The Big Hustle - In-Game Currencies and Microtransactions

This post is part of our ongoing series on Dark Patterns in video games. If you haven’t read Part 1 yet: “When Games Play Dirty” is the perfect place to start.

Let’s Start With a Little Thought Experiment…

You’re playing your favorite game. Your character absolutely needs that new cool outfit — everyone in your squad already has it. The shop says: 1,400 Moonstones. You’ve only got 200. No big deal, you think — Moonstones are for sale! One click, and you’re on the purchase page. Your options: 1,000 Moonstones for €7.99, or 2,500 Moonstones for €17.99.

So you grab the smaller pack — but it’s still not enough. So you buy another one. Now you’ve got 1,800 Moonstones, 1,400 of which you spent on the outfit. The remaining 400 sit in your account — not enough for the next thing, too many to just forget about.

In the end, you’ve spent €15.98 on a digital costume. Nobody forced you — and yet, here you are.

This isn’t an accident. This is design.

So What Even Are In-Game Currencies?

Simple version: A lot of games have their own in-game currency — essentially “play money” that only exists inside the game. Think “V-Bucks” in Fortnite, “Robux” in Roblox, “FIFA Points” in EA Sports FC, or “Gems” in Clash of Clans.

You can earn this currency by playing the game — or you can buy it with real money.

Microtransactions are exactly what they sound like: small purchases made inside a game, usually handled through that in-game currency. They run the gamut from new outfits and character skins to powerful weapons to mysterious surprise packages known as loot boxes. Loot boxes are a particularly thorny subject and have earned their own dedicated post — you can find it here: “Loot Boxes and Gambling Mechanics”.

The business model behind all of this is called Free-to-Play: the game itself is free, but the actual experience — the good experience — costs money. A little at a time. Over and over again.

Why Is This a Problem?

Because exchanging real money for in-game currency is deliberately designed to be confusing.

When you convert €10 into 1,000 Moonstones, the next time you’re about to buy something, you’re no longer thinking: “This is going to cost me €3” — you’re thinking: “This costs me 300 Moonstones.” That feels different. Lighter. Less real.

That’s entirely on purpose.

The German Consumer Federation (Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband, vzbv) examined five major games and platforms in 2024 — including Fortnite, Roblox, Monopoly Go, Clash of Clans, and Subway Surfers. The findings were unambiguous: in all five games, prices were displayed exclusively or predominantly in in-game currency, with no indication of the actual euro equivalent. Purchase offers were shown without price tags; you only found out the real cost after clicking through.

And there’s another trick: the currency packs almost never line up perfectly with what you’re trying to buy. You overshoot — and then you’ve got a leftover balance just sitting there, practically begging you to spend it.

What Does the Research Say? Numbers From Austria

Particularly relevant to us as an Austrian organization: the University of Graz conducted a representative study in 2024, surveying 2,610 Austrian students between the ages of 10 and 19 — the most comprehensive survey of its kind in Austria to date.

The key findings:

• 55% of the young people surveyed had already spent money on in-game purchases.
• Average spending was around €170 per year (roughly €14 per month).
• Spending was highly concentrated: 73% of total spending came from just 10% of players — a pattern consistent with addictive behavior similar to gambling.
• Economically disadvantaged youth spent just as much as everyone else — meaning kids with less still spent the same amount.
• Purchasing decisions driven by Dark Patterns (artificial scarcity, time pressure, reward mechanics) played the biggest role in particularly high spending levels.

The study also found that children making in-game purchases display the same cognitive distortions as pathological gamblers — including “chasing,” where you keep buying more to make up for earlier losses or bad pulls. You can read more about that in our dedicated post on Loot Boxes and Gambling Mechanics.

On top of that: a study by AK Niederösterreich (2025), in which test participants played a deliberately manipulative game, came to a striking conclusion: players exposed to Dark Patterns played twice as long (6.8 vs. 3.4 hours) and bought significantly more additional content than the control group playing the same game without the manipulative elements.

What About Parents?

Here’s an important finding from the ACT ON! Short Report No. 12 by JFF - Institut für Medienpädagogik (2025), which surveyed 65 children and teenagers aged 12–14:

Parents are usually only involved at the point of payment. But the actual purchase decision happens inside the game — in the moment when an animated countdown is ticking down, a shiny loot box is dangling in front of you, or a friend is asking why you don’t have the new skin yet.

What that means: parents often only see the charge on their bank statement, not the psychological situation their kid was in when that decision was made.

What can you do as a parent?

