The gaming industry has evolved rapidly over the last two decades, but not all progress has come without controversy. Among the most debated developments are gambling mechanics embedded in video games, especially those targeting younger audiences. The debate isn’t about whether these features exist—they clearly do—but whether they cross ethical boundaries.

One of the most infamous examples is the loot box system, first made popular by titles like FIFA Ultimate Team, Overwatch, and Star Wars Battlefront II. Players are encouraged to purchase randomized virtual rewards with real money, not unlike inserting coins into a slot machine. In Battlefront II, Electronic Arts faced massive backlash when players discovered that unlocking certain characters without payment would take dozens of hours—or hundreds of dollars. The pressure to spend, masked as “optional content,” sparked a global outcry.

Mobile games, too, have embraced casino-style tactics. Titles like Clash Royale and Genshin Impact operate on a “gacha” system—named after Japanese capsule-toy vending machines—where players pay for a chance to unlock powerful characters or items. Critics argue this mechanic closely mirrors gambling, exploiting psychological impulses through bright visuals and slot machine sounds.

These gambling-like systems aren’t limited to obscure titles. Mainstream franchises now regularly implement such features. Even more troubling, some third-party sites allow players to wager in-game items with real-world value, blurring the lines between gaming and gambling. It’s no surprise then that lists like the List of Real Money Online Casinos in Malaysia (马来西亚真钱在线赌场清单) are often referenced in gaming communities that discuss the legal gray areas these features fall into.

The fine line between entertainment and predatory practices

Game developers argue that loot boxes and gacha mechanics add an element of excitement. Randomness, they claim, enhances the thrill of discovery and keeps players engaged. But there’s a fine line between enhancing gameplay and exploiting behavioral psychology.

Many of these mechanics rely on variable-ratio reinforcement—a system known from behavioral studies to be highly addictive. It’s the same principle slot machines use: players receive a reward after an unpredictable number of actions. This unpredictability creates a cycle of compulsion, where players keep spending in hopes of eventually hitting the jackpot.

This is especially troubling in games marketed to minors. Bright colors, celebratory animations, and encouraging voiceovers aren’t just aesthetic choices—they’re carefully crafted to trigger dopamine responses. When children or teenagers are the target audience, it’s hard not to see this as manipulation.

Moreover, many games obscure the actual odds of winning high-value items. Until recently, some didn’t disclose the chances at all. The lack of transparency makes it difficult for players to make informed choices, turning what should be entertainment into a monetization trap.

The entertainment argument falls apart when players feel pressured to pay in order to stay competitive. “Pay-to-win” systems often create imbalance, where those who spend more dominate the game. This tilts the experience away from skill-based fun and toward wallet-based power, raising questions about fairness and intent.

How governments and regulators are reacting to gambling elements in games

The legal response to in-game gambling has varied widely across countries. Some governments have taken decisive action; others remain cautious, wary of stifling innovation in a lucrative industry:

  • Belgium was one of the first to act. In 2018, its Gaming Commission ruled that loot boxes violated the country’s gambling laws, effectively banning them unless companies secured a gambling license. 
  • The Netherlands followed a similar path, while the UK has taken a more cautious approach—launching studies but stopping short of outright regulation.
  • China mandates clear disclosure of loot box odds and limits the number of loot boxes players can buy in a day. 
  • South Korea has implemented laws requiring developers to reveal the drop rates of in-game items. These moves aim to inject transparency and give players more control.
  • In the U.S., legislative attempts have surfaced. Senator Josh Hawley introduced a bill in 2019 that sought to ban “pay-to-win” microtransactions and loot boxes in games aimed at children. Although it didn’t pass, it signaled growing concern within the government. The Federal Trade Commission has since hosted workshops exploring the implications of these mechanics.
  • Meanwhile, Australia and Canada have conducted their own reviews, focusing on psychological impacts, particularly on younger players. The overall trend is clear: the world is waking up to the potential harms of in-game gambling, and regulators are moving—albeit slowly—to respond.

Player responsibility vs. developer accountability

Some argue that the onus falls on players to regulate their own behavior. After all, no one forces anyone to buy loot boxes or spin a gacha wheel. Advocates of this perspective point to parental controls and spending limits as adequate safeguards.

But this argument downplays the influence of psychological design. Games are built to maximize engagement, often by exploiting human vulnerabilities. When these systems are intentionally engineered to mimic gambling—and target players who may lack impulse control—it’s not enough to say “buyer beware.”

Developers hold significant power in shaping these experiences. They decide the frequency of rewards, the visibility of odds, and the prominence of monetized content. When profits are tied to players spending compulsively rather than enjoying the game on its own merits, ethical concerns arise.

Accountability also includes transparency. Players should know what they’re paying for. If a game involves chance-based purchases, clear disclosures are essential. Age-appropriate gating, spending caps for minors, and opt-out settings should be standard, not optional.

That said, players aren’t powerless. Consumer advocacy has already driven change. EA’s decision to remove pay-to-win elements from Battlefront II came only after intense public backlash. Community pressure, review bombing, and organized boycotts have proven effective. But without structural safeguards, player activism is reactive rather than preventive.

The future of in-game gambling

The future of in-game gambling will likely be shaped by a combination of player activism, legal regulation, and evolving industry standards. Developers are starting to test new monetization models, partly due to backlash and partly due to looming regulatory threats.

Some studios are experimenting with “battle passes” or subscription-based systems that offer rewards in exchange for consistent gameplay, not blind chance. Others are integrating blockchain and NFTs—controversial in their own right—as alternative ways to buy, trade, or earn digital assets.

Regulators, meanwhile, are getting smarter. International cooperation is increasing, and legal definitions of “gambling” are being reconsidered to account for digital environments. If legal frameworks catch up to technology, the most exploitative practices may become untenable.

Ultimately, it’s a question of values. Should games be built to engage or to extract? Can fun and fairness coexist with profitability? The answers will shape not just the gaming industry but digital entertainment as a whole.

If the industry is serious about long-term sustainability, it needs to reckon with the ethical cost of its business models. Because if games continue to mimic casinos, the public—and the law—may soon treat them that way.