Anak main game.
Normal.
Beli skin Rp20 ribu?
Masih mungkin normal.
Beli battle pass?
Tergantung.
Buka loot box berkali-kali sampai tagihan kartu orang tua jutaan?
Nah, di sini pertanyaannya berubah.
Game online bukan lagi cuma permainan.
Ada ekonomi di dalamnya.
Virtual currency.
Skin.
Subscription.
Random reward.
Marketplace.
Gift.
Creator item.
Anak bisa menghabiskan uang nyata di dunia yang tampil seperti permainan.
Pada 2026, PP TUNAS membuat isu ini semakin relevan karena regulasi perlindungan anak digital Indonesia mulai menilai bukan hanya konten, tetapi desain dan fitur.
Kepmen Komdigi Nomor 142 Tahun 2026 secara eksplisit menyebut gamification seperti poin, level, badge, streak, daily reward, dan loot box atau mystery box sebagai contoh elemen desain yang dapat menarik anak.
Penting: disebut sebagai indikator dalam penilaian produk yang mungkin digunakan anak, bukan berarti semua loot box otomatis dinyatakan ilegal oleh Kepmen tersebut.
Itu distinction yang harus dijaga.
Tapi policy signal-nya jelas.
Desain ekonomi game masuk radar.
Batas perlindungan pertama: anak harus tahu kapan uang nyata terlibat
Virtual currency membingungkan.
100 gems.
500 coins.
10 diamonds.
Anak bisa lupa itu uang.
Harga dunia nyata menjadi abstrak.
Platform seharusnya membuat biaya rupiah jelas saat transaksi.
“500 gems = Rp75.000.”
Bukan hanya icon.
Untuk pembelian anak, transparency harus lebih tinggi.
Jangan sengaja membuat conversion rate sulit dihitung.
Friction sedikit justru baik.
“Konfirmasi pembelian Rp75.000.”
Clear.
Bukan: “Claim 500 gems.”
Bahasa matters.
Batas kedua: parental approval
Anak boleh punya account.
Tidak berarti boleh belanja tanpa batas.
Permission harus granular.
Play permission.
Chat permission.
Purchase permission.
Different.
Orang tua bisa set: setiap pembelian minta approval.
Atau limit Rp100 ribu per bulan.
Atau no purchase.
Ini jauh lebih sehat daripada satu toggle “parental control.”
Roblox pada 2026 sudah menjadi contoh platform yang menyesuaikan fitur sesuai usia dan memberikan kontrol waktu bermain kepada orang tua dalam implementasi PP TUNAS.
Transaction control adalah area berikutnya yang logis untuk semakin diperkuat.
Batas ketiga: jangan membuat purchase terlalu impulsif
Game bilang: “Offer habis 3 menit.”
Anak panik.
Klik.
Ini pressure.
Limited-time offer tidak otomatis salah.
Tapi kalau targetnya anak, design harus diperiksa.
False urgency.
Countdown reset.
Button besar.
Decline kecil.
Ini dark pattern territory.
Child protection harus melihat.
Konsumen anak punya kemampuan berbeda.
Platform yang tahu user anak harus punya standard desain lebih hati-hati.
Tidak mengeksploitasi impuls.
Batas keempat: loot box butuh perlakuan khusus
Loot box memberi hadiah random.
User membayar atau menggunakan currency.
Tidak tahu pasti dapat apa.
Visual excitement.
Rarity.
Confetti.
Repeat.
Mechanic ini punya karakter reinforcement.
Banyak negara memperdebatkan hubungannya dengan gambling.
Indonesia perlu kajian sendiri.
Jangan copy-paste label.
Tapi minimal untuk anak, beberapa guardrail reasonable.
Odds disclosure.
Spending limit.
Parental approval.
No deceptive animation.
Cooling-off.
History pengeluaran.
Maybe age restriction untuk model tertentu jika evidence menunjukkan harm tinggi.
