Gambling Elements in Video Games: Between Self-Regulation and Regulatory Pressure

1 January 2023 brought important changes for youth protection in video games. Since that date, the Entertainment Software Self-Regulation Body (USK) has assessed games submitted…

Published on: 9 January 2023
Reading time: 4 mins
Author: Kevin Rieger

1 January 2023 brought important changes for youth protection in video games. Since that date, the Entertainment Software Self-Regulation Body (USK) has assessed games submitted for age rating using new guidelines. These expanded criteria are based on the amendment to the Youth Protection Act of May 2021. They now explicitly allow relatively “new” risks to be taken into account when rating video games.

In any case, the changes create more transparency. Alongside the familiar age rating logo, the reasons for the rating (e.g. “horror,” “gambling themes”) and additional notes (e.g. “chats” or “in-game purchases + random items”) can now be added. Apparent oddities, such as the latest versions of the basketball game series “NBA 2K” only being rated 12 and up, become easier to understand. In future, “gambling themes” would be listed as the reason alongside the age rating.

The coming months will show whether these changes reduce regulatory pressure. What is already clear, however, is that the new rules do not address some of the criticism.

A prominent example is the football simulation “FIFA,” which the USK currently rates as suitable for all ages (0+). To succeed in the “Ultimate Team” game mode with your own dream team, you need good and well-known players. These come in “packs” whose contents are largely random. Anyone who wants Lionel Messi on their team to stay competitive against other players statistically has to open a large number of packs, or be very lucky.

These packs can also be paid for with FIFA Points, which in turn can be bought with real money. Players can earn packs through intensive play without spending real money. But beyond a certain level of ambition, spending real money becomes almost necessary.

Opening the packs is presented in a spectacular way. However, it does not look like gambling, unlike NBA 2K in particular, where wheels of fortune and slot machines are part of the game design. If the current version of the FIFA series were submitted to the USK today, the result would most likely be similar to FIFA 23: rated 0+, now only with the added note that the game contains “in-game purchases + random items.” The same would apply to other well-known titles. Fortnite also contains “random items” for real money and is rated 12+.

Gambling regulation is gaining strength

Alongside the first use of the new USK criteria, 1 January 2023 also marked a second milestone: the Joint Gambling Authority of the Federal States (GGL) took over its final responsibilities for regulating online gambling nationwide. The GGL is a public-law institution supported by all 16 federal states. Part of its mandate is to monitor and assess new forms of gambling.

What is clear is that, under the current definition of “gambling,” in-game content that only has subjective value hardly falls under the GGL’s direct enforcement powers. The digital Lionel Messi may give players a decisive advantage in FIFA, but he may not be resold for real money. By definition, however, gambling requires a “not entirely insignificant asset” that can be won. Ultimately, though, the definition of “gambling” and “gambling-like elements” is open to negotiation and by no means set in stone.

The GGL now provides the ideal basis for this debate. An authority that will soon have more than 100 employees has the staying power and resources for fundamental debates. Because the 16 state secretaries for the interior of the federal states steer it, the authority is political by design. The entire regulatory “ecosystem” can grow around this core. Researchers and associations are finding new, influential audiences for the arguments they have already developed and coordinated internationally. Addiction research is also increasingly taking up the topic.

It is therefore highly unlikely that the USK’s expanded criteria will end the debate about children’s and young people’s access to gambling elements in video games. Gambling regulation follows a different logic. There, requiring that a note such as “in-game purchases + random items” be linked to automatic mechanisms that exclude minors would be seen as a minor and obvious step.

In gambling regulation, youth protection has long been seen as the provider’s responsibility. More information and transparency for parents alone, as now introduced with the USK’s expanded criteria, will therefore not be enough to settle the debate for good.