What’s in scope? In-game purchases

In-game purchasing could land online games in scope of age restrictions, if the government decides that they pose a risk to wellbeing by inappropriately increasing time spent online. This isn’t just about social media, it’s also about the design of online services.

By extending beyond user-to-user elements towards broader features, age restrictions could end up impacting games that until now haven’t had to consider much in the way of regulation.

The “Growing up in the online world” consultation (closing 26 May), which is intended to inform future age restriction regulations, has a section on “‘Addiction’, compulsive design and displacement.” Alongside common social media features like algorithms, infinite scroll, and comments, it also deals with “business models which are dependent on keeping children online for longer.” As part of this it states: "One way of addressing [harms] might be […] age-restricting features and functionalities that can allow children to make in-service purchases, such as shops or loot-boxes.”

While in-game purchases are not referred to in the consultation questions themselves, the format allows respondents to name ‘other’ features that they think should be restricted but that are not explicitly listed. The inclusion of purchase mechanics in the surrounding narrative is a clear signal that the government intends to at least consider restricting them, and acts as a prompt for respondents who have a view on this.

Gameplay time as a metric for problematic engagement practices isn’t a great approach, since spending time in a game is usually intentional in a way that social media engagement isn’t, but it’s also not necessarily the case that monetisation requires (or is the result of) spending a lot of time in a game.

It would also be hard to argue that all forms of in-game purchasing are invidious or share the same risk profiles, whether in general or in relation to time. There are plenty of monetisation practices that are entirely innocuous and the nature of in-game purchasing is highly varied, ranging from extra lives and resources to skins and maps, to ad-free access and full-blown DLC.

If this diversity of approach and impact isn’t reflected in the ensuing regulation, an awful lot of developers could find themselves on the wrong side of an age gate for offering purchases that players actively want. It’s therefore vital that this full picture is considered by policymakers when they come to design regulations that impact monetisation, but this can only be the case if they are made aware of the nuances in this area.

If this is something you think is relevant to you and you want to know a bit more, drop us a line and we’ll have a chat.

You might also want to check out our handy tracker page and our overview of what else could land games companies in scope of the regulations and consultation.