended age rating, is a voluntary advisory system used by most European countries rather than a legally binding regulation. Despite this, its ratings heavily influence both consumer perceptions and retailer policies. In 2020, PEGI introduced a new policy stating that games containing “elements that encourage or teach gambling” or “simulations of gambling” would be subject to a PEGI 18+ rating with no exceptions. This was a raise from the previous gambling rating which allowed for as low as 12+.
This might seem like a reasonable rule at first glance. After all, real-life gambling is barred to those 18 and older, so why should video games be different? But a closer look reveals that PEGI has applied this policy in the most ineffective and antiquated way possible, creating a blanket system that does little to protect children from actual online gambling, and in fact encourages game developers to use more predatory tactics to facilitate it.
To me, the biggest concern when it comes to gambling and children isn’t that they’ll play a game with a casino or gambling hall aesthetic, it’s that they’ll be able to gamble and lose real money, often without a parent’s supervision or knowledge. If there’s one issue these rules need to address, I think it’s that. Yet PEGI has done nothing meaningful to curb this. EA Sports FC 25, a game where players can spend real money on randomised card packs, is rated PEGI 3+. Similarly, NBA 2K25‘s MyTeam mode, which functions in much the same way, also somehow managed to scrape by with a PEGI 3+ rating.
PEGI seems more concerned with games that look like gambling (and in Balatro‘s case, very tenuously so, being a single-player game based on the Hong Kong card game Big Two but without involving real money) than with games that contain literal gambling, disguising real-money transactions under more ‘family-friendly’ mechanics. Instead of tackling the actual issue, they’ve created a system that punishes harmless representations of gambling while letting predatory, deceptive monetisation practices off the hook. It’s like banning prop guns because they teach kids about violence while letting them run around with a loaded AK-47 that’s been covered in glitter.
Loot boxes and pack openings are designed to exploit the same psychological tricks that real-world casinos use, such as variable reward schedules, the ‘near-miss’ effect, and a fear of missing out. When players buy a loot box, they’re arguably engaging in a form of gambling, with dopamine-driven anticipation and intermittent reinforcement keeping them hooked. This can lead to compulsive spending and addiction, especially in children who don’t fully understand the risks. It’s the reason we read stories about children emptying their parents’ bank accounts while playing FIFA.
Granted, PEGI does inform parents that a game could contain elements like loot boxes and card packs by giving games the “In-Game Purchases” content label with an “(Includes Random Items)” modifier. However, without raising the recommended age rating, this label is almost meaningless and could even be seen as misleading parents into thinking these predatory gambling systems are appropriate for young children. It’s telling that the only other content label that allows for a 3+ rating is the relatively tame “Online”. It also doesn’t help that the text warning is much smaller than the content label picture, making it easy to miss.
Every game containing a loot box or card pack mode should be rated 18+ and be labelled ‘Gambling’, otherwise the rules are inherently unfair. And not every game with simulated gambling deserves a high age rating, especially games where there’s no capacity to use real money (Balatro), or where it’s actively forcing developers to remove content from old games in remakes to market to children (Pokémon Brilliant Diamond/Shining Pearl).
There are ratings boards that do a better job with classifying these types of mechanics. The Australian government classes games with “in-game purchases with an element of chance” as at least an M, a.k.a. 15+ (although it still unhelpfully classes all games with simulated gambling as R18+). Germany’s USK board factors in loot boxes when assigning age ratings. Even the ESRB, though still too lenient with an E for Everyone rating for randomised gambling, at least labels them clearly.
A video game rating board’s credibility depends on the consistency of its rulings, and PEGI’s approach fails to meet that standard.