Policy harus berbasis data.
Bukan panic.
Batas kelima: probability harus bisa dipahami
“Legendary chance 0,5%.”
Anak umur 10 paham?
Maybe not.
Disclosure legal belum tentu meaningful.
Visual explanation bisa.
“Rata-rata 1 dari 200.”
Tetap random.
Jangan imply guaranteed setelah jumlah tertentu kecuali benar.
If pity system exists, explain.
Random reward economics perlu transparent.
Adult pun sering salah memahami probability.
Anak lebih rentan.
Batas keenam: refund harus masuk desain
Anak salah beli.
Apa bisa refund?
Process harus jelas.
Terutama unauthorized purchase.
Orang tua discover.
Platform perlu mechanism.
Bukan mustahil.
Tapi fraud prevention juga.
User bisa abuse refund.
Balance.
Purchase log.
Confirmation.
Parent notification.
Good design prevents dispute.
Refund adalah safety net.
Bukan business failure.
Batas ketujuh: jangan menghubungkan status sosial anak ke spending
Game bisa membuat cosmetic item.
Normal.
Tapi social pressure bisa muncul.
Badge khusus spender.
Leaderboard berdasarkan purchase.
Public shaming untuk free user.
Ini sensitive.
Anak bisa merasa harus membeli untuk diterima teman.
Monetization should not weaponize peer pressure.
Hard to regulate.
But product ethics matter.
If platform targets child, consider.
Commercial design affects wellbeing.
Batas kedelapan: influencer dan creator economy
Anak nonton creator.
Creator bilang: “beli item ini.”
Sponsored?
Affiliate?
Harus jelas.
Anak mungkin tidak memahami iklan.
Platform perlu label.
Creator guideline.
Ad transparency.
PP TUNAS and consumer protection intersect.
Digital transaction isn’t only checkout.
Influence happens upstream.
Recommendation system can amplify commercial content.
Need age appropriateness.
Batas kesembilan: game marketplace
Anak bisa jual item.
Buy.
Trade.
Risk: scam.
Fraud.
Real-money trading.
Account theft.
Platform should restrict based age.
Trade confirmation.
Price warning.
No external payment.
Education.
Maybe guardian control.
Virtual asset can have real economic value.
Child protection should cover loss.
Not only spending.
Batas kesepuluh: gambling-like game mechanics
Some game mechanic resemble betting.
Stake item.
Random outcome.
Winner takes value.
If real economic value involved, risk increases.
Indonesia already has strict gambling law.
Game should not become loophole.
Regulator needs distinguish random entertainment reward and gambling.
Legal analysis specific.
Don’t label all randomness gambling.
But investigate economic structure.
Entry cost.
Chance.
Prize value.
Convertibility.
This requires domain expertise.
Batas kesebelas: screen time dan spending are connected
Longer play means more purchase opportunities.
Daily reward encourages return.
Streak.
Energy.
Time-limited store.
Monetization and engagement reinforce.
Safety assessment should look system.
Not transaction isolated.
Maybe child mode removes late-night offers.
Quiet hours.
Spending prompt less frequent.
Product can design.
No need total ban.
Batas kedua belas: default should be low-spend
For child account, safest default: no payment without guardian.
Could be strong protection.
If parent wants allowance, opt in.
Reverse current logic.
Platform often wants frictionless purchase.
Child safety may justify friction.
Remember: friction is not always bad UX.
It can be guardrail.
Batas ketiga belas: age assurance becomes critical
Platform must know age to apply protections.
If child lies age, adult purchase flow appears.
Komdigi pada 2026 repeatedly highlighted age falsification problem.
So transaction safety connects to age verification.
But age assurance should not require excessive identity.
Maybe age band token.
Parent-linked account.
Data minimization.
Don’t collect KTP just to buy game skin if less intrusive method works.
Batas keempat belas: orang tua need visibility
Dashboard: spent this week.
