Collectibles and Gacha: The Boundary Between In-Game Economics and Gambling

In recent years, gacha and loot boxes have become indispensable in the gaming industry. While traditional monetization models involved “directly purchasing desired items,” gacha introduces an element of chance. Players invest real money and await rewards without knowing the outcome. This “uncertainty” creates an experience distinct from simply buying items. The moment blending anticipation and tension expands the enjoyment of gaming, yet its structure, closely resembling gambling, has sparked social debate.

In Europe, Belgium’s regulatory authority classified loot boxes as gambling in 2018, prohibiting their provision without a license. The Netherlands made a similar ruling, forcing game companies to redesign their systems. In the U.S., debates over transparency and advertising disclosures are progressing state by state, raising societal awareness of the boundary between in-game purchases and gambling. These movements have prompted the industry to rethink monetization design, shifting the focus from mere revenue models to ethically sustainable systems.

Reward Design and Psychological Triggers

The appeal of gacha lies in its randomness—“you never know what you’ll get.” The more unpredictable the reward, the greater the joy upon obtaining it. Neurobiologically, this mechanism is thought to stimulate the dopamine system, creating a psychological urge to keep trying. In other words, gacha is not merely a means to acquire items; it is a design inherently incorporating psychological triggers.

Operators combine elements like rare items, limited-time events, and systems guaranteeing rare rewards after a set number of attempts to encourage continuous spending. While these appear to be efforts to enhance user satisfaction, taken too far, they intensify the element of chance, creating a structure closer to gambling. Indeed, multiple studies have reported links between gacha spending and gambling problems. In essence, in-game purchases carry both psychological satisfaction and inherent risk.

Legal Frameworks and National Responses

In Europe, the UK Gambling Commission has published guidelines for gacha-like monetization, emphasizing enhanced transparency and age restrictions. In Belgium and the Netherlands, loot boxes have been classified as gambling, leading to their removal or modification. These institutional responses are compelling game companies to recognize that “gacha is not merely entertainment, but a mechanism carrying social responsibility.”

In Asia, South Korea and China have introduced voluntary regulations such as probability disclosure and spending caps. Meanwhile, looking at neighboring Japan, gambling is strictly restricted under the Penal Code. Operating betting sites domestically is prohibited, meaning online casinos and betting sites are, in principle, all offshore.

In 2025, an amended bill including advertising restrictions was enacted, further clarifying the regulatory framework. In this environment, game monetization must consciously navigate the boundary with gambling. Japanese game operators have sought transparent models while avoiding structures resembling gambling. In countries with clear regulations, in-game monetization design inevitably requires efforts to demonstrate it is not gambling.

Guidelines for Future Development and Operation

Developers must focus on three fundamental elements: clearly stating probabilities, restricting underage use, and setting spending limits. Gacha systems lacking transparency lose trust and damage brand value in countries with established regulations. While leveraging user psychology isn’t inherently wrong, failing to ensure a healthy monetization experience blurs the line with gambling culture.

While gacha shares similarities with gambling in the digital age, it can be structured as a distinct participatory experience depending on systems, culture, and operational policies. For future game monetization models, transparency and educational consideration will be key to building a sustainable market. Games are both entertainment and a social culture. Precisely for this reason, monetization design should be viewed not merely as a revenue mechanism, but as a device connecting players and societal trust.