Game intel
Genshin Impact
The fifth major update of Genshin Impact, also known as Version "Luna I" and "Song of the Welkin Moon: Segue". This update includes: • New characters: Lauma, F…
My turning point with Genshin Impact wasn’t some huge drama or a banner horror story on Reddit. It was a quiet Tuesday night, staring at that golden wish animation for the tenth time in a row, watching another 10-pull dissolve into three-star trash. I wasn’t even chasing a five-star, I was chasing a feeling – that momentary dopamine hit miHoYo has practically weaponised.
It hit me then: this game that looks like a colourful, anime-flavoured adventure is basically a slick, beautifully produced casino skin for teenagers. Cute characters, soothing music, and behind it all, the same psychological hooks that keep adults glued to slot machines. And a huge chunk of its global audience is absolutely not old enough to walk into a real casino.
So when PEGI finally announced that, from June, games with paid random items – loot boxes, gacha, whatever label you slap on the same manipulative mechanic – will be rated PEGI 16 by default, that felt like vindication. Someone in the system finally admitted this stuff is not harmless fun for 10-year-olds with access to mum’s card.
Then I read the catch: the rule is not retroactive. In other words, it doesn’t touch the games that actually dominate kids’ phones and consoles right now – including Genshin Impact.
That’s the point where the whole thing started to feel less like “protecting young players” and more like “let’s make a show of doing something before the EU forces us to do something real.”
On paper, PEGI’s move is huge. From June 2026, any new game submitted to PEGI that has paid random items – so loot boxes, gacha pulls, card packs bought with real money or real-money-equivalent currency – will be rated at least PEGI 16. In edge cases, like social casino or crypto-gambling nonsense, it can even jump to PEGI 18.
That finally lines up age ratings with what a lot of players have been saying for years: these mechanics feel a lot like gambling, behave a lot like gambling, and are deliberately built to encourage loss-chasing and sunk-cost thinking. The age label should reflect that risk, even if lawmakers are still fighting over whether “loot boxes = gambling” in a strict legal sense.
PEGI is also adding new criteria for other monetisation and retention tricks. Time-limited offers and FOMO-driven discounts can push games up to PEGI 12. Heavy “come back every day or fall behind” mechanics and unmoderated online chat are also being flagged, with unrestricted communication jumping straight to PEGI 18. On the surface, this looks like a serious attempt to stop pretending that only guns and gore deserve harsher age ratings.
I genuinely like that part. Age ratings have been stuck in a 2005 mindset for too long, focused purely on content – blood, sex, language – while completely ignoring the modern business models that actually hurt kids in 2026: dark patterns, endless battle passes, deliberately obfuscated odds.
But then comes the line that guts the whole thing: these rules only apply to games submitted from June 2026 onwards. PEGI will not go back and re-rate older games by default.
That includes the giants: Genshin Impact, Brawl Stars, Fortnite’s various cosmetic gambits, EA Sports FC’s card packs, and a whole pile of mobile gacha whales that have been quietly milking kids and teenagers for years.
Live-service games are not traditional releases. That sentence feels obvious, but PEGI’s non-retroactive stance pretends they are still boxed products you buy once and shelve. That fantasy died the day “games as a service” became the dominant way to monetise.
Genshin Impact launched in 2020. Brawl Stars? 2018. Fortnite’s Battle Royale mode hit 2017. These games are not “old” in any meaningful sense. They are constantly updated, constantly pushing new banners, new skins, new passes, new collaborations. The bulk of their revenue isn’t from launch windows, it’s from long-tail engagement years down the line.
Most kids and teens spending money on loot boxes right now are doing it in those games, not in some fresh indie release nobody has heard of yet. PEGI knows that. Researchers like Leon Y. Xiao keep hammering the same point: the financial and psychological harm is concentrated in a handful of massive, well-established titles that will keep running for a decade plus.
Under PEGI’s new rules, brand-new games with loot boxes are slapped with PEGI 16, but legacy hits that rake in millions every month through essentially identical systems stay at PEGI 7 or 12 until publishers voluntarily come back for a re-rating.
And it gets worse. Very few new releases ever climb into the top-grossing charts. That scoreboard is basically a museum of long-running live-service monsters. So in practice, the tough new standard applies to the games with the least reach, while the titles that “actually matter” in terms of revenue and player exposure remain untouched.
Genshin is the perfect example. It is a PEGI 12 game on consoles and mobile in Europe. It looks like an anime open-world adventure, with a gacha system that is front-and-centre, tuned around limited-time five-stars and recurring banners. The people most drawn to that art style and “collect the cute characters” marketing skew young. Under the June 2026 rules, if Genshin launched tomorrow, that same exact game would be PEGI 16 by default. But because it launched a few years earlier, it cruises comfortably under the new radar.
