Fight breaks out over EU’s new in-game currency rules, 17/04/2025
Why new EU rules about selling virtual gems could end up in court
Controversial new EU in-game currency rules sparks lobbying (and possibly legal) battles
We run a special news section dedicated to Trump’s tariff mayhem
Indiana Jones and The Great Circle on PS5 is the game to buy in this week’s release round-up
| Find me on Linkedin | Follow me on Bluesky | Wishlist my book | Email me |
Hello VGIM-ers,
Another week, another newsletter.
I have a few things to tell you before I kick off the big read.
I popped up on British radio station LBC on Monday evening to discuss the impact of Trump’s tariffs on the games business.
You might be able to listen to three minutes of scintillating chat here (if they add the Monday edition of James Hansen’s news show to the back catalogue).
After Easter, I’m appearing at The Future of Audio and Entertainment conference to have a quick chat with James Whatley about brands in games on 29th April. Buy your tickets here.
And finally, next week’s VGIM will be shorter than usual because I am going to be writing/crying as I hit my next deadline for Power Play. Full service will resume in May once I’ve stopped sobbing uncontrollably.
All good? Let’s get on with the show.
The big read - Fight breaks out over EU’s new in-game currency rules
Fight, fight, fight: A row has erupted between video game companies and EU policymakers following the publication of controversial rules about the use of in-game currency last month.
Diktat from on high: The EU’s Consumer Protection Co-operation Network (CPC) released new ‘key principles’ for the use of in-game currencies in the EU that would see them treated as ‘digital representations of real-world monetary value’. The principles could also bar game developers from using a range of popular tactics used in most games that feature in-game currencies, a decision that could hurt the continent’s €28bn consumer games market and slow the growth prospects of a sector employing 114,000 people across the continent.
Not quite due process: But according to VGIM sources, the CPC did not consult with industry, with other European bodies or respect the ongoing passage of the continent’s Digital Fairness Act - which is examining fears around in-game currencies via a formal legislative process - before publishing the potentially industry-changing principles.
Smoke-filled halls: This has resulted in furious behind-the-scenes lobbying from Europe’s video games trade associations to hit back against the guidelines, as well as talk of possible legal action to test whether the CPC’s new rules would hold up in court.
Breaking the closed loop
Neigh of the dread: The CPC published its new guidelines about in-game purchases on Friday 21st March, the same day it announced an enforcement action against Swedish horse-game peddler Star Stable Entertainment AB.
Rap sheet: The Swedish business was accused of pressuring children into making in-game purchases with time-limited offers, pushy influencer marketing campaigns and unclear information. It was then handed a 30-day deadline to respond to the action.
Bare minimum?: But alongside announcing the action, the CPC also said that it was announcing new principles for selling in-game currencies that would be considered a ‘minimum requirement’ for game developers selling in the EU.
Bait: In the press release, the network claimed its new guidelines would give developers handy advice on providing transparent pricing information for in-game currencies, making sure pre-contractual information was clear, ensuring that developers respected the right of customers to withdraw from a purchase and preventing vulnerable consumers (including kids) being unfairly targeted with ‘buy, buy, buy’ messaging.
And switch: However, in a move described as ‘ironic’ by one source given the CPC’s dislike of bait and switch tactics, the networks’s published guidelines (which were nestled within a PDF) went a lot further than the press release suggested.
In the loop: It proposes to treat in-game purchases as having ‘monetary’ value. Until now, game developers and consumer regulators have agreed that in-game currencies act like theme park currencies like ‘Disney dollars’. At the moment, they legally exist within a ‘closed loop’, which means that in-game currencies have no ‘real’ value outside the game.
Breaking the loop open: The CPC’s principles break the consensus that in-game currencies don’t have value outside of the world they live in, raising the risk that all game currencies will have to be treated as having ‘real value’. This could cause big compliance problems for game companies, who may have to follow stricter consumer protection, anti-money laundering, and possibly even gambling rules if it becomes an agreed legal standard.
Seventh hell: To make matters worse, the CPC’s ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’ for using in-game currencies are remarkably heavy-handed. Across its seven principles, it makes several suggestions that would force developers to significantly change their game economies.
On the naughty list: This includes discouraging game developers from using more than one interchangeable in-game currency, forbidding developers from only selling currencies in bundles (even though most app stores don’t allow developers to do otherwise), and even barring developers from writing contract terms that allow it to ‘unilaterally’ change the value of stuff in its economy (e.g. you wouldn’t be allowed to tweak the cost of a currency in a game post-launch even if it was unbalanced).
