Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The rapid expansion of microtransactions in online gaming has transformed digital entertainment into a multibillion-dollar industry. However, probability-based monetization systems such as loot boxes, gacha mechanics, and pay-to-win features raise significant Shariah concerns, particularly regarding Gharar (uncertainty), Maysir (gambling), and unjust wealth transfer. Despite growing academic attention, limited research systematically evaluates diverse gaming models through a comprehensive Islamic jurisprudential framework. This study aims to identify elements of Batil in contemporary microtransactions, evaluate selected online games using principles of fiqh muʿāmalāt, and assess these mechanisms through the lens of Maqāṣid al-Sharīʿah. Methodologically, the study adopts a qualitative doctrinal-empirical approach. It combines textual analysis of primary Islamic legal sources with case studies of four major online games: Fortnite, FIFA Ultimate Team, Mobile Legends, and Dota 2. Direct in-application observation was conducted on the Magic Wheel feature in Mobile Legends, which discloses a 2% probability rate for premium skins. Additionally, semi-structured interviews with three Islamic finance professionals were undertaken to support the jurisprudential analysis. The findings indicate that fixed-price cosmetic purchases may align with Shariah principles, whereas randomized reward systems involving monetary payment prior to outcome realization exhibit structural similarities to classical definitions of Maysir. Although probability disclosure reduces informational ambiguity, it does not eliminate speculative wealth transfer based on chance. From a Maqāṣid perspective, such mechanisms may undermine the protection of wealth, intellect, and justice. The study concludes that permissibility of microtransactions depends on structural design and proposes a Batil-based evaluative framework for Shariah-compliant digital gaming models.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zaharudin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: