Games with loot boxes to get minimum 16 age rating across Europe

2026-03-140:02307193www.bbc.com

The new changes by the Pan-European Game Information age-ratings body (PEGI) will start from June.

Laura CressTechnology reporter

Getty Images A boy with ginger hair is sitting down with his back to the camera, playing a video game on a large tv in the background. He has white headphones on and is wearing a white t-shirt and blue jeans.Getty Images

Games which feature loot boxes will soon be given an age rating of 16 across Europe, including in the UK, under a host of changes by the European video game ratings organisation.

The Pan-European Game Information body (PEGI)'s age ratings are displayed on games sold in the UK and other countries in Europe to indicate their suitability for children of different ages.

Loot boxes are an in-game feature allowing players to buy random mystery items with real or virtual currency, but recent research has found they blur the line between gaming and gambling.

The new ratings, taking effect from June, could see games containing loot box systems, such as EA Sports FC, receive a much higher age rating.

The PEGI system is used in 38 countries to help consumers and particularly parents make informed decisions about the games they purchase.

Its ratings of 3, 7, 12, 16, 18 are used to indicate a game's suitability for certain age groups, rather than difficulty.

The organisation's changes to this system will see games containing "paid random items" branded PEGI 16 by default. It says in some cases this could rise to PEGI 18.

Dirk Bosmans, director of PEGI, said it was "confident" the updates would provide "more useful and transparent advice" for parents and players.

Emily Tofield, chief executive of Young Gamers & Gamblers Education Trust (Ygam), said they were a "step in the right direction".

But she added a PEGI 18 rating should be applied retrospectively to existing titles.

Currently the new ratings will only apply to games released after June.

"Without applying the rules to current games the policy will do little to protect the children who are already playing them," Tofield said.

'Gambling-like mechanics'

Despite concerns about loot boxes, no UK legislation regulates how and where they appear in video games.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) says it bans and removes ads which fail to make the clear whether or not a game contains a loot box.

Dr Ruijie Wang, who led a January 2025 study from Bournemouth University into the harmful risks of gambling on young people, told the BBC loot boxes were "one of the most studied examples of gambling-like mechanics in games".

"Recognising loot boxes as a risk factor in age ratings is an important step towards reflecting the realities of modern game design, helping to provide parents with clearer signals about potential harms," she said.

PEGI's new additions will also see games with time-limited systems, like a paid battle pass, now get a PEGI 12 rating and game with non-fungible tokens (NFTs) be rated PEGI 18.

Fortnite, which uses a range of different paid-for passes, is already rated PEGI 12.

Games with "play-by-appointment" style mechanisms such as daily quests will get a PEGI 7 rating - but if the mechanisms "punish players for not returning", such by losing content, they will become PEGI 12.

Games lacking any way for users to report or block players online will receive a PEGI 18 rating.

Freelance video games journalist Vic Hood said while the new ratings were "positive", it was hard to see what difference they would make unless parents also took them seriously.

"In reality, it will largely be down to parents to educate themselves on why these changes have been brought in and decide for themselves if they deem the games (and their loot box mechanics) suitable for their child," she said.

A green promotional banner with black squares and rectangles forming pixels, moving in from the right. The text says: “Tech Decoded: The world’s biggest tech news in your inbox every Monday.”


Read the original article

Comments

  • By hofrogs 2026-03-149:524 reply

    "Lootboxes", "cases", "packs" and other chance-based systems that involve spending real money or an in-game currency that could be obtained by spending real money should be banned completely, all of those systems exploit brain vulnerabilities for profit. Also, prediction markets, sports betting, online casinos, shitcoin exchanges.

    • By hx8 2026-03-1414:488 reply

      It's interesting that your list skews entirely digital, and that more physical games of chance like lotteries and blackjack are not on the list. Do you see them as fundamentally different?

      • By furyofantares 2026-03-1416:42

        Here's a good read on the topic from Zvi Mowshowitz: https://thezvi.substack.com/p/the-online-sports-gambling-exp...

        He was very much pro-legalizing online gambling. He had worked for sportsbooks, had done lots of sports betting himself, stuff like that. But has concluded that legalizing online gambling has been a disaster.

        > When sports gambling was legalized in America, I was hopeful it too could prove a net positive force, far superior to the previous obnoxious wave of daily fantasy sports.

        > It brings me no pleasure to conclude that this was not the case. The results are in. Legalized mobile gambling on sports, let alone casino games, has proven to be a huge mistake. The societal impacts are far worse than I expected.

        The article makes a compelling argument that online gambling is a lot worse than other forms of gambling.

        I have a take on this too. You know how scammers cast a really wide net, hoping to get lucky and find suckers? Well, that's really only part of the story, what actually happens is they get lucky and happen to find people when they are vulnerable. That's how smart people get scammed somewhat randomly.