Subscriptions.
Pending purchase.
Refund.
Loot box history maybe.
Clear.
Notification: “Rp100.000 purchase requested.”
No buried email.
Parents cannot protect if data hidden.
This is product requirement.
Batas kelima belas: child agency still matters
Don’t turn every teenage purchase into parent surveillance.
A 17-year-old has more autonomy than 8-year-old.
Age band.
Allowance system.
Spending cap.
Gradual autonomy.
PP TUNAS uses age-based thinking.
Product can too.
Under 13 stronger.
13-15 controlled.
16-17 more independence with safeguard.
Exact design depends law and evidence.
But developmental approach better than child/adult binary.
Batas keenam belas: financial literacy opportunity
Games can teach.
Show budget.
“Your monthly allowance left Rp50.000.”
Explain random odds.
Spending history.
This is positive design.
Not all regulation punitive.
Product can build healthy habit.
Maybe parent sets digital allowance.
Child decides within limit.
Autonomy plus boundary.
This could be better than banning all purchase.
Batas ketujuh belas: platform should test child comprehension
Ask child users: do you understand this is real money?
Do you know subscription repeats?
Do you know loot box random?
If not, interface fails.
User research.
Ethical safeguard.
Testing comprehension more meaningful than disclosure existence.
A 20-page terms doesn’t protect.
Batas kedelapan belas: regulator needs transaction data in aggregate
How much child spending?
Refund rate?
Unauthorized purchase complaint?
Loot box usage?
Need evidence.
Privacy-preserving aggregate.
Without data, policy debate emotional.
Game industry says safe.
Parents say exploitative.
Measure.
Segment age.
Severity.
Then regulate proportionally.
Batas kesembilan belas: startups also need clarity
Local game developer may worry: “do we need bank-level KYC?”
Probably not by default.
Rules should be proportional.
Low-value cosmetic purchase with guardian control different from tradable asset marketplace.
Risk-based.
Don’t kill local game industry.
But child monetization must have guardrails.
Indonesia has creative game talent.
Safety can help quality.
Batas kedua puluh: prohibition should be last but possible
If evidence shows specific mechanic creates unacceptable harm and mitigation fails, restriction or prohibition may be justified.
But don’t start with broad ban.
Test.
Limit.
Age gate.
Disclosure.
Cap.
If still harmful, escalate.
Risk ladder.
Good policy.
Anak, Game Online, dan Transaksi Digital: Batas Perlindungan Harus Sampai Mana?
Protection should go far enough that children are not manipulated into spending money they do not understand.
But not so far that every game economy becomes impossible.
The boundary should follow age, transaction value, randomness, social pressure, and reversibility.
A Rp10.000 cosmetic purchase with clear guardian approval is not the same as repeated random purchase with hidden odds and no limit.
Regulation should see difference.
Games can stay fun.
Business can earn.
Ada satu batas lain yang penting: subscription otomatis. Anak bisa menekan free trial, lalu orang tua baru sadar beberapa minggu kemudian ada tagihan berulang. Untuk akun anak, renewal seharusnya dijelaskan sangat jelas dan idealnya memerlukan guardian approval untuk transaksi berulang yang material.
Platform juga sebaiknya memisahkan virtual reward yang didapat dari bermain dan currency yang dibeli dengan uang. Kalau dua sistem dicampur terlalu rumit, anak sulit memahami nilai ekonominya.
Riwayat transaksi harus mudah dibaca. Tanggal, nominal rupiah, item, status refund. Bukan hanya kode transaksi.
Semakin transparan ekonomi game, semakin kecil ruang untuk surprise bill.
Children can learn autonomy.
But the system should never be designed so that a child’s weakest impulse becomes the platform’s strongest revenue model.
Bacaan terkait
Artikel ini berada dalam Digital Policy dan mengikuti metodologi editorial Undercover.id. Format terkait tersedia di Reports dan analisis mendalam.