Diablo Immortal vs Call of Duty Mobile: Comparing Monetization That Sparked an Italian Probe

Hook: Why this matters to gamers and parents in 2026

If you've ever opened a free-to-play title and felt nudged, nagged or rushed into buying something you didn't plan for, you're not alone. Gamers, parents and consumer advocates pushed back in 2025–26 as regulators flagged aggressive monetization across major mobile titles. The Italian competition authority (AGCM) has opened probes into Diablo Immortal monetization and CoD Mobile purchases — and the lessons affect everyone who spends money, time or trust inside smartphone games.

Top line: What the AGCM probe is about (fast summary)

In January 2026 the Italian Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM) launched two formal investigations into Activision Blizzard’s mobile titles, citing potentially "misleading and aggressive" sales practices. Regulators flagged three clusters of concern: UI/UX design that drives prolonged play and in-the-moment spending, opaque virtual currency and bundle pricing that obscures real-world costs, and permissive default parental controls that could let minors spend without clear consent.

“These practices… make it difficult for users to understand the real value of the virtual currency used in the game and the sale of in-game currency in bundles.” — AGCM press release, Jan 2026

Quick snapshot: Diablo Immortal vs Call of Duty Mobile

Before we dig into mechanics, here’s a high-level snapshot so you know what we're comparing.

• Both are free-to-play (F2P) mobile games with deep economies and hybrid monetization — premium currency sales, limited-time offers, and cosmetic/functional items.
• Diablo Immortal emphasizes progression acceleration and gacha-like systems (randomized rewards) tied to crafting and power growth; AGCM flagged items priced up to $200 as part of their review.
• Call of Duty Mobile relies heavily on a Battle Pass/subscription cadence, direct cosmetic purchases and currency packs (CP) that unlock seasonal content and weapons.

Why regulators noticed — the behavioral mechanics at a glance

The AGCM and other 2025–26 regulators focused not on the existence of in-app purchases, but on the way game design steers behavior. Key issues include:

• Urgency cues: Limited-time offers, countdown timers and “today-only” banners that create scarcity pressure.
• Frictionless payment paths: One-tap buys and saved payment tokens reduce the time to convert impulse into transaction.
• Opaque currency bundles: Multiple pack sizes and bonus percentages that make it hard to compute a per-unit real-world cost.
• Persistent nudges: Push notifications, in-game popups and reward deadlines that continue outside active play sessions.

Side-by-side analysis: currency and bundles

Virtual currency is the backbone of both monetization systems — but the design and transparency differ in ways that matter to regulators and players.

How each system sells currency

• Diablo Immortal: Uses a premium currency sold in multiple bundled sizes. Bundles are often tied to limited offers or bonus packs that change seasonally. Some bundles are specifically positioned as shortcuts for crafting or power spikes — and AGCM highlighted bundles that make it unclear how much real money buys in-game value.
• Call of Duty Mobile: Uses Call of Duty Points (CP) sold in tiered packs and often linked to Battle Pass unlocks or time-limited bundles. CP is the common denominator for consumables, skins and seasonal rewards.

Transparency problems regulators flagged

• Bundle math confusion: Multiple pack sizes, percentage bonuses and temporary promotions lead players to compare like-for-like poorly. Players may buy a “discounted” bundle without computing base unit cost.
• Hidden effective prices: Packaging items as currency or randomized bundles (gacha/loot drops) makes the real-world cost of desired items non-obvious.
• Cross-season carryover: Bundles marketed as best value for the season but require you to accept residual subscriptions or commitments to get full value.

Side-by-side analysis: limited-time offers and scarcity mechanics

Limited-time offers are a standard retention and conversion tool — but execution varies in tone and intensity.

Diablo Immortal

• Frequently uses time-limited chests, daily reset timers and event-exclusive rewards that accelerate progression for paying players.
• Some offers are explicitly framed as “don’t miss” for progression milestones, which the AGCM cites as a lever that can lead to overspending — especially for min-max players chasing competitive advantage.

Call of Duty Mobile

• Relies on seasonal Battle Pass milestones and limited cosmetics tied to the season — the scarcity is social (look and status) as well as temporal.
• Timed weapon/skin bundles and flash sales are pushed aggressively via banners and notifications during matches and in the lobby.

Side-by-side analysis: user interface and nudges

The AGCM specifically called out the user interface as a tool to “influence players as consumers” — that’s a UX problem, not just a pricing one.