        When online gambling is in your pocket, it is guaranteed to be available when you're vulnerable.

      • By hofrogs 2026-03-1416:131 reply

        Well I was thinking in the context of games, so the list is some of the stuff that you can waste unlimited amounts of real money on to get a chance for a shiny digital item. I do think that physical gambling is bad too, though it's not as easily accessible, you don't carry a (physical) roulette table in your pocket.

        • By hx8 2026-03-1416:18

          I agree that accessibility is a big aspect that makes these digital games of chance different than the physical counterparts.

      • By sjoedev 2026-03-1415:001 reply

        I think online/digital gambling is worse because it follows you everywhere. I don’t like any form of gambling, but at least with casinos there’s some escape in not physically being there. It’s also harder to enforce age requirements online.

        • By tialaramex 2026-03-1415:151 reply

          They all have apps these days, and just like a local bookmaker might "accidentally" remove your name from their legally required self-ban list it's very common that a "bug" in your phone app means you can keep gambling after saying you want to stop.

          "Mistakes" in the controlling party's favour are extremely common in such industries. Fluke 100-1 sport betting win? Oops we forget to fill out that mandatory anti-fraud paperwork, bet is off. Lost that 3-2 bet that the favourite would place in a horse race but actually you didn't show proper ID? Sorry that's your problem, we're keeping the money

      • By tialaramex 2026-03-1415:06

        Regulating gambling is a good idea. Gambling firms spend a lot of money on (lobbying for) ensuring the regulations are as loose as possible despite the very obvious downsides of their industry.

      • By barnabee 2026-03-1415:12

        Not OP but I would certainly ban adding gambling "features" to other products or services. Either you can be a gambling or betting shop/platform (regulated and restricted to adults) or something else, but not both.

      • By canjobear 2026-03-1416:27

        Many locales ban physical gambling as well. It’s a defensible policy.

      • By cwillu 2026-03-1415:091 reply

        Card packs are not digital.

      • By estimator7292 2026-03-1416:021 reply

        I think it's interesting that you're refusing to engage with the topic at hand and trying to distract with whataboutism.

        You may be shocked and horrified to learn that two things can be bad at the same time, even if we only talk about one.

        GP's comments trend digital because we're talking about digital games. GP is on-topic, you are trying to derail and delegetimize the conversation.

    • By create-username 2026-03-1417:18

      If you start banning everything that causes addiction, a market big enough to trade on the Nasdaq would collapse, vanish.

    • By Madmallard 2026-03-1412:03

      Instead they're getting worse yay! Hop on Kalshi

    • By chrisjj 2026-03-1410:345 reply

      Brain vulnerabilities? So ban alcoholic drinks and thrill rides too?

      • By hofrogs 2026-03-1411:003 reply

        Thrill rides? Probably not, I don't think there are many people having their life ruined by their addiction to amusement parks.

        Alcoholic drinks? History of bans like that suggests that it's not a good idea. However that doesn't mean that nothing can be done. Addictions to alcohol, drugs, smoking, gambling damage both the person suffering from them and the friends/loved ones around that person. It is most likely impossible to drive the harm down to 0, but it can be reduced by denormalizing casual alcohol intake and sitations where people are peer pressured into consuming alcohol to fit in (especially in young adults), etc. People addicted to those substances/behaviors need a safe environment, a society that won't prompt them to relapse over and over because everyone around them is a casual user. Those are my thoughts, but I'm no expert.

      • By cwillu 2026-03-1415:10

        Two things that famously have no age restrictions.

      • By sevenzero 2026-03-1411:482 reply

        Yes please ban alcohol/make it hard to get.

      • By elAhmo 2026-03-1411:37

        Apples and oranges right there

  • By d0d00 2026-03-149:592 reply

    Watch how fast they use this to further the extent of mandatory age verification online. That's what they usually do (read: the Shock Doctrine from Naomi Klein). Problem arises, create legislation (likely reducing freedom or increasing surveillance), use said legislation down the line after everybody forgets about it to further whatever their agenda is.

    • By WhyNotHugo 2026-03-1415:10

      I question whether it's not more reasonable to outright ban this kind of disguised gambling rather than start normalising "age checks" online.

    • By pixl97 2026-03-1414:26

      Never let a good crisis go to waste.

      This said the gambling bullshit is going way too far and has it's own set of consequences in society. Remember, every time you act like an asshole to maximize the amount of money you can rip off of others, you invite an authoritarian takeover when the average person in society gets tired of your bullshit.

  • By tasuki 2026-03-148:511 reply

    That's mild. I'd ban them outright.

    • By tehwebguy 2026-03-1414:31

      Right, it’s a scam and age gating them just fuels age verification.

HackerNews