PEGI 18 za hazard? Krytyczna analiza zasad klasyfikacji kontrowersyjnych mechanik w europejskim systemie oceny gier wideo PEGI na podstawie oceny gry Balatro.

Wojciech Sosnowski

doi:10.21697/kmt.2025.65.09

Published: 2026-03-31

Vol. 65 No. 1 (2026)

PEGI 18 for Gambling? A Critical Analysis of the Classification of Controversial Mechanics in the European Video Game Rating System (PEGI) Based on the Rating of Balatro.

Wojciech Sosnowski

Kultura Media Teologia

Section: peer-reviewed article

https://doi.org/10.21697/kmt.2025.65.09

Abstract

The article examines PEGI’s status and practice in relation to controversial video-game mechanics—above all, randomised monetisation (loot boxes/gacha) and gambling-styled aesthetics. The author frames PEGI as soft law: a contractually operated industry standard. The Balatro case study (rating shift 3 → 18 → 12) exposes inconsistencies between form (casino motifs) and function (no wagering and no microtransactions). The text reviews research linking loot boxes to problem gambling, the Polish Ministry of Finance’s position, the European Parliament’s 18 Jan 2023 resolution, and the Commission’s DSA guidance. Conclusion: PEGI’s current role is primarily informational and does not ensure consistent protection of minors. Proposed reform: link the intensity of randomised monetisation to age-rating thresholds.

Keywords:

PEGI, soft law, lootboxes (gacha), randomised monetisation, protection of minors

Download files

pdf (Język Polski)

Citation rules

Sosnowski, Wojciech. “PEGI 18 for Gambling? A Critical Analysis of the Classification of Controversial Mechanics in the European Video Game Rating System (PEGI) Based on the Rating of Balatro”. Kultura Media Teologia, vol. 65, no. 1, Mar. 2026, pp. 146-5, doi:10.21697/kmt.2025.65.09.

Cited by / Share

Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

References

Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2000). Hard and soft law in international governance. International Organization, 54(3), 421–456. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081800551280
Google Scholar

Clark, L., Lawrence, A. J., Astley Jones, F., & Gray, N. (2009). Gambling near misses enhance motivation to gamble and recruit win related brain circuitry. Neuron, 61(3), 481–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2008.12.031
Google Scholar

Dixon, M. J., Harrigan, K. A., Sandhu, R., Collins, K., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2010). Losses disguised as wins in modern multi line video slot machines. Addiction, 105(10), 1819–1824. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03050.x
Google Scholar

EA Vancouver & EA Romania. (2024) EA Sports FC 25 [gra wideo]. EA Sports
Google Scholar

European Commission. (2025). Communication to the Commission – Approval of guidelines on measures to ensure a high level of privacy, safety and security for minors online (under the Digital Services Act). https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/redirection/document/118226
Google Scholar

Eyal, N. (2014). Hooked: How to build habit forming products. Portfolio.
Google Scholar

Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. Appleton Century Crofts.
Google Scholar

Kassinove, J. I., & Schare, M. L. (2001). Effects of the near miss and the big win on persistence at slot machine gambling. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 15(2), 155–158. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.15.2.155
Google Scholar

Komisja Europejska. (2021). Zawiadomienie Komisji – Wytyczne dotyczące wykładni i stosowania dyrektywy 2005/29/WE Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady dotyczącej nieuczciwych praktyk handlowych stosowanych przez przedsiębiorstwa wobec konsumentów na rynku wewnętrznym (Tekst mający znaczenie dla EOG) (Dz.U. UE C 526, s. 1–129; 2021/C 526/01; C/2021/9320).
Google Scholar

LocalThunk. (2024). Balatro [gra wideo]. Playstack.
Google Scholar

McCaffrey, M. (2023). Loot boxes, problem gambling, and problem gaming: A critical review of the emerging literature. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 52(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.05206
Google Scholar

MiHoYo. (2020). Genshin Impact. HoYoverse.
Google Scholar

Ministerstwo Cyfryzacji. (2023). Jeszcze raz… i na pewno wygram! Młodzi gracze i mechanizmy hazardowe w grach. https://www.gov.pl/web/cyfryzacja/jeszcze-raz-i-na-pewno-wygram-mlodzi-gracze-i-mechanizmy-hazardowe-w-grach
Google Scholar

