adminThe PEGI loot box rule is a welcome step toward helping parents and young players understand the risks of paid random items in games. From June onwards, newly submitted games containing paid random items will receive a PEGI 16 rating. However, the change will not automatically cover older games, including many popular titles that continue to be updated and monetised.
Leon Y. Xiao of Beclaws, author of the annual Loot Box State of Play feature, views the decision as positive but argues that its reach should extend to existing games too. The key question is whether a rule focused on new submissions can meaningfully protect children who mainly play established live-service titles.
Why the PEGI loot box rule should cover older games
PEGI’s decision provides clearer information without directly preventing young people from playing games or spending money. Xiao also suggests that the change may be a response to forthcoming EU regulation, including the Digital Fairness Act, and an effort to demonstrate stronger industry self-regulation.
The main concern is that the new rating will not apply retrospectively. Reassessing thousands of games would take time and money, but many games are designed to operate for years. Players continue to spend in long-running titles, so the age rating attached to a game’s original release may not reflect its current audience or monetisation.
As a result, established games such as Brawl Stars and Genshin Impact may remain outside the new rule despite continuing to attract young players. The original release date does not change the features available today. A practical approach would be to review popular, actively updated games that still include paid random items.
Genshin Impact would not be subject to PEGI’s new minimum 16 age rating for games with loot boxes. Image credit: MiHoYo/HoYoVerse
Australia offers a relevant comparison: its similar rule can require previously released games to receive an updated rating when they have been substantially changed. Applying a comparable review to older games could also reduce the disadvantage faced by newer developers, whose games may need to carry higher ratings while established competitors keep their existing classifications.
Practical takeaway: Parents can check a game’s current in-game purchase options as well as its age rating, especially when a title has received major updates since release.
Age-rating differences may confuse families
PEGI’s minimum rating of 16 is stricter than some other approaches. The figures cited for loot boxes are 12+ in Germany, 15+ in Australia and 9+ on Apple platforms. These differences can be difficult for families to interpret when a child plays across devices, such as an iPhone and a Nintendo Switch.
There is not yet enough scientific evidence to establish a universally accepted age threshold. PEGI has chosen a more cautious position, but the range of ratings underlines the need for clear explanations that help parents understand what each classification means.
Consistent enforcement matters
A rating rule only works if games are classified accurately. PEGI has previously corrected cases in which games containing loot boxes were not labelled appropriately, but ongoing monitoring remains important. Automatic ratings generated through the International Age Rating Coalition questionnaire may depend on companies accurately declaring their game’s features.
Australia’s experience has included games receiving ratings that were too low, highlighting the risk of relying on self-reporting alone. PEGI’s implementation should therefore be monitored, with clear processes for correcting mistakes and checking compliance.
Other in-game mechanics deserve attention
The wider changes also recognise that concerns about spending and engagement are not limited to loot boxes. Limited-time offers, battle passes and daily login features can shape how players interact with games. Considering these mechanics together gives parents and policymakers a broader basis for assessing whether a game is suitable for younger children.
Overall, the PEGI loot box rule is a constructive move, but its impact may be limited if long-running hits remain exempt. Reviewing popular older games, explaining ratings clearly and checking that classifications are applied correctly would make the system more useful for families and fairer across the industry.
