Insider Sport spoke to Anthony Gaud about how gamification mechanics are blurring the line between entertainment and regulation in gambling
Video games have been accused of using gambling‑style mechanics like loot boxes to engage younger audiences. Now it has become a two-way street, with gambling products adopting mechanics once only found in games.
Features built around progression, skill and interactive decision making are becoming more common, raising questions about what counts as entertainment and what should fall under tighter regulatory scrutiny.
Ahead of SBC Summit Lisbon 2026, Insider Sport spoke to Anthony Gaud, Chair, Regulated Esports and Video Game Committee, about where the boundaries of gamification are, how regulators are responding and what responsible gamification should look like.
Read the full interview below.
Where’s the line between gamification that engages a player and a mechanic that should trigger regulatory scrutiny?
If a player is led to believe that their decisions, skill, or strategy affect the result, then those factors should genuinely influence the outcome. Otherwise, the game presents an illusion of choice. That is where concerns begin.
Good gamification makes the player feel engaged because their actions have real consequences within the game’s rules and mathematics. The player may win or lose, but they understand that their decisions played a role. Problems arise when a game presents itself as skill-based, while hidden systems effectively determine the outcome regardless of what the player does.
I have seen examples of companies that marketed games as skill-based even though player skill had little or no meaningful impact on results. Some justified this by saying there was not enough player liquidity or that matching players with comparable skill levels was too difficult. In my view, those challenges do not excuse creating the appearance of skill where none actually exists.
If a company is going to market a game as skill-based, then skill should genuinely matter. When it does not, regulators have every reason to take a closer look, because the issue is no longer engaging game design. It is whether players are being misled about how the game actually works.
Is the convergence of video game monetisation and gambling being overstated by the press, or are regulators genuinely behind?
The convergence of video games and gambling is real. In my view, it is not being overstated by the press. Video game mechanics, real-money wagering, and traditional iGaming products are steadily moving toward each other, driven by changing player expectations.
The average online casino customer is significantly older than the audience that grew up with mobile and online games. Younger players are accustomed to interactive experiences where choices, progression systems, social competition, and skill all play a role.
Many traditional gambling products offer very little of that engagement. As a result, operators are increasingly looking to borrow mechanics from video games to attract and retain a new generation of players.
Crash games are an early example of this trend, but they are only the beginning. We are already seeing products that blend elements of gaming, competition, progression, and wagering in ways that would have been uncommon just a few years ago.
The challenge is that these hybrid products create difficult questions for regulators. Traditional gambling products are relatively straightforward to test and audit because the rules and outcomes are well defined.
Video game mechanics introduce a much larger number of variables. Regulators must determine how much of an outcome is driven by chance versus skill, whether players are competing against other players or against the house, and whether automated systems or bots are influencing results. These questions become even more complicated when the mechanics are constantly evolving.
I do not believe regulators are behind because they are ignoring the issue. Rather, they are being asked to evaluate products that do not fit neatly into existing gaming or gambling frameworks. The pace of innovation is simply moving faster than the pace of regulation.
The more important question going forward is not whether gaming and gambling are converging. They clearly are. The real challenge is ensuring that transparency, fairness, and consumer protection evolve at the same pace as the products themselves.
Are crash games the social future of casino play, or a streamer-driven novelty that fades with the hype?
Crash games are not a streamer-driven novelty. In my view, they represent the foundation of an entirely new category within iGaming.
What makes crash games different from traditional casino products is that they introduce meaningful player decisions. Players are not simply pressing a button and waiting for an outcome. They are making choices, pursuing short-term and long-term goals, and engaging with systems that can evolve through new content, features, and experiences. That creates a level of engagement and retention that traditional casino games have struggled to achieve.
The social component is equally important. The most successful crash games allow players to see what others are doing in real time, even though they are not directly competing against one another. Players celebrate wins together, react to losses together, and become part of a shared experience. Modern players increasingly expect both agency and community. Traditional slot machines are largely solitary experiences. Crash games are inherently social.
The popularity of crash games among streamers is not the reason for their success. It is evidence that the format resonates with younger audiences in a way that traditional casino products often do not. These games create moments of tension, decision-making, and emotional investment that are easy to understand and compelling to watch.
For example, take a game like Aviatrix. A player places a wager, the plane takes off, and the player must decide whether to cash out or continue the flight. Eventually, the plane crashes. Every round creates a clear narrative with a beginning, a decision point, and an outcome. That simple structure generates excitement because the player’s choice is directly tied to the result.
