In-Game Spending: What the Rating Warns About and What the Controls Stop

Two instruments are commonly treated as one, and the confusion is expensive. A classification is a warning about what is inside a game. A control is a mechanism that stops or limits an action. A rating does not stop a purchase, and a spending control does not describe the content a child will meet.

The distinction explains a familiar sequence: a parent reads the rating on the box, buys the game, and later receives a bill from the store inside it. The rating was accurate. It was never the instrument that stops a transaction. The two instruments also arrive at different times: the rating is on the box before the purchase, and the controls are inside the account after it. A household that checks only the box has made a content decision and no spending decision at all.

This article sets out what changed in Australian classification in 2024, what the current labels mean, and which settings perform which job. The authorities relied upon are the Australian Classification Board and the eSafety Commissioner.

What changed on 22 September 2024

On that date, the Australian Government changed the way games are classified, and the change reaches every platform a child can hold. It applies to video games on computers, gaming consoles, phones and tablets. There is no pocket of the market where the older approach survives: the board’s framing reaches the same titles wherever they are sold and on whatever device they are played.

The board’s own lines state the two outcomes. Video games with in-game purchases with an element of chance, such as paid loot boxes, are classified M and not recommended for children under 15 years of age. Simulated gaming, such as casino-style games, is legally restricted to adults and classified R 18+.

The board also states its reason, and it belongs in any family conversation about the subject. Research shows links between gambling-like content in video games and problem gambling, emotional and mental health impacts. That is the board’s position, and the article states it as the board states it, without extending it to any particular child.

The practical consequence is that two features which once sat outside the ratings conversation now sit inside it. A paid loot box is a content question, rated M. A casino-style game is a restricted product, rated R 18+.

It helps to separate those two features, because they are commonly confused. A paid loot box is a purchase with an element of chance inside a game the child may otherwise play, and the rating attaches a recommendation to it: not recommended for children under 15. Simulated gambling is a game built around casino mechanics, and it sits in a different category entirely, legally restricted to adults. The first is a warning attached to a feature; the second is a category of product.

The scale the ratings sit on

The ratings system runs G, PG, M, MA 15+ and R 18+, with X 18+ at the top of the scale.

Two rows carry the 2024 change for games. M is the rating now given to games with in-game purchases with an element of chance, and it is not recommended for children under 15. R 18+ is the rating for simulated gambling, and it is legally restricted to adults.

The board’s hub states the purpose of the system in one line: ratings help people make informed choices about what they and their family watch, play and read. The eSafety Commissioner adds a caution that belongs beside it. Classification ratings can be helpful, particularly for apps and platforms, although they may not consider all online safety risks, and comprehensive game reviews should be used in combination with age ratings. The rating is a signal about content. It is not a full description of the online experience.

Read the scale with a specific game in mind, and the exercise is short: find the rating letter wherever the game is sold, and note whether it sits at M or above.

The scale has two tiers, and the difference between them is the difference between advice and law. G, PG and M are recommendations: they describe who the content suits, and the M line for in-game purchases with an element of chance is a recommendation that children under 15 stay away. MA 15+ and R 18+ are restrictions, and the 2024 change placed simulated gambling in the second tier, where it is legally restricted to adults. A parent reading a rating letter is therefore reading one of two things, and knowing which one is on the box is the first step.

What the controls control

The controls are the second instrument, and they are best understood by feature rather than by platform. The eSafety Commissioner groups the features that matter: who the child plays with, chat inside the game, communication apps used alongside gaming, and watching live streams. The store is the fifth, and it is the one that decides whether money can move.

The condition is stated by eSafety itself and it applies to every family’s plan: some games let you turn off chat, but others might not. The features differ by game, app and platform, which means the settings exist at two layers, inside the game and inside the platform, and both layers are checked. There is no single menu that settles the question for every title.

The store is the feature that moves money rather than content, and it is separated here for that reason. A platform-level purchase control is the setting that makes a transaction need an adult, and it operates independently of any chat or visibility setting.

A useful way to plan the check is to work outward from the account: the platform first, because it is the layer the household controls, and the game second, because the features differ by title. The store setting belongs to the first layer, and it is the one that stops a transaction rather than describing it.

Communication apps used alongside gaming are part of the picture, and the eSafety page names Discord as the example. A game with chat switched off can still be played alongside a separate voice call, and that is a feature of the household’s setup rather than of the game.

The controls also sit on top of an account, and the account has its own door. The site’s explainer on why two-factor authentication matters covers that layer for a child’s own login.

The question that decides the setup

Before any setting is changed, the eSafety Commissioner recommends a question, and it is asked of the child rather than answered for them: what is the main purpose? Do they want to play with friends, chat, or watch others? The purpose identifies the features that must be on and those that can be restricted, which is the reverse of the usual order of trying every setting and hoping.

The second half of the method is matching the child rather than an average. The eSafety Commissioner states that there is no one right age to go online, and recommends that younger children play offline, or only play online games with their family. Offline modes are sometimes safer and ideal for younger children, in the Commissioner’s own framing. The purpose question also has a practical payoff: a child who can say what they want from a game can take part in the setting that follows, which is why the method starts with asking rather than with a menu.

Where the behaviour raises a question that settings cannot answer, the site’s guide to occupational therapy for children sets out the signs it could help with and how the process starts. That is a different instrument again, and it belongs outside this article’s scope.

The eSafety Commissioner’s own starting position also belongs in view, because it is balanced rather than alarmed. Gaming builds coordination, problem-solving and multi-tasking skills, and it is a social connection for many players, alongside risks such as cyberbullying and exposure to harmful content. The two instruments in this article manage the content and the spending; they are not a verdict on the hobby.

A decision, not a verdict

The eSafety Commissioner’s framing is that parents should take a gradual approach, and that no decision has to be final. Settings can be adjusted as the child grows, and a limit that suited an eight-year-old is not a failure at eleven; it is a setting to revisit.

That framing is also this article’s boundary. It sets out the two instruments and the published positions behind them. It does not set a family rule, because the right rule depends on the child, the household and the games, and those are not visible from a page. The approach also protects the conversation. A rule announced as permanent invites a fight; a setting reviewed at the end of the month invites a check-in, and the review is the mechanism rather than the exception.

The settings to change tonight

Four actions, in this order, and none of them requires a new purchase.

• Check the rating on each game the child plays, and note which ones sit at M for in-game purchases with an element of chance.
• Turn on the purchase controls in the store, so that a transaction needs an adult.
• Decide the chat setting game by game, remembering that a separate communication app is a separate decision.
• Agree the hours with the child, and write the agreement down where both parties can see it.

The list is short because the instruments are two. The rating tells the household what is inside the game, and the controls decide what can happen next. Both take ten minutes tonight. Two instruments, ten minutes, and one conversation about hours: the rating is the part that needs looking up, the controls are the part that needs switching on, and the third part, the agreement with the child, is the part no setting performs.

Sources: Australian Classification – New classifications for gambling-like content in video games · Australian Classification – Classification ratings · eSafety Commissioner – Gaming (parent resources) · eSafety Commissioner – Understanding online gaming features