Audio version on our Youtube channel: Here

The Biggest Threat

If you had asked adults 5, 10, or even 20 years ago what the biggest danger of video games was, most would have answered without hesitation: violence. Media debates, public discussions, and worried parents focused heavily on gaming-fuelled aggression among children and teenagers. For years, violent scenes in shooter games and how they affected young brains were the primary source of concern.

Today, however, it’s becoming clear that the conversation around video games and children goes far beyond violence alone. While concerns about aggression still exist, attention has increasingly shifted toward other mechanics built into modern games - ones that may have a much more direct impact on young people’s everyday behavior.

Over time, games began to change. They did not necessarily become less engaging, or even less violent, but the way they were designed transformed entirely. More and more modern titles stopped relying primarily on selling the game itself. Instead, they began focusing on player behavior. Specifically - how long and how often players engage, and above all, how much money they are willing to spend.

Game developers have mastered the art of designing experiences that are difficult to disengage from, using psychological mechanisms that draw and hold attention. They skilfully tap into children’s curiosity, reward systems, and the tension created by anticipation. They also understand one particularly important principle: the most addictive reward is the one that is uncertain.

This is exactly what makes it so hard to stop. Our brains respond far more strongly to predictability than to randomness. If we know what we will get and when we will get it, emotions and excitement fade quickly. But when a reward is uncertain, every new attempt carries the possibility of hitting something big.

This mechanism is not new. Casinos and lotteries have used it for decades. It is known as a variable reward system, where rewards appear randomly rather than being guaranteed for every action.

The simple pattern of play → achieve → reward (common in earlier games, where completing a level guaranteed points or items) has been replaced or enhanced by a different loop: play → try → maybe succeed. And if you might succeed, it is always worth trying again. And again. And one more time. The longer players stay engaged, the higher the chance they will eventually spend money. And once money has already been spent, it becomes psychologically harder to stop.

Traditionally, these kinds of mechanisms were associated with very specific image: roulette tables, casino chips, cigarette smoke, and whiskey glasses. A form of entertainment strictly for adults, hidden behind heavy curtains, inaccessible to children. And for good reason. Systems based on randomness, money, and the pursuit of winnings have long been considered potentially dangerous, requiring regulation and age restrictions.

So how did these same systems suddenly become acceptable once wrapped in colorful graphics and child-friendly animations?

Mechanisms that we would immediately label as gambling in other contexts operate under different names in games: packs, drops, loot boxes.

Loot Boxes and How They Work

Loot boxes are virtual boxes containing items that players receive randomly and can use in-game. Some rewards can directly affect gameplay, while others are purely cosmetic, such as weapon skins or character outfits. At the moment of purchase, the type and value of the item are unknown and determined by an algorithm. The value of a reward may be lower than the price of the box or exceed it many times over. Some of the rarest items have reached resale prices worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, while the cost of a single box is often just a few dollars.

Many of these promotions were misleading. Odds were artificially boosted for influencers, making valuable rewards appear far more common than they actually were. To young viewers, opening loot boxes looked harmless, exciting, and profitable. Their “wins” were often staged, and the chances of receiving valuable items artificially increased. Presenting box openings as harmless entertainment where winning seems easy attracted younger audiences and pulled them directly into gambling-like behavior.

1. FIFA / EA Sports FC

One of the most well-known and most profitable features of the FIFA series is the FIFA Ultimate Team (FUT) mode. In FUT, players build their own teams using player cards obtained from packs containing random footballers. These packs can be earned either through gameplay (using in-game currency, FUT Coins) or by purchasing them with real money (FIFA Points). Although it is possible to earn packs through gameplay, the combination of “pay-to-win” mechanics and variable reward system encourage players to “try just one more time” and eventually spend real money.

According to financial reports, microtransactions in Ultimate Team one of the largest revenue sources for Electronic Arts. By 2020, Ultimate Team accounted for approximately 29% of the company’s total revenue, generating over $1.6 billion annually across EA’s sports titles with football contributing the largest share. Some estimates suggest that microtransactions generate several times more profit than the sale of the games themselves, reaching billions of dollars each year.

The enormous financial success of Ultimate Team attracted criticism from regulators and consumer protection organizations. The Belgian Gaming Commission, for example, classified FUT packs as a form of gambling. As a result, EA removed the ability to purchase FIFA Points with real money in Belgium.

EA has consistently denied that pack openings constitute gambling. The company argues that players always receive something, even if it is not what they hoped for, meaning it is not “pure gambling.” Additionally, items cannot be officially exchanged for real money, and most packs are opened using in-game currency. Critics, however, argue that the system remains highly addictive and problematic, especially for younger players.