What many people miss is that crash mechanics are not limited to a single theme or presentation. The underlying mechanic can support almost any type of experience. In the future, crash games will tell far richer stories, taking players on adventures through strange lands, military missions, sports competitions, fantasy worlds, and countless other settings. Most experiences that can be created in a video game can be adapted into a crash-style format. The crash mechanic is simply the engine that drives the tension and decision-making.
For those reasons, I do not see crash games as a passing trend. I see them as the first step in a broader evolution of online wagering, one that incorporates more interaction, more community, more storytelling, and more meaningful player engagement than traditional casino products have historically offered.
How much of slot streaming’s pull is healthy discovery, and how much is unregulated advertising to people who shouldn’t be watching?
Like most things in this industry, the answer is not black and white.
Slot streaming can absolutely serve a legitimate discovery function. Personalities influence consumer behaviour in every industry. Whether it is a celebrity promoting a car, an athlete endorsing a beer, or a streamer showcasing a casino game, people naturally gravitate toward products that are recommended by individuals they trust or admire.
The bigger concern is not the existence of slot streaming itself, but the way it is often presented. Too many viewers are left with the impression that the streamer is achieving extraordinary results through luck or skill, when in reality the stream may be sponsored, funded by the operator, or conducted under conditions that do not reflect a typical player’s experience. When those facts are not clearly and prominently disclosed, the audience does not get an honest picture of the product, pure and simple.
There is also a broader societal issue. In the US, sports betting has become deeply integrated into sports media. Gambling advertisements are now so common that they often feel inseparable from the events themselves. While adults are free to make their own decisions, younger audiences are exposed to these messages at an age when they may not yet have the maturity to properly evaluate risk, especially financial risk.
The same concern applies to gambling content online. The problem is not that people are watching gambling. The problem is that many younger viewers are being exposed to highly curated gambling experiences without sufficient context. When viewers see large wins but do not understand the underlying mathematics, the sponsorship arrangements, or the losses that are rarely highlighted, they can develop unrealistic expectations about gambling outcomes.
In my view, the solution is not banning gambling content. It is transparency. If a streamer is sponsored, that should be obvious. If promotional funds are being used, that should be disclosed. If the content is intended for adults, platforms should make meaningful efforts to enforce age restrictions. Gambling should be presented as a form of adult entertainment, not as a realistic path to income or a lifestyle strategy.
Does the industry have a shared standard for responsible gamification, or is everyone defining it themselves until a regulator forces it?
No, there is not a shared global standard for responsible gamification today. In practice, every jurisdiction is defining its own boundaries, often in response to local political priorities, consumer protection concerns, and market realities.
The challenge is that different regulators approach the issue from fundamentally different philosophies. Some focus on game mechanics themselves, others focus on responsible gambling controls, and others focus primarily on financial safeguards and consumer protection. As a result, a mechanic that is perfectly acceptable in one market may not be in another.
The UK, as an example: Regulators there have been willing to directly regulate game design features, including autoplay functions, game speed, and certain celebratory mechanics that could be viewed as encouraging excessive play. Other jurisdictions take a less interventionist approach and focus more heavily on odds disclosure, responsible gaming tools, age verification, and the operator’s conduct.
The situation becomes even more complicated when you consider the divide between regulated operators and parts of the crypto ecosystem. Traditional operators often operate under extensive licensing, auditing, and compliance requirements, while some blockchain-based platforms function with little meaningful oversight. This creates very different standards for what is considered “acceptable gamification”.
Another part of the problem is that innovation is moving faster than regulation. New game formats are emerging constantly, and regulators are often being asked to evaluate products that did not exist a few years ago. It is difficult to create universal standards when nobody can say with certainty what the next major category of interactive wagering will look like.
That said, I do believe the industry is moving toward greater alignment. While regulations differ significantly from one jurisdiction to another, regulators themselves are increasingly collaborating, sharing information, and learning from each other’s experiences. I have seen this firsthand at international regulatory conferences. There seems to be a genuine desire to establish common principles around transparency, fairness, responsible gaming, and consumer protection, even if the specific rules vary from market to market.
The challenge is balancing their standards against the unique legal, cultural, political, and tax considerations that exist in their jurisdictions. Until that balance is achieved, responsible gamification will continue to be defined locally rather than globally.
Held in Lisbon from 29 September to 1 October 2026, SBC Summit is one of the world’s largest gatherings of betting and gaming professionals. The event will bring together 40,000 attendees from across the industry for three days of learning, networking, and discussion, alongside a major exhibition featuring leading brands from around the globe.
For more information and tickets, visit sbcevents.com/sbc-summit.
Source: Insider Sport
