"This is a fundamental shift in the way that games are rated": The Mobile Mavens on PEGI's new rules
- “Industry self-regulation failed, repeatedly.” - Claire Rozain.
- “I’m skeptical a ratings system on monetisation features will have any additional effect.” - Rebecca Liao.
- “This initiative proves that the games industry is responsible and cares about its community.” - Christian Lövstedt.
- “Variable rewards and repeated spending loops create very similar psychology to gambling.” - Igor Melniks.
PEGI is making changes to its age rating system, which stands to be one of the biggest shifts in how games are classified in recent years.
The changes are set to take place in June 2026 and expand beyond the traditional approach of looking at game content, now also factoring in features such as monetisation and online communication. Under the new set of criteria, certain features will automatically push some games into higher age categories.
To understand what these changes may mean in practice, we asked our Mobile Mavens to share their perspectives on PEGI's updated approach.
Martine Spaans
As the VP of the EGDF I also have a seat at the PEGI Management Board, so I was involved in the decision making. My comments can therefore not really be seen as a response, but can act as an explanation.
“Each update of PEGI is a joint effort by its administrators, academia, European governments’ representatives, game developer studios and publishers.”Martine Spaans
The PEGI system is being constantly updated to ensure that the industry’s co-regulatory protection of minors' systems remains up to date. Each update of PEGI is a joint effort by its administrators, academia, European governments’ representatives, game developer studios and publishers. Considering the development around the Digital Fairness Act another update seemed in order.
PEGI reform is first and foremost a way for us to ensure that our co-regulatory protection of minors system stays up to date and helps us to push PEGI into the European legal framework. Time will show if that happens through DFA or another legal framework.
André Pimenta Ribeiro
“Given the acceptance younger gamers have for these types of loot rewards, we can expect many attempts to bypass age detection systems going forward.”André Pimenta Ribeiro
We welcome these kinds of initiatives, as this monetisation system is quite predatory, especially for younger audiences, and parents often do not have much control over how their children spend money on these things.
Given the acceptance younger gamers have for these types of loot rewards, we can expect many attempts to bypass age detection systems going forward. It will therefore be critical for game developers and publishers to detect age in a more efficient and reliable way.
Celia Pontin
Legislative pressure has been accelerating for a while now, and PEGI has been clear that they've made this move in that context, getting out in front of impending change. To torture an imperfect metaphor, the train of legislative intervention has left the station and PEGI's pushing the automobile of industry reputation off the level-crossing of heavy-handed regulation. While it won't stave off scrutiny, it helps set video games apart from online services that don't have a regulatory system, let alone a well-regarded one that keeps pace with the political and social environment.
“With increasing concerns about their impact on children, it's unsurprising that ratings have shifted this way.”Celia Pontin
PEGI ratings fulfil an advisory function - they provide information to help parents make the best choices for their children. The features identified by PEGI are now so widespread that the industry is fundamentally different to 10 or 15 years ago, and with increasing concerns about their impact on children, it's unsurprising that ratings have shifted this way.
If parents today are concerned and genuinely feel that certain functions and features are not suitable for children, this will inevitably influence regulations intended to reflect social norms.
For some developers, a higher rating isn't a big deal - just because a game is PEGI 3, it doesn't mean it's aimed at young children. For others, it's a significant change that needs navigating carefully and I can see why they might be really concerned about it. That said, it's pretty likely that something similar would be coming down the track from legislators anyway, so the sector was always going to have to face up to it.
“The change wasn't a snap decision and it wasn't made in a vacuum, but it has taken people by surprise and created a significant degree of uncertainty.”Celia Pontin
What's crucial is that developers are given the support they need to understand the impact on them and what changes they can make to maintain a lower rating. This is a fundamental shift in the way that games are rated, and the bigger the change in a regulatory position the more support is needed for those affected by it.
The change wasn't a snap decision and it wasn't made in a vacuum, but it has taken people by surprise and created a significant degree of uncertainty. PEGI needs to ensure that they bring stability to the sector through clear guidance and a consistent approach.
Rebecca Liao
Ratings systems are only useful to help parents understand the nature of a game's content and then decide whether their kids should be allowed to play. What's curious about these proposed changes is that they mostly speak to the specifics of game economies.
“If parents want to control their kids' spending on games, they should simply restrict usage of the method of payment.”Rebecca Liao
If parents want to control their kids' spending on games, they should simply restrict usage of the method of payment. I'm skeptical a ratings system on monetisation features will have any additional effect.
However, I do think that parents ought to know if the community forums their kids are participating in have moderation tools, and if so, whether they control for age.The recent incidents around child safety center more around those issues.
Christian Lövstedt
It is great to see our industry taking the lead with this PEGI initiative. Too often, regulators and politicians in the EU try to make new laws without fully understanding how games actually work.
“It is always much better when we create our own voluntary rules to protect players.”Christian Lövstedt
It is always much better when we create our own voluntary rules to protect players, because we have the best understanding of what changes are really needed.
This initiative proves that the games industry is responsible and cares about its community. It shows we can manage our sector much better than outside regulators can.
Louise Wooldridge
I feel that it’s a step in the right direction, although it’s taken some time to get here… It’s interesting the age is broadly 16+ when in many countries (UK included) gambling is an 18+ activity. It’s also interesting that this only applies to paid loot boxes; those that can be acquired through non-purchasable in-game currency or progress in a game are not covered by this new ruling. Overwatch is a good example of a game that does this and will not be affected.
Traditionally age ratings have had a modest impact on consumer behaviour. Many kids play Grand Theft Auto, for example, as the rules are either not enforced or are circumvented. And so I’d expect the impact here to also be quite modest – on consumers, at least, though the rule simply being in existence now will surely make a difference for some families, and make parents pause and think before buying certain digital items.
“For some creators who rely heavily on this form of monetisation among young people, they may end up having to revise the mechanics or progression systems of their games.”Louise Wooldridge
For the companies themselves, I imagine numerous changes will have to be made before a game can be brought to market – not least the way it is advertised, if it is explicitly (or implicitly) targeting children or under 16s. For some creators who rely heavily on this form of monetisation among young people, they may end up having to revise the mechanics or progression systems of their games in order to restructure or redirect the monetisation process. Monetisation may then shift more towards battle passes and direct purchases.
Engagement will likely also take a hit, although the rule will not be applied retrospectively – only to new releases, which means under-16s will be buying (or being bought) loot boxes for years to come.
All in all I think this could have gone further, but it is a positive step which will hopefully limit the role and impact of loot boxes on children, through both increased parental awareness and in-game monetisation restructuring.
Igor Melniks
This change will definitely create challenges for some developers. For studios that built their economies around mechanics like loot boxes, it could have a big impact on revenue.
“The industry has faced quite some criticism around monetisation aimed at younger players, and a higher age rating is one way to acknowledge that pressure.”Igor Melniks
But the scrutiny around this type of mechanics didn’t come out of nowhere. Even if they aren’t legally gambling, variable rewards, chance-based outcomes and repeated spending loops create very similar psychology. The industry has faced quite some criticism around monetisation aimed at younger players, and a higher age rating is one way to acknowledge that pressure.
It may also push more studios to explore engagement systems built around progression, achievements and rewarding players for time spent in the game.
Claire Rozain
How did we get here? The honest answer is: industry self-regulation failed, repeatedly. We've had years of warning signals: Belgium banned loot boxes in 2018, the Netherlands followed, Germany's USK adopted similar criteria in 2023, and found that roughly one-third of reassessed games landed in a higher age category as a result.
The data has been building for a long time. The global loot box market reached $11.8 billion in 2024, according to Dataintelo, much of it built on monetisation models that exploit psychological hooks: scarcity timers, randomised rewards, and loss aversion, which are disproportionately effective on younger, more impulsive brains.
“Australia's experience shows us that even mandatory classification laws with clear rules produce widespread non-compliance when penalties are negligible.”Claire Rozain
When you overlay that with the dominant free-to-play structure of children's gaming (Roblox, Fortnite), it was only a matter of time before regulators stopped asking nicely.
What pushed it over the edge is the compliance research. A 2025 study on Australia's new loot box classification laws found that 20% of the top-grossing games on the Apple App Store and 48% on Google Play were non-compliant - displaying age ratings lower than required despite having loot boxes or similar features. That kind of public, documented failure makes it politically impossible to stay passive. PEGI saw the gap and moved.
These changes will have an impact, but with a caveat. The rules are clear. Games containing paid random items like loot boxes will now default to PEGI 16; games penalising players for missing daily events jump to PEGI 12; NFT/blockchain mechanics land automatically at PEGI 18; and unrestricted online chat with no blocking or reporting tools also earns a PEGI 18. For children's game developers specifically, this is not a minor metadata change. A PEGI 16 label kills discoverability, store features, and parental approval overnight. That's structural pressure.
The caveat is enforcement. Australia's experience shows us that even mandatory classification laws with clear rules produce widespread non-compliance when penalties are negligible. The maximum penalty for mislabelling a game in Australia is around $6,000, an amount that's essentially invisible against the revenue profile of top-grossing titles.
PEGI is not a regulator with enforcement teeth, the way a national authority is. Platform gatekeeping, whether Apple and Google actually block or demote non-compliant titles, will determine whether this matters in practice.
What should founders and VCs take from this? Three things. First, if you're holding equity in any mid-tier kids game studio that still runs loot box mechanics as a primary IAP driver, this is a valuation risk event. The rating floor just moved. Reassess now.
“The entire retention playbook for mobile kids' games relies on FOMO mechanics. Miss your daily quest, lose your streak, feel the loss.”Claire Rozain
Second, this is a genuine competitive-moat opportunity for studios already building on ethical monetisation: battle passes, direct-purchase cosmetics, subscription access. They get to keep their PEGI 7 or PEGI 12 label. Everyone else is fighting for market share in a shrunken addressable audience.
Third, and this one gets overlooked, the PEGI 12 trigger on penalty-based daily reward systems is more disruptive than the loot box headline. The entire retention playbook for mobile kids' games relies on FOMO mechanics. Miss your daily quest, lose your streak, feel the loss. That's baked into virtually every mid-core title. Developers are going to have to unlearn a decade of liveops orthodoxy, and that's a harder cultural shift than cutting loot boxes.
Bottom line: the studios that survive this aren't the ones who treat it as a compliance checkbox. They're the ones who use it as a design brief.
April Stallings
“Ratings need to reflect the full experience of a game, including how they might encourage spending and keep players coming back over time.”April Stallings
These changes are definitely positive, and help make it clear which games are built to drive spending and keep players engaged. It's really good transparency for families and younger players.
Features like paid random items or systems are hard to manage without clear guidance and age ratings are one of the few tools parents have to make informed decisions.
Ratings need to reflect the full experience of a game, including how they might encourage spending and keep players coming back over time.
Companies
People