Buying cosmetics in games is basically just playing digital barbie, and I do not mean that pejoratively. Dressing up dolls (both male and female) is an activity

Buying cosmetics in games is basically just playing digital barbie, and I do not mean that pejoratively. Dressing up dolls (both male and female) is an activity loved by people of all ages and genders. Pay to win has its defenders from people who work hard for their money and just want a game which is more fun than challenging. The EU has been pretty good at legislating digital content rules in order to achieve a basic level of equivalence between your digital dress for your digital barbie and a physical one: if it doesn't fit properly, if it isn't the color advertised, basically any lack of objective or subjective conformance and they either fix it or give your money back. Permanence thereof is a bit up in the air. Buried in the directive on digital content and services is this fun interpretation: > Digital representations of value such as electronic vouchers or e-coupons are used by consumers to pay for different goods or services in the digital single market. Such digital representations of value are becoming important in relation to the supply of digital content or digital services, and should therefore be considered as a method of payment within the meaning of this Directive. Digital representations of value should also be understood to include virtual currencies, to the extent that they are recognised by national law. Differentiation depending on the methods of payment could be a cause of discrimination and provide an unjustified incentive for businesses to move towards supplying digital content or a digital service against digital representations of value. However, since digital representations of value have no other purpose than to serve as a method of payment, they themselves should not be considered digital content or a digital service within the meaning of this Directive. They are inventing payment methods and then requiring them, possibly in contradiction to legal tender laws. Plus, they are legally currencies, standard contract terms notwithstanding. In principal, one needs to report that to tax authorities. But that discrimination hints at the fact that the practice probably falls under the unfair commercial practices legislation among others. This is quite obvious if you think about it, why are they introducing and requiring those currencies but to obscure the cost and attempt to circumvent our ordinary commercial laws?