Common UI tactics

• Slim banners: Small, persistent UI widgets that advertise time-limited packs while you play.
• Countdowns: Visual timers on offers that drive urgency.
• Social proof cues: “X players bought this in the last hour” messages that create herd behavior.
• One-click checkout: Saved payment tokens and OS autofill that remove friction.

Where Diablo and CoD differ

• Diablo Immortal tends to surface offers tied to progression and power — the UI often emphasizes “progress shortcuts.” That raises pay-to-win perceptions and a higher regulatory sensitivity because it impacts game balance.
• Call of Duty Mobile often focuses UI attention on cosmetic scarcity and seasonal status. UX nudges aim to convert FOMO related to looks and seasons, which is still powerful but different in player motivation.

Side-by-side analysis: progression gates and pay-to-advance

Regulators care when spending is not just cosmetic but functionally tied to progress.

Pay-to-advance risk in Diablo Immortal

• Many purchases accelerate character power or crafting outcomes. Because power gaps affect gameplay, paying can deliver clear competitive advantage and pressure other players to spend to remain competitive.
• AGCM highlighted that some bundles and currencies can cost significant sums “sometimes exceeding what is necessary to progress in the game.”

Pay dynamics in Call of Duty Mobile

• Call of Duty Mobile mixes cosmetic monetization with timed progression through a Battle Pass. Players can purchase the pass or buy CP to unlock tiers faster — functionally similar to acceleration but often framed as seasonal content.
• Because many items are cosmetic or seasonal, the pay-to-win angle is lower than in pure-power games — yet weapon bundles and paid boosts can influence competitive play in certain modes.

Side-by-side analysis: parental controls and defaults

One focus of the AGCM probe was that default settings might make it too easy for minors to spend money.

• Default permissiveness: Both titles default to purchase-enabled states and save payment tokens to shortcut buys — practices regulators call into question.
• Age checks: The depth of verification varies; both games rely heavily on platform (iOS/Android) controls for age gating.
• Notification and time limits: Regulators noted that push notifications and in-game reminders continue outside sessions and that default time limits are often non-restrictive.

Actionable advice for players and parents (practical steps)

Here are concrete, immediate steps you can take to avoid surprise charges and regain control over spending in Diablo Immortal, Call of Duty Mobile, and other F2P games.

1. Audit your purchase history: Check your platform receipts (Google Play / Apple) and the game’s purchase log monthly.
2. Compute unit price for bundles: Divide the real-world price by the number of units in the bundle to get a per-unit cost. Example: if a 1,000-unit bundle costs €9.99, the per-unit cost is €0.00999. Always compare the per-unit price of promotional packs.
3. Turn off one-tap payments: Remove saved payment methods from the device for secondary accounts and disable autofill in store settings.
4. Disable push notifications: Stop time-limited nudges by turning off game notifications in your OS settings.
5. Set strict parental controls: Use Apple Family Sharing or Google Family Link to require approval for purchases and set spending limits.
6. Use gift cards or pre-funded wallets: Budgeted prepaid currency avoids surprise credit card charges and caps spending.
7. Wait 24 hours: For big bundles or limited-time drops, put a 24-hour cool-off rule before buying to avoid impulse purchases.
8. Ask for refunds when appropriate: If you believe you were misled or a minor spent without consent, contact the platform for refund policies and consider filing a complaint with consumer protection authorities.
9. Follow community price breakdowns: Reputable streamers and community wikis often publish best-buy recommendations per season; use them before purchasing bundles.
10. Report deceptive UI: If you encounter opaque pricing or misleading offers, document screenshots and report them to your national consumer authority (e.g., AGCM in Italy).

Advice for developers and publishers (how to avoid regulators)

If you build or manage monetization systems, adopt practical fixes that many regulators now expect in 2026:

• Transparent unit pricing: Show a clear real-currency equivalent per unit of virtual currency on every bundle screen.
• Clear age gating: Require parental verification for purchases by accounts identified as minors and default to stricter settings.
• Cooldowns and friction for high-value buys: Add a confirmation with itemized real-money totals for purchases above a defined threshold (e.g., €50).
• Notification limits: Provide in-app toggles and default-off aggressive marketing push notifications.
• Refund and appeal transparency: Publish an easy-to-find refund policy and an in-app contact flow for disputed charges.

2026 regulatory and industry trends to watch

Late 2025 and early 2026 marked a pivot from study to enforcement. Expect these trends to continue:

• More competition authority probes: AGCM’s action in Italy is not unique — expect other EU and national authorities to dig into F2P mechanics, especially in cases involving minors.
• Stricter transparency rules: Regulators will push for explicit currency-to-euro/dollar equivalence on purchase screens and standardized disclosure of odds in randomized rewards.
• Platform-level changes: Apple and Google may tighten store policies around one-tap purchases, parental defaults, and refund windows.
• Shift to subscriptions and curated shops: Publishers may prefer subscription models or curated storefronts with predictable revenue over opaque bundles to reduce regulatory risk.
• Consumer litigation and class actions: Where large-scale opaque practices are proven, expect more collective redress and higher compliance costs for publishers.

How the AGCM probe could play out — realistic outcomes

Regulatory investigations typically produce a range of outcomes. Based on AGCM statements and 2025 enforcement precedents, possible results include:

• Guidance and corrective notices: AGCM may require clearer UI disclosures, age checks and purchase flow changes without fines if publishers cooperate quickly.
• Administrative fines: If the authority finds deliberate deception it can levy fines and order reimbursements to consumers.
• Enforcement precedent: A finding against Activision Blizzard would signal other EU regulators to act and could push platform owners to change store policies.

Case study: How a typical bundle can mislead (step-by-step)

To see the mechanics in practice, here’s an anonymized, composite walkthrough based on observed F2P UX patterns.

1. Player sees a banner for “Starter Pack — 5000 Currency + BONUS — Today Only.”
2. Banner does not show the real-world price per unit or the discount math (e.g., discounted vs base per-unit prices).
3. During checkout a saved payment method and one-click confirm are presented — no full price breakdown is required to complete the buy.
4. After purchase, a subsequent event uses similar currency to gate a high-value item behind a randomized reward pool — the player’s currency buys a chance rather than a guaranteed item.
5. Player spends more to chase the guaranteed item, never clearly shown how many units or attempts are statistically needed to secure it.

This pattern combines urgency, opacity and frictionless checkout — exactly the behaviors AGCM highlighted.

Community perspective: What players are saying

Across Discords and Reddit threads in 2025–26, players point to three consistent complaints:

• “You can’t tell how much a bundle is worth compared to another.”
• “Timed offers target you mid-session with no way to turn them off.”
• “Minors can spend via saved cards and parents only find out later.”

These ground-level complaints are precisely the kind of evidence national authorities are using to open formal inquiries.

Final takeaways: What to do now

Here’s the actionable short list to protect yourself and push for better practices in 2026:

• If you’re a player: Audit purchases, disable one-tap buys, use parent controls, and favor transparent bundles or subscription models.
• If you’re a parent: Use platform family controls, remove saved cards, and set spending alerts for your account.
• If you’re a developer: Publish unit prices, add friction for high-value buys and default to conservative parental settings.
• If you’re a regulator or advocate: Track UX patterns, collect logs/screenshots, and push for standardized disclosure language across apps.

Where to find more resources

Follow the AGCM press release for official updates and check platform refund policies for your region. If you believe you or a minor was misled, document receipts and contact local consumer protection authorities — in Italy that’s AGCM’s case portal, and elsewhere your national consumer agency will have equivalent options.

Closing: The bigger picture

The AGCM probe into Diablo Immortal monetization and CoD Mobile purchases is a turning point: regulators are less willing to accept opaque bundles and aggressive UI nudges as “just part of F2P.” For players, the immediate risk is overspending and unclear value. For the industry, the message is clear: transparency, default safety for minors, and clear real-money equivalents are the standards 2026 enforcement will demand.

Call to action

Seen a misleading bundle or an unfair purchase flow? Save screenshots, check your receipts, and report it to your consumer authority. Join our newsletter for seasonal breakdowns, per-unit value calculators and step-by-step guides to protect your wallet in mobile gaming.

Related Reading

• News: URL Privacy & Dynamic Pricing — What API Teams Need to Know (2026 Update)
• How to Spot a Truly Good TCG Deal: Price Benchmarks and Timing Tricks
• Games Should Never Die: What New World's Shutdown Teaches Studios (and Players)
• Microgrants, Platform Signals, and Monetisation: A 2026 Playbook for Community Creators
• Sustainable Splurges: Best CES 2026 Green Gadgets Worth the Price
• Best Low‑Carb Mocktails to Enjoy During Dry January — and Beyond
• How to Pivot into Real Estate Tech After a Degree in Computer Science
• From New World to Rust: What Amazon’s MMOs Shutdown Says About Long-Term Game Support
• Influencer vs. In-House Content Teams: Hiring the Right Roles for Regional Beauty