Legal eagles: This could be a big deal for the industry. Isabel Davies, Senior Associate at Wiggin, wrote on LinkedIn that the new rules “no doubt make offering in-game currencies much more complicated for games businesses.” Dr Pontin over at Flux Digital suggests that “few games will be compliant with every principle”. And law firm Reed Smith suggests that the rules could force companies into a “significant game redesign” to carry on selling in the European Union, which is bad news for pretty much everyone.
Processing problems
Forcing a move: However, the CPC has been accused of forcing through its potentially transformative in-game currency principles without proper consultation.
United front: In a rare move, Video Games Europe (VGE) and the European Game Developer Federation (EGDF), Europe’s two trade associations representing bodies from across Europe, issued a joint statement expressing their disappointment with “the lack of engagement” from the CPC before the publication of the principles.
Lack of dialogue: Sources close to the trade groups said that European consumer bodies did not reply to meeting requests from associations after the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) published a critical - but occasionally inaccurate - report about in-game currencies last September. They claim that this goes against the CPC’s stated remit to liaise with industry before introducing new rules, leaving games companies raging.
Crossed wires: The CPC also allegedly did not talk to other European bodies who manage games as part of their remit before publishing the report. The network, which is part of the EU’s Directorate General for Justice and Consumers (DG-JUST) reportedly did not tell the Directorate General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology (DG-CONNECT) about its plans, even though the latter is principally responsible for working with Europe’s games industry.
Rolling the dice: Sources also suggest that the CPC did not speak with European law enforcement and gambling bodies about the principles, given that they have used the ‘closed loop’ argument about in-game economies to protect consumers from risks such as third-party sites that let people bet using in-game purchases.
Fairness by design: To round things off, the network is also accused of pre-judging the outcome of a new piece of law set to roll out across Europe which is already tackling fears over in-game purchases. The Digital Fairness Act (DFA), which is being pushed forward by DG-JUST and will be presented in draft soon, is likely to suggest new rules for in-game currencies and purchases as part of a Europe-wide push for ‘fairness by design’ in software following a ‘fitness check’ around digital consumer rules last October.
Judge, jury and executioner: The CPC’s decision to release its guidelines before the draft of the DFA has been published (and before the public consultation that goes alongside its publication takes place) has led to fears that the network is forcing through a re-interpretation of the law without respecting due process. This is considered a big no-no in the Brussels bureaucratic bubble, sparking the behind-closed-doors scrap in the process.
Lawyering up?
That’s a no, then: VGIM contacted DG-JUST to ask whether the CPC had consulted with industry before publishing the principles, whether it had spoken to other parts of the Commission to inform its work or whether its work amounted to a legal standard. A spokesperson from the organisation responded to our questions by pointing us back to the press release, which argues that the principles “will help create a safer, more transparent experience for players.”
Sympathetic voices: And the thing is, the CPC does have a point that in-game currencies are not always fair for players. Multiple interchangeable currencies definitely can be confusing (and are often deliberately so). Buying costly currency bundles because some storefronts don’t let people buy a precise amount of in-game cash doesn’t make sense in our modern digital payments landscape. And despite some progress with parental controls, it is hard for the average punter to track spend across games. There is room for clarity over in-game spending in Europe and across the world, which should be encouraged.
Stoking the fire: But the CPC’s hostility has caused the industry to dig in against it. By adopting what one source described as a ‘reckless’ approach to changing the rules around in-game spending, the network has encouraged the industry to fight back hard against what it worries is a big threat to its business. This has turned what could have been a constructive chat into a pitched battle, something that won’t help consumers out in the long run.
Enter the lobby: Anyway, it looks like we’re at the beginning of a big fight over the future of in-game purchases across the continent. Europe’s trade associations have started furious behind-the-scenes lobbying to push back against its guidelines. This includes reportedly meeting with the network last week and engaging other bodies in Brussels to kick back against the new rules.
See you in court?: But if the network does hold its position, don’t be surprised if this ends up in the courts. The legal boffins at Reed Smith say that the CPC’s in-game currency tips are “non-binding recommendations and cannot impose additional obligations beyond existing EU consumer protection laws.” Ultimately, it says that “following the Key Principles does not guarantee legal compliance, nor does ignoring them automatically constitute unlawful behaviour”. This means it’ll be down to national courts and competent authorities (i.e. consumer regulation bodies) to decide whether to follow the rules. This may encourage companies to hold their ground and fight the CPC in court, if necessary.
Pistols at dawn: So, we find ourselves in a bit of a stand-off. The CPC is backing its principles. The industry is refusing to budge on its use of in-game currencies. And it looks like battle will be joined between the two during the consultation over the Digital Fairness Act and possibly in the law courts.
