A game may be free to download, but for a small group of players, the spending can become anything but small.

Video games are a major source of entertainment for teenagers and adults, and many of the most popular titles now use a “free-to-play” business model. Players can begin without paying (‘free-to-play’ games), but they are repeatedly offered virtual items, upgrades, subscriptions, and other purchases known as microtransactions. Although these transactions are optional, modern games can be carefully designed to make spending feel natural, urgent, and difficult to resist.

The word “microtransaction” also understates how much money may be involved. A single purchase can cost €100 (about $117) or more, which is hardly a minor expense, especially for a child or teenager. Many players spend only small amounts, but averages can hide the behavior of the comparatively few users who provide much of the revenue.

More Than a Loot Box Problem

Loot boxes have attracted particular scrutiny because they allow players to buy randomized rewards (the contents of which are unknown at the time of purchase). The combination of payment, uncertainty, and the possibility of receiving a desirable item has led researchers and regulators to compare them with gambling.

Yet chance-based rewards are only one part of the free-to-play economy. Battle passes, rotating stores, virtual currencies, paid progression, personalized offers, and time-limited events can all encourage repeated purchases. Some create urgency by making items available briefly, while others add extra steps between real money and the final price. A bundle of gems or tokens can make it harder to recognize how much an item actually costs.

Our research found that microtransaction spending was heavily concentrated. The highest-spending 10%, whom we called “heavy spenders” rather than the gambling industry term “whales,” accounted for most of the money spent. The gap between this small group and everyone else was strikingly similar to the spending inequality found in gambling.

Who Generates the Revenue?

Heavy spending was not confined to teenagers from wealthy households. Gaming disorder, gambling disorder, and other problematic behaviors also appeared to be more common among heavy spenders. This raises the possibility that a meaningful share of free-to-play revenue comes from people who are particularly vulnerable to addictive behavior.

A product can appear safe when judged by the experience of its average user. Most players may spend little and encounter no serious harm, while a much smaller group faces severe financial or behavioral consequences. When that minority also generates most of the revenue, the business model deserves closer examination.

Gambling is regulated to varying degrees because lawmakers recognize its potential to cause harm. Video games face far fewer restrictions, even though some monetization systems use similar principles to sustain engagement and repeated spending.

Regulation Has Focused Too Narrowly

Most political attention has centered on loot boxes. Belgium, the Netherlands, and several other European countries have attempted to regulate specific mechanics, but research suggests that these measures have had limited success. Focusing on one feature can also leave companies free to replace it with other systems that apply pressure in different ways.

Aside from certain provisions in the Digital Services Act, video game monetization remains comparatively underregulated. At the same time, governments are considering stronger rules for social media platforms because of features designed to maximize attention and habitual use. That momentum could also be used to confront dark patterns in games.

Dark patterns are design choices that steer people toward decisions that primarily benefit the provider. In games, they can include confusing prices, artificial scarcity, persistent prompts, difficult cancellation processes, and offers presented at moments when players are especially invested in continuing.

Slowing Down In-Game Spending

One useful safeguard would be to introduce friction between the decision to buy and the completed purchase. Spending limits, clearer prices in real currency, waiting periods, and additional confirmation steps could interrupt automatic or impulsive transactions without preventing players from making informed purchases.

Gambling research identifies event frequency (in this case, the frequency of microtransactions in games) as one of the strongest indicators of a product’s addictive potential. The faster an action can be repeated, the more opportunities there are for a momentary impulse to become a persistent pattern. Regulators should apply that principle when assessing video game monetization, not just when evaluating traditional gambling products.

Long-term addictive behavior and its financial consequences may predominantly affect adults, whom our study did not examine. Children and teenagers, nevertheless, require stronger protections because they may have less ability to recognize persuasive design or understand the cumulative cost of frequent purchases.

Young Heavy Spenders Need Protection

Responsibility currently falls largely on parents and caregivers. Yet even attentive adults may struggle to monitor spending or help a young person disengage from a game built with sophisticated systems intended to maximize participation and purchases.

Most young people play video games competently and never experience serious problems. That does not mean every monetization system is safe. A product should not escape scrutiny simply because the majority of its users show no obvious harm, especially when a vulnerable minority may be providing most of its income.

The free-to-play economy is therefore not truly free for everyone. As video game monetization becomes more sophisticated, protections must evolve with it. The players most likely to lose control of their spending should not also be the people a game depends on most for revenue.

Reference: “Heavy spenders in digital games: expenditure disparities and associations between microtransactions, gaming disorder and gambling disorder among adolescents” by Markus Meschik, Elena Hammer, Doris Malischnig, Natalia Wächter and Mark D. Griffiths, 2 July 2026, Frontiers in Public Health.
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2026.1867460

This article was funded by the Austrian National Bank, the Austrian Chamber of Labor, and the Internet Foundation Austria.

Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.