2. Counter-Strike: Global Offensive

In Counter-Strike: Global Offensive and its successor Counter-Strike 2, the system works differently, but in some ways, the psychological effect may be even stronger.

Instead of football cards, players open cases containing weapon skins. These cosmetic items can then be used in-game or traded on marketplaces such as Steam and third-party websites. The process is simple: players acquire cases, then need to purchase keys to open them. Inside, they may find a low-value item or a rare skin worth hundreds or even thousands of dollars. The key difference here is real-world value. Because these items can be sold or traded, loot boxes in CS:GO are not just cosmetic, but they are part of a real economic ecosystem.

For many players, this creates a powerful psychological hook. Since skins can potentially be sold for actual money, opening cases begins to resemble investment or speculation rather than simple entertainment. For some, this becomes their first exposure to earning money and it is directly tied to systems based on chance and reward.

This has made Counter-Strike one of the most prominent examples in debates about gambling-like mechanics in games. Rare skins can reach extremely high prices, and an entire gambling ecosystem has formed around them, including roulette-style games, card games, and casino simulations. Many of these platforms lack proper age verification, allowing minors to participate in activities closely resembling traditional gambling. While some players treat skins as collectibles or customization tools, the existence of a real-money market and unregulated gambling infrastructure has made CS:GO a central case in discussions about loot boxes.

Platforms like Twitch have already introduced bans on promoting skin gambling websites highlighting that the issue extends beyond the game itself.

What Does the Research Say?

An increasing number of studies show that loot box mechanics are strongly linked to gambling-related behaviors. Researchers emphasize that randomized rewards, spending pressure, and variable reward systems activate the same brain mechanisms as slot machines.

One large-scale study involving more than 45,000 players found that nearly 46% of loot-box users met criteria associated with problematic gambling behavior. Higher engagement with loot boxes was also linked to impulsive spending and risky financial decisions.

Studies conducted in Poland, including research by John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, found that 55% of players consider loot boxes a form of gambling and 33% view them as a harmful element of gaming.

Not only statistics confirm the problem. Researchers point out that loot boxes operate in ways that are psychologically very similar to gambling, because it is not the reward itself, but its unpredictability that activates the brain’s reward system. As Aaron Drummond and James D. Sauer emphasize in their publication in Nature Human Behaviour, “loot boxes are psychologically similar to gambling,” creating a strong anticipation of reward that can keep players locked in a continuous cycle of attempts and repeated purchases.

Many experts also warn that loot boxes may function as a gateway into traditional gambling behaviors. Those who regularly spend money on random rewards are statistically more likely to engage in traditional forms of gambling later in life.

The issue becomes significantly more serious when children and teenagers are involved.

Research conducted in the United Kingdom suggests that random reward mechanics, especially combined with spending pressure, can lead to emotional and financial problems among younger players.

Researchers also note that loot boxes not only capture attention and drive spending, but can shape patterns of thinking in children, reinforcing beliefs such as “the next reward will be better,” a cognitive bias commonly observed in traditional gambling.

Children are particularly vulnerable because they generally:

• have weaker impulse control;
• struggle more with risk assessment;
• are highly sensitive to reward-based stimulation;
• and often cannot fully understand long-term financial consequences.

Legal Status of Loot boxes Worldwide

The legal status of loot boxes still varies widely from country to country. Some governments treat them as a form of gambling, while others see them as part of normal video game monetization.

Belgium took one of the strongest positions by classifying certain loot box systems as gambling, which forced companies like Electronic Arts to disable paid loot box purchases there. The Netherlands has also attempted to regulate loot boxes, although its approach has changed over time.

In the United Kingdom, regulators concluded that loot boxes do not currently fit the legal definition of gambling, but still acknowledged their potential risks, especially to children. Instead of introducing strict bans, the focus shifted toward better parental controls and clearer information about drop rates.

In the United States, regulation remains largely state-based and fragmented. While there is no unified federal classification of loot boxes as gambling, legal pressure has increased. In 2026, Letitia James described loot boxes as “quintessential gambling” in a lawsuit against Valve Corporation, highlighting growing concern among policymakers.

This global inconsistency reveals a deeper issue: traditional gambling laws were designed for clearly defined systems involving money, chance, and winnings. Loot boxes operate somewhere between gaming, gambling, and online marketplaces, which makes them difficult to regulate using older legal definitions. As a result, most current regulations address only parts of the problem rather than the system as a whole. Meanwhile, the mechanics themselves continue to evolve faster than legislation.

But regardless of how the law classifies them, the psychological effects remain important. Even when presented through colorful, child-friendly designs, random reward systems can work in ways that closely resemble gambling. For adults, these systems can already be difficult to resist. For children, whose brains are still developing and who are especially sensitive to reward-based stimulation, the risks may be significantly greater.