The European Union is moving against a familiar irritation of modern games: the virtual-currency bundle that is always slightly wrong for the item a player wants. The action, led by the Italian Competition Authority, concerns monetization systems used by Activision Blizzard, Mojang, Ubisoft, Riot Games, Crytek, Supercell, InnoGames, King, Plarium and Playrix.
At the center is a deceptively ordinary checkout problem. A cosmetic, upgrade, or other in-game item may have its price displayed in a game-specific currency rather than euros. That currency is then sold in fixed packs, which can leave a player with a small balance after a purchase—or short of the exact amount needed and nudged toward buying a larger pack. It is the digital equivalent of getting change back in arcade tokens, except the arcade has thoughtfully locked the door behind the tokens.
The EU’s concerns go beyond inconvenient arithmetic. They include the use of multiple virtual currencies, bundle sales, possible dark patterns, inadequate parental controls, and insufficient help for users whose accounts are blocked. The action names companies, but the underlying questions apply to a broad business practice spanning live-service, freemium and gacha-style games.
What is being challenged
Virtual currency is any non-euro unit players use inside a game to obtain digital goods or services. It can be a single currency purchased directly with money, or one layer in a chain involving several currencies. An item might be priced in one set of tokens, while the tokens themselves must be purchased with another virtual unit or in real-money packs.
That separation matters because it can make the real cost less immediately legible. A player can readily compare a €5 item with a €10 item. Comparing two prices expressed in unfamiliar fictional units is harder when those units are bought in uneven amounts and may be converted through additional steps. The concern is not merely that games use themed money; it is that a game’s purchasing design can obscure the cash commitment needed to complete a transaction.
Bundling is the clearest example. If an item costs 2,999 units but the smallest relevant bundle contains 3,000, the player is left with one unused unit. On its own, that remainder may appear trivial. At scale, however, recurring small balances can make a player more likely to return to the shop and top up for another item. Conversely, if an item falls just above a bundle threshold, the player may need to buy a substantially bigger pack than the item’s listed currency price suggests.
This is sometimes described as breakage: value that consumers have paid for but do not redeem. The current action is focused on the consumer-protection implications of systems built around such gaps, rather than treating the leftover balance as a cute little souvenir from the checkout screen.
The companies and issues in scope
The companies identified in the EU action are Activision Blizzard, Mojang, Ubisoft, Riot Games, Crytek, Supercell, InnoGames, King, Plarium and Playrix. The supplied information does not establish a final outcome, penalty, or specific remedy for any individual company. It does establish that their monetization systems are being challenged and that games including Call of Duty have been cited as examples requiring improvement.
Related coverage includes EU Action Targets Activision, Riot, Ubisoft and Others Over In-Game Currency Practices.
That distinction is important. A regulatory action is not the same thing as a final finding that every listed practice is unlawful in every implementation. It is a process aimed at whether the relevant consumer-protection standards are being met and, if not, what needs to change.
The concerns described by the EU include:
- Prices shown in virtual currency: Purchases are ultimately paid for in euros, directly or indirectly, even when the item itself is not priced in euros.
- Currency packs that do not match item prices: Fixed bundles can create leftover balances or require a player to buy more currency than an intended purchase consumes.
- Multiple currency layers: More than one virtual currency can add distance between a player and the real-money cost.
- Dark patterns: This term refers to interface or design choices that can steer, pressure, confuse, or otherwise manipulate users into choices they may not otherwise make.
- Parental controls: The action raises concerns about whether safeguards for younger players are adequate.
- Blocked-account assistance: A player who loses access to an account may also lose practical access to purchases and remaining currency, making support procedures a consumer issue as well as a technical one.
Why the focus on children and parents matters
Live-service and free-to-play games can be hugely popular with children, including games such as Fortnite and Roblox. In that setting, clear pricing and parental controls are not side features. They are part of whether families can understand, supervise, and limit spending.
A parent may be able to recognize a payment in euros on a bank statement, but it can be much harder to understand a child’s intent from a collection of virtual balances, packs, upgrade currencies, and store offers. The issue becomes sharper where a game turns spending into a sequence: buy a pack, convert it, discover the desired item costs a near-but-not-quite matching amount, then consider another pack.
Good parental controls are not defined in the material by a particular feature checklist, so it would be premature to claim what the EU will require. The practical principle is clearer: controls should help guardians oversee transactions and avoid accidental or poorly understood spending. The account-support concern follows the same logic. If access to an account is blocked, the route to assistance can determine whether a consumer can realistically recover access to paid digital goods.
Those questions sit alongside a wider debate about digital ownership. Players often experience a bought skin, item, or currency balance as something they possess. Yet access is typically tied to an account and the service operating it. That mismatch does not answer the legal question on its own, but it helps explain why account blocks and support processes are relevant in a conversation that begins with currency packs.
Similar questions about platform processes arise elsewhere in digital entertainment, as seen in questions surrounding track-removal and takedown procedures. Games have their own commercial and technical structures, but users in both cases can be left navigating systems that govern access to digital material they value.
Fortnite’s exact-amount change, with one stated exception
Fortnite is not among the companies named in this action. Epic has already said that, starting this month, players will be able to spend exact amounts of V-Bucks on specific purchases, with PlayStation identified as the exception.
The significance of an exact-amount option is straightforward. It reduces the gap between the price of a desired item and the amount of currency a player must buy. It does not erase the wider debate around in-game shops, but it directly addresses the “one more bundle” problem that fixed currency packs can create.
Platform differences remain important. The information provided specifically notes the PlayStation exception, but does not explain why it exists or how long it will last. Players should therefore avoid assuming that a payment option available on one version of a game will automatically be available on another.
How players can read a virtual-currency offer more clearly
Even before any regulatory process produces a final result, players and families can make a game shop’s real-money logic easier to see. The aim is not to turn every cosmetic purchase into an accounting exam—although some storefronts do seem determined to offer an elective in it.
- Start with the item, not the currency pack. Identify the exact virtual-currency price of the desired item before looking at bundle options.
- Calculate the smallest real-money commitment that covers it. If there is no exact purchase option, note both the cost of the necessary pack and the amount that will remain.
- Do not treat an existing balance as a reason to spend more. A leftover amount has already been paid for; it should not become an automatic justification for a further purchase.
- Check the platform-specific checkout path. The availability of exact spending or other payment choices can differ by platform.
- Use parental controls before a purchase becomes a dispute. The details vary by service, but the general purpose is to put oversight in place ahead of time.
- Keep transaction records if account access becomes a problem. Receipts and account information can be useful when seeking support for purchases, balances, or a blocked account.
A broader shift in scrutiny
This is not presented as an isolated concern about one storefront mechanic. Consumer-protection bodies have increasingly examined game monetization, including gambling-like design and age-rating questions, while debates over digital ownership have also gained prominence. The EU action places virtual-currency pricing, purchasing friction, child protections, and account assistance in the same frame: a game’s business design can affect consumers well beyond the moment they press a buy button.
For publishers, the practical pressure is toward clearer connections between a displayed in-game price and the money required to pay it. For players, a more transparent system would mean fewer conversions, fewer stranded balances, and a better ability to decide whether an optional purchase is actually worth its real cost.
The eventual consequences for the ten named companies remain uncertain from the available information. What is clear is that virtual currency is no longer being treated as harmless decorative jargon simply because it has a whimsical name and a shiny icon. When it is bought with euros, regulators are asking whether the route from euro to item is fair, understandable, and properly supported.