• Talk to your kids — not after the money’s gone, but before. Ask: What games are you playing? What can you buy in them? Do you ever feel like you have to buy something?
• Do the math together: If 1,000 V-Bucks cost €7.99 and the skin they want costs 1,400 V-Bucks — how much money is that, really?
• Set clear rules: A monthly budget for in-game purchases is a fair middle ground between banning it outright and letting spending go unchecked.
• Use parental controls: On iOS, in-app purchases can be disabled entirely. On Android, you can at least require a password before every purchase.
• Enable purchase confirmations: Many stores let you set things up so that every transaction has to be manually approved.

What Does the Law Say?

At the European level, the Digital Services Act (DSA) has been in effect since 2024, prohibiting manipulative design practices on online platforms — especially when minors are involved. The catch: the gaming industry is remarkably skilled at staying just inside the legal gray zone. Whether any specific game design violates the law often has to be settled in court.

The vzbv issued formal legal warnings against several game developers in 2025. The process is slow — game mechanics evolve faster than legislation.

Our Take

In-game currencies and microtransactions aren’t inherently a problem. Games need to generate revenue, and many studios do it brilliantly — transparently, fairly, without pressure tactics. The question is always: how?

The problem shows up when confusion is deliberately engineered. When real money gets converted into play money so you stop thinking in euros. When kids are put under social pressure. When loot boxes activate the same reward circuitry in your brain as a slot machine.

Awareness is the first step. Once you know the tricks, they’re a lot harder to pull off — whether you’re a kid or an adult.

Until next time: be smart, and convert those imaginary currencies into euros BEFORE you make a purchase decision. Game on. 🎮

Sources

Studies & Academic Publications:

1. Meschik, M., Fussi, J., Stuhlpfarrer, E. & Wächter, N. (2024). Insert Coin to Continue: Nutzung aktueller Finanzierungsmodelle digitaler Spiele von Kindern und Jugendlichen in Österreich. Universität Graz. Summary via lehrerweb.wien: https://lehrerweb.wien/aktuell/single/news/studie-wie-jugendliche-mit-in-game-kaeufen-umgehen
2. Unipub Universität Graz - Full text of study (PDF): https://unipub.uni-graz.at/obvugrveroeff/download/pdf/9606002
3. Jennewein, N., Schmidt, L., Gebel, C. & Brüggen, N. (2025). ACT ON! Short Report No. 12 - Monetarisierungsmodelle in Online-Games. JFF - Institut für Medienpädagogik. https://act-on.jff.de/short-report-nr-12-monetarisierungsmodelle-in-online-games/
4. Wütscher, S. (2025). ACT-ON! Studie zu Monetarisierung in Online-Games. merz | medien + erziehung, 69(2). https://doi.org/10.21240/merz/2025.2.1
5. Gibson, E. et al. (2024/2025). The Role of Videogame Micro-Transactions in the Relationship Between Motivations, Problem Gaming, and Problem Gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, Vol. 41, pp. 1087–1118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-024-10365-9
6. Hautamäki, T. et al. (2025). Pay to Play or Pay to Lose? The Impact of In-game Spending in Digital Games on Gambling Problems. Journal of Gambling Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-025-10453-4
7. Zhang, Z., Moradzadeh, S., Gui, X. & Kou, Y. (2025). More Than Just Microtransactions: Predatory Monetization in User-Generated Games. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 9(6), pp. 889–921. https://doi.org/10.1145/3748626
8. Steinnes, K. K. & Reich, C. J. (Oslo Metropolitan University). Manipulatives Spieldesign und sozialer Druck durch In-Game-Käufe. Commissioned by the Norwegian Ministry of Children and Families. Summary via mein-mmo.de: https://mein-mmo.de/manipulation-von-kindern-in-videospielen/

Regulatory Bodies & Consumer Organizations:

9. Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband (vzbv) (2025). Manipulative design and unfair practices in online games. (PDF report, July–September 2024 investigation) https://www.vzbv.de/sites/default/files/2025-04/25-03-11_Paper_vzbv_Manipulative_design_unfair_practices_online_games.pdf
10. AK Niederösterreich / Markus Wieser (2025). Study on Dark Patterns in free-to-play games. Reported via KOSMO: https://www.kosmo.at/achtung-abzocke-wie-gratis-spiele-dich-heimlich-manipulieren/
11. Gambling Commission (UK) (2022). Report on loot box usage among 11–16-year-olds. Cited in: Gibson et al. (2024), Journal of Gambling Studies.

Background Information:

12. lehrerweb.wien (2021). Spiele-Apps als Kostenfallen: Das sind die Tricks. https://lehrerweb.wien/aktuell/single/news/so-wollen-kostenlose-handyspiele-an-unser-geld
13. Gyenno.ch (2026). Belohnungszentrum blockieren: So entlarvst du Dark Patterns in Werbung und Spielen. https://gyenno.ch/blog/belohnungszentrum-werbung-sperren