Balatro dev swings at PEGI for rating it 18+ because of its 'evil playing cards', jokes that he shou

While I joke plenty about Balatro being a secret psychic prison that's claimed the minds, heart, and souls of about half of PC Gamer's staff, it's only in jest. Balatro is, up and down, exceedingly solid value for money—a modestly-priced indie game without microtransactions or paid DLC and, despite its poker aesthetic, . Unless you ask the Pan-European Gaming Information rating system, which has rated it 18+.

Balatro's developer, LocalThunk, took to X late last week to tear into the decision, : "Since PEGI gave us an 18+ rating for having evil playing cards, maybe I should add microtransactions/loot boxes/real gambling to lower that rating to 3+ like EA sports FC."

For context, the PEGI rating for Balatro very directly cites the game's use of poker mechanics as a problem— "teaches—by way of images, information and gameplay—skills and knowledge that are used in poker … this knowledge and skill could be transferred to a real-life game of poker."

The hypocrisy that LocalThunk decryeth is [[link]] the fact that , a game with microtransactions in the form of "random card packs and other game items", is apparently suitable for 3 year olds. Looking into it, the game does at least appear to outright tell you the odds of getting players in its various packs—but the point still stands that one of these games has you actually 'gambling' with real money, the other does not.

"Just to clear it up," , "I'm way more irked at the 3+ for these games with actual gambling mechanics for children than I am about Balatro having an 18+ rating. If these other games were rated properly, I'd happily accept the weirdo 18+. The red logo looks kinda dope."

Now, to play devil's advocate, here, PEGI's rating is at least internally consistent. As per the , as of 2020, a game that could be considered to "encourage or teach gambling" is an automatic 18+. Balatro does, technically, teach you some of the basic rules of poker—even if it has precious little to do with the actual game itself—whereas you can't get your lootbox fix outside of the game you're playing. It's not like real-life casinos are offering pulls on D.Va skins.

Whether that rating's fair or effective, though, is another thing entirely. Back in 2019, a researcher from York St. John University , stating that "the more money people spend on loot boxes, the more severe their problem gambling is. This isn't just my research. This is an effect that has been replicated numerous times across the world by multiple independent labs." For context, "problem gambling" refers to the actual related to gambling. In other words, problem gamblers will sink money into gacha games just as they do real-life slot machines; anime girls or hard cash, it makes no difference.

I think you could make a very strong argument that PEGI's rating system is a little antiquated, here, especially if loot boxes have strong links to real-world gambling conditions—what's more dangerous, a game that teaches you some rules for a real-world gambling card game without the gambling element, or a game that has you paying real-world money for footie gacha? Or actual gacha. .

I especially feel for LocalThunk here, considering the guy's so anti-gambling he's got it in his will that . He —me either, for the record, though I adore Balatro, even if I am cursed with incredibly bad luck. I just needed [[link]] a four, man. I had, like, three in my deck. This is why I don't go to Vegas.