Tough times: But for an industry struggling to get back onto its feet after a tough couple of years, it is bad news that an EU body has adopted such a strong position against one of the industry’s main money-making methods. And with growth prospects for the games industry tailing off across the world, the CPC’s principles could cause real damage to both European and global games businesses.
News in brief - Trump tariff madness special edition
Taking an arrow to the Sony: Sony has whacked up the price of the PS5 digital edition by 10% in the UK and Europe. The company said it had made the ‘tough decision’ due to ‘challenging economic circumstances’, including high inflation in Japan (which reached 4% last month) and fluctuating currency rates. But lots of people think that the surprisingly high price of Nintendo’s Switch 2, which likely included a ‘tariff tax’ even before Liberation Day caused chaos, has encouraged Sony to bump the price of its base device up. This is evidence of the indirect pain Trump’s tariffs are causing the industry.
No consolation: Sony’s move makes even more sense in the light of some sharp research from Game File’s Stephen Totilo. In an effort to calm the frankly giddy markets, Team Trump announced that a raft of electronic devices with semiconductors packed into them - including PCs and smartphones - would be temporarily exempt from tariffs. But which wildly popular thing stuffed full of chips hasn’t made Trump’s nice list? Video game consoles, which are now subject to either the baseline 10% tariff or China’s new 145% tariff rate. Yikes.
Bets hedged?: That’s bad news for our friends at Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony. But is there any good news for games companies? Joost van Dreunen has found one reason for light cheer. He noticed that the share prices of companies like EA and TakeTwo were merely hit by last week’s Trump tariff chaos, instead of being totally battered like the physical toy makers were. Silver linings, eh?
Fragmentation nations: Well, maybe not. Over on GameDiscoverCo, Simon Carless makes the point that China is mulling over banning American movies from entering the country’s whopping market to hit the Yankees exactly where it hurts (Hollywood). Given that there are plenty of lucrative American digital games out there and China has a track record of banning games from other countries as part of political disputes, there’s a chance that digital games sales could get dragged into the trade war if we’re not careful.
Like a Clin-ton of Bricks: So yes, the vibes around games and tariffs aren’t great right now. But never fear! There’s a chance that disruption to the video games industry might bring America back from the brink. James Carville, the octogenarian political strategist who got Bill Clinton elected in 1992, argues in the New York Times that the Democrats should use the Switch 2’s troubles as a weapon to whack Trump. If any of you had ‘Mario Kart World might save Western democracy’ on their 2025 predictions, give yourself a pat on the back.
Moving on
Mark Cox has joined Hasbro as its Senior Director of International Marketing - Digital Games…Connor Hinde has been appointed as a Policy Manager at the Games Rating Authority…Marc Anthony Rodriquez has become the Director, Publishing and Strategic Partnerships at the recently revived Acclaim…Jason Parmar is the new Go-To-Market Lead at Twitch…Rob Lowe (no, not that one) has been promoted to Head of Marketing at Supercell...And Sports Interactive has promoted Tom Hardy (also not that one) to Senior Social Media Executive…
Jobs ahoy
Who wants to be the EMEA Marketing Director for Epic Games? Better get applying, then...Activision Blizzard is hiring a new Legal Counsel - Employment…Wizards of the Coast is looking for a Head of Digital Game Technology…SEGA is recruiting a Senior Producer over in Irvine, California…And Tencent wants you to become its new Executive Producer in Berlin, if you fancy it…
Events and conferences
gamescom latam, Sao Paulo - 30th April- 4th May
A.MAZE, Berlin - 14th-17th May
Digital Dragons, Krakow - 18th-20th May
Nordic Game, Malmo - 20th-23rd May
Summer Game Fest, Los Angeles - 6th June
Games of the week
Indiana Jones and The Great Circle - Didn’t you already make this game of the week? Yes. But it’s good enough to recommend again for anyone thinking about picking it up on PlayStation.
Lushfoil Photography Sim - Take really nice photos of beautiful landscapes in this Annapurna Interactive backed simulation game.
Monument Valley - ustwo’s legendary indie puzzler comes to consoles, including a very tempting Nintendo Switch version.
Before you go…
Sabrina Carpenter is the latest person accused of ‘ruining gaming’, after her character skin went viral in Fortnite.
Some utterly humourless people suggested that the mass prevalence of in-game Sabrinas had defiled their sacred playgrounds.
So it’s down to the rest of us to enjoy the many wholesome bonding moments the Espresso singer’s virtual version has brought to the world’s biggest video game instead.