The DFA is game over for the European games industry   

The DFA proposal is unworkable, unjustified and disproportionate. The draft would cripple the competitiveness of Europe’s world-leading video games industry and leave millions of European players with fewer games and less choice.   

Protecting players is at the heart of what our industry does. We have led on safeguards such as PEGI age ratings, parental controls and spending tools. We share the Commission’s ambition to protect consumers, but the DFA would not make players safer. It would undermine the protections that already work. 

We are deeply concerned about this approach and call for an urgent reassessment based on the principles of proportionality, supporting growth and empowering consumers. 

• In-game currencies. The proposal describes every in-game exchange as a purchase, and reinforces the legal uncertainty started by the CPC Network’s Key Principles on Virtual In-game Currencies, leading to fragmentation across Europe, unnecessary litigation and, were these principles to remain, games being unplayable. We also remain concerned that the price transparency provisions transposed from these Principles into the DFA will mislead consumers and are surprised and disappointed that the proposals made by the industry to address these concerns in a way that works for consumers have not been considered.   
• Pay-to-win and pay-to-progress. The proposed prohibition of pay-to-win and pay-to-progress mechanisms as written is fundamentally flawed, lacks clear definitions and would create huge confusion for players and developers alike. In practice, the proposed prohibition could cover almost any purchase in a game. The same lack of clarity applies to provisions imposing other design restrictions. Under these proposals, no developer could be sure whether their game breaks the DFA’s rules, which, in the context of fines of up to 6% of global turnover, is not acceptable  
• No role for parents or teens. The DFA’s proposal to ban virtually all in-game purchases for every player under 18 strips parents and teenagers of any say in the matter, even when parents judge a purchase appropriate for their children. Children’s evolving capacities should be respected, a principle recognised in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Effectively, the DFA moves all decisions from parents and children to the Commission. 
• PEGI. The text treats games rated below PEGI 18 as directed at children. Age ratings indicate suitability, not target audience. This risks imposing an 18+ threshold on almost all game features, which, in practice would force many games to refuse access to any under 18s at all. This would deny the rights of teenagers to enjoy age-appropriate games and ultimately sets a higher bar for access to games than even those proposed for large social media apps.  

The Industry has shown self & co-regulation can work. Despite the text claiming it supports self-regulation, the proposals entirely ignore the substantial work that the games industry has already undertaken. Europe’s games industry-built PEGI, the age-rating system used in 40 countries. This year PEGI, alongside Germany’s USK, expanded its criteria to rate in-game purchases and paid random items. The PEGI Code already requires real-world costs to be made clear to players. Parents also have the ability, through parental tools on Console, PC or mobile platforms, to block or limit spending, playtime and online contact. By ignoring these efforts, the proposals risk fatally undermining industry-led innovation on safety not just in the games industry but in multiple other sectors.

Further industry proposals.  The industry has put forward concrete proposals to make games safer by design. Purchases and online communication would be switched off by default for children, and only a parent could switch them on. Players would see clear prices in real money, be able to get refunds for in-game currency they have not used and buy smaller top-ups so they don’t end up with more currency than they need.   

A risk to Europe’s games sector and to players  

Overregulation is a competitiveness problem. EU’s 6,600 companies, most of them small studios, will compete with one hand tied behind their backs against rivals outside the EU. That will have a devastating impact on a major European success story and on the millions of players who enjoy their games.  

For more information, please contact

Jari-Pekka Kaleva

Managing Director, EGDF
jari-pekka.kaleva(a)egdf.eu