Ministerstwo Finansów. (2025). Czy skrzynki z wirtualnymi przedmiotami do gier komputerowych (lootboxy) uznawane są za hazard? Eureka – Ministerstwo Finansów. https://eureka.mf.gov.pl/informacje/podglad/627285
Google Scholar

Parlament Europejski i Rada. (2005). Dyrektywa 2005/29/WE z dnia 11 maja 2005 r. dotycząca nieuczciwych praktyk handlowych przedsiębiorstw wobec konsumentów na rynku wewnętrznym (Dz.U. UE L 149, 11.06.2005, s. 22–39).
Google Scholar

Parlament Europejski. (2023). Rezolucja Parlamentu Europejskiego w sprawie ochrony konsumentów w grach wideo online: podejście z perspektywy jednolitego rynku europejskiego (2022/2014(INI), P9_TA(2023)0008; A9-0300/2022). Strona Parlamentu Europejskiego. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2023-0008_PL.html
Google Scholar

PEGI. (2025). Complaints Board amends classifications of “Balatro” and “Luck be a Landlord” (PEGI 12). https://pegi.info/news/pegi0-complaints-board-amends-classifications-balatro-and-luck-be-landlord-pegi-12
Google Scholar

Pour, S. (2024). Experience of legal regulation of lootboxes in different countries: A comparative analysis. Journal of Digital Technologies and Law, 2(2), 345–371. https://doi.org/10.21202/jdtl.2024.18
Google Scholar

Respawn Entertainmet. (2019). Apex Legends. Electronic Arts.
Google Scholar

Schell, J. (2019). The art of game design: A book of lenses (3rd ed.). CRC Press.
Google Scholar

Spicer, S. G., Fullwood, C., Close, J., Nicklin, L. L., Lloyd, J., & Lloyd, H. (2022). Loot boxes and problem gambling: Investigating the “gateway hypothesis”. Addictive Behaviors, 131, 107327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2022.107327
Google Scholar

Staddon, J. E. R., & Cerutti, D. T. (2003). Operant conditioning. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 115–144. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145124
Google Scholar

Unia Europejska. (2022). Rozporządzenie (UE) 2022/2065 Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady z dnia 19 października 2022 r. w sprawie jednolitego rynku usług cyfrowych (akt o usługach cyfrowych) (Dz.U. UE L 277, 27.10.2022, s. 1–102). Źródło: EUR-Lex.
Google Scholar

Ustawa z dnia 23 kwietnia 1964 r. – Kodeks cywilny. (1964). Dziennik Ustaw, 1964(16), poz. 93 z poz. zmianami.
Google Scholar

Wardle, H., & Zendle, D. (2021). Loot boxes, gambling, and problem gambling among young people: Results from a cross sectional online survey. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 24(4), 267–274. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0299
Google Scholar

Wyczik, J. (2022). Dobra wirtualne z perspektywy użytkowników i dostawców treści: Prawne uwarunkowania obrotu. Wydawnictwo C.H.Beck.
Google Scholar

Xiao, L. Y. (2023). Loot box state of play 2023: Law, regulation, policy, and enforcement around the world (Stanford–Vienna TTLF Working Paper No. 110). Stanford–Vienna Transatlantic Technology Law Forum, Stanford Law School & University of Vienna School of Law. https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/TTLF-WP-110-Xiao.pdf
Google Scholar

Wojciech Sosnowski

wojciech.m.sosnowski@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6797-5505

Affiliation:

Kazimierz Wielki University Poland

Bio Statement (e.g., department and rank)

Wojciech Sosnowski – An advocate (attorney-at-law), PhD in social sciences, and Assistant Professor at the Department of Civil Procedure, Faculty of Law and Economics, Kazimierz Wielki University in Bydgoszcz. He completed his doctoral dissertation on selected aspects of video game fan creativity in the light of copyright law. He is an expert in copyright and related rights, as well as in the broadly understood field of video game law.