That is not consumer protection. That is a grandfather clause for some of the most aggressively monetised games on the planet.
There is another ugly side-effect PEGI seems weirdly relaxed about: competition. Imagine a new studio building a gacha RPG that goes hard on cosmetics and characters, but actually wants to be up-front with parents. Under the new rules, their game is automatically pegged 16+ in Europe because of paid random items. That can mean fewer kids legally able to play, more parental pushback, and less favourable placement in family-friendly storefront categories.
Meanwhile, Genshin Impact, which uses functionally the same monetisation – arguably worse in some banners – keeps its PEGI 12 label unless HoYoverse voluntarily raises their own age rating. A new game is branded “mature” for doing the same thing, while the old titan keeps all the marketing benefits of a softer age tag.
That is a competitive imbalance, and it is entirely created by PEGI’s decision not to apply its own principles retroactively to ongoing live-service titles. If the underlying logic is “paid random items pose higher risk to young players,” then that risk does not magically disappear because a game released in 2018 instead of 2026.
Countries have shown there are other options. Australia already forces updated games with loot boxes to have their age ratings revised under their newer rules. Germany’s USK adopted similar criteria earlier; around a third of affected games were uprated when new monetisation and online safety factors were taken into account. These systems openly acknowledge what anyone who has touched a live-service in the last decade already understands: release date is irrelevant. Active monetisation is what matters.
PEGI’s choice creates a two-tier system where older live-service games benefit from a kind of regulatory nostalgia. That is not just unfair to new creators; it undermines the very consumer-information goal PEGI claims to be aiming for.
The other headache is inconsistency. PEGI going for 16+ as the default minimum for loot boxes is relatively strict compared with other ratings bodies and platforms. Germany sits at 12+, Australia landed on 15+, and Apple’s App Store slaps a 9+ “frequent/intense simulated gambling” style warning on some loot-box-enabled games. These labels are applied just for the presence of loot boxes, before you even factor in violence or other content.
The other headache is inconsistency. PEGI going for 16+ as the default minimum for loot boxes is relatively strict compared with other ratings bodies and platforms. Germany sits at 12+, Australia landed on 15+, and Apple’s App Store slaps a 9+ “frequent/intense simulated gambling” style warning on some loot-box-enabled games. These labels are applied just for the presence of loot boxes, before you even factor in violence or other content.
Compare prices instantly and save up to 80% on Steam keys with Kinguin — trusted by 15+ million gamers worldwide.
*Affiliate link — supports our independent coverage at no extra cost to you
Think about the parent trying to make sense of this when their kid plays across mobile and console. On iOS, a game might look borderline “fine” with a lighter age label, while the PEGI console version technically says 16+. They are not getting a coherent message that “this monetisation system is problematically similar to gambling.”
To be fair to PEGI, the science still has gaps. There is evidence linking loot-box spending to problem gambling symptoms, but the exact age where risk spikes is not nailed down enough for everyone to agree on one number. PEGI choosing 16 is them erring on the side of caution. A lower minimum could probably have been justified based on current studies, but at least they are admitting the problem exists.
The real issue is not whether the magic number is 12, 15 or 16. The issue is that kids are exposed to the same mechanic under different labels, and some of the biggest culprits avoid the new red flag entirely because the system will not revisit them unless forced.
Even if PEGI had nailed the scope, another problem looms: enforcement. Historically, PEGI has not always correctly labelled games with loot boxes. To their credit, once external researchers and journalists pointed this out, a lot of those mistakes were fixed fast. But good intentions do not automatically translate to watertight implementation.
A big weak point is the International Age Rating Coalition (IARC), the questionnaire-style system companies use to get automatic ratings on digital storefronts like Google Play. Ratings are often generated based on what publishers self-report. That leaves room for “mistakes” that conveniently downplay monetisation systems. Studies of Australia’s similar rules found plenty of games receiving age ratings that were too low because loot boxes were not properly declared.
Layer that on top of what EU regulators are already calling out as dark patterns – misleading countdown timers, manipulative UI, limited-time offers that are not really limited – and you get a picture of an ecosystem that does not deserve blind trust. Italy has probed games like Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty Mobile over their monetisation. The Netherlands upheld a hefty fine against Epic for countdown timers aimed at kids. The upcoming EU Digital Fairness Act is poised to clamp down on that whole mess across the bloc.
