Europe Asks Games to Show the Money Behind Their Coins

A game can ask a player to spend 500 coins without ever showing, at that moment, what those coins cost in euros. The number looks precise. The price can be anything but. On September 30, European consumer authorities opened coordinated investigations into nine video game companies over practices that may leave players unsure of the real cost of in-game purchases. The companies include the makers of Minecraft, Candy Crush Saga, Valorant and Clash of Clans. The authorities have announced investigations, not findings of a violation.

The move shifts attention from whether a game may sell virtual items to how clearly it presents the transaction. A player who buys a currency bundle, spends part of it on a skin and keeps an unusable balance has made a series of real-money decisions. The consumer watchdogs want those decisions to be intelligible before the purchase, particularly when children are playing. Ireland's Competition and Consumer Protection Commission described the action on October 1 as covering pricing, virtual currencies, withdrawal rights and the fairness of terms.

A gaming computer setup. SankalpSasnur / Wikimedia Commons, CC0 1.0. Image source.

The exchange rate is part of the price

A virtual currency adds a conversion between the amount on a payment card and the amount displayed inside a game. That conversion can make an individual item harder to compare with another purchase. The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets, or ACM, says currencies sold in bundles frequently do not match the prices of items. Players can be left with a balance that encourages another purchase. Its September 30 statement says this pattern can obscure spending and create unintended costs.

The point is not that every coin has one stable cash value. A game may offer several bundles at different rates, bonuses or limited promotions. That is precisely why a player needs a clear real-world price at the point of choice. Showing only the in-game denomination asks the buyer to do the arithmetic, remember what was paid earlier and account for the remainder. A transparent storefront would make the cash consequence legible without that reconstruction.

Nine companies, several questions

The coordinated action names Crytek, InnoGames, King.com, Mojang, Plarium, PLR Worldwide Sales, Riot Games, Supercell and Ubisoft EMEA. Regulators have cited games including Hunt: Showdown 1896, Forge of Empires, Candy Crush Saga, Minecraft, Mech Arena, Gardenscapes, Valorant, Clash of Clans and For Honor. That is a list of companies and games under scrutiny, not a conclusion that each title uses the same design or has broken the law.

The Irish agency says authorities are examining whether players can understand the real cost of virtual goods, whether currency systems pressure them to buy more than they need, what information they receive before paying and whether terms are fair. It also raises the right to withdraw from contracts within 14 days, including for unused virtual currency. That right has legal conditions; the investigation will test how the rules apply to the practices in question rather than automatically refund every digital purchase.

A pair of Nintendo Switch Joy-Con controllers on a grip. Kjaskren / Wikimedia Commons, CC0 1.0. Image source. The photograph illustrates gaming hardware; Nintendo is not among the nine companies named in this action.

Why children sharpen the issue

The design questions are especially consequential for minors. A child may recognize that a bright in-game icon has value without appreciating the cost of replenishing it. The regulators' concern is about the information and pressure surrounding a purchase, not a claim that all games or all players behave alike. The Irish authority specifically calls for safeguards for children and other vulnerable consumers.

The current investigations followed an earlier attempt at dialogue. ACM says European authorities discussed changes with gaming industry representatives in 2025 but did not see proposals or large-scale changes that sufficiently addressed the problems. The European Commission had already published key principles on in-game virtual currencies in March 2025. Formal inquiries now put those expectations against actual game storefronts and purchase flows.

What the action can and cannot establish

A coordinated investigation is a serious escalation, but it is still a process. The companies will have an opportunity to respond, and the authorities have not announced penalties in this action. Separate inquiries involving Diablo Immortal, Call of Duty Mobile and Star Stable were already under way, according to ACM. Those should not be collapsed into the new nine-company announcement.

The test for the wider industry is straightforward to state even if it is harder to implement: Can a player see, before acting, how much an item will cost in ordinary money and what rights follow the payment? Europe’s enforcement effort may yield different answers for different games. It has already made the question difficult for any storefront built around coins, gems or points to avoid.