In that context, PEGI’s move looks less like pure altruism and more like an attempt at pre-emptive self-regulation. “Look, Brussels, we raised the age ratings on loot boxes, everything’s fine, no need for harsher law.” That strategy only works if the self-regulation is robust, consistently enforced and covers the games that are actually harming people.
Right now, there is no clear signal that PEGI will actively monitor mislabelled monetisation on the scale needed. External auditing from researchers is still doing a lot of the heavy lifting. If a Genshin-style gacha launches under the new rules and conveniently “forgets” to tick the right box on the IARC form, the system has to catch that, not shrug it off.
I do not want to ignore the other changes buried in PEGI’s update, because they point at something important: the industry’s monetisation problem is bigger than loot boxes.
Timed offers, “only 2 hours left” bundles, battle passes that expire, daily login streaks that reset if life gets in the way – these are not neutral design choices. They are pressure tactics. They push kids (and adults) to treat games like jobs and force decision-making under artificial time limits. It is not an accident when a store UI is built around bright red clocks and “one-time exclusive” tags.
PEGI drawing explicit lines around these mechanics – even at PEGI 7 or 12 depending on severity and parental controls – is one of the more hopeful pieces of this whole puzzle. It opens the door to a public conversation where parents are not just asking “Is there blood in it?” but “Does this game harass my kid into logging in every day or buying FOMO bundles?”
Genshin, again, sits right in that crosshair. Limited-time banners, event-exclusive rewards, and time-limited shops define its economy. You either dance to the game’s calendar or risk missing content for months, maybe forever. That might be fine for an informed adult. It is a lot murkier when a 12-year-old is pressuring parents to let them log in every day “or I’ll fall behind” and “this character never comes back.”
PEGI acknowledging those pressures is great. But without retroactive application, many of the games that pioneered and perfected these tactics are still sitting under softer ratings that do not reflect how aggressive they really are.
Pretending that re-rating thousands of games is easy would be dishonest. It is absolutely a logistical nightmare. But the answer cannot be to throw up hands and say “too hard” while the top-grossing charts are full of titles that would flunk the new standard overnight.
There is a middle ground. PEGI could commit to retroactively re-rating a targeted list of live-service games that meet clear criteria: high revenue, large under-18 player bases, and heavy use of paid random items or aggressive retention mechanics. In other words, start with the games that actually shape kids’ daily gaming habits, not every obscure gacha that died on arrival five years ago.
That list would absolutely include Genshin Impact. It would include Brawl Stars. It would include EA Sports FC’s card-pack-driven Ultimate Team. It would include the long-tail mobile monsters that barely get named in press releases but quietly sit at the top of spending charts year after year.
Alongside that, PEGI needs to make enforcement teeth visible. Random audits of IARC declarations, clear penalties for misreporting monetisation features, and transparent public logs when age ratings change due to new monetisation systems being added. If a game sneaks in loot boxes or a predatory battle pass after launch, that change should be flagged loudly, not buried in a patch note.
The EU’s Digital Fairness Act is coming anyway. Regulators in Italy, the Netherlands and elsewhere have already signalled they are done tolerating dark patterns aimed at kids. PEGI can either be the grown-up in the room that helps bridge the gap between law and reality, or a fig leaf that lawmakers eventually rip off when they realise how many of the biggest offenders were quietly exempted.
Personally, PEGI’s announcement does not suddenly make me trust games with loot boxes more. If anything, it sharpens the divide. A PEGI 16 tag for paid random items on a new title is a useful red flag, a reminder to treat it like walking into a flashy casino, not a toy store.
But the fact that Genshin and other live-service giants carry softer ratings while doing the exact same thing leaves a bad taste. It confirms what that late-night wish animation already taught me: the industry will only ever move as far as it is pushed, and self-regulation tends to draw the line wherever it is most convenient for the biggest players.
So my own rule going forward is simple. I no longer care what the official age rating says about monetisation. If there are paid random items, timed FOMO bundles, or battle passes hooked into daily logins, I treat the game as 16+ in my own head, minimum. That applies to me, my younger relatives, and anyone who asks my opinion. The PEGI label is now a nice extra warning if it is there, but its absence tells me nothing.
I want PEGI to prove me wrong. I want to see high-profile re-ratings of legacy live-service games, Genshin included, that show they are willing to upset the whales and publishers rather than just box-ticking before Brussels knocks on the door. Until that happens, this whole “loot boxes are now PEGI 16” headline feels like half a victory and half a carefully staged distraction.
The industry finally admitted the house is rigged. Now it actually has to do something about the casinos that are already open.
Get access to exclusive strategies, hidden tips, and pro-level insights that we don't share publicly.
Ultimate Gaming Strategy Guide + Weekly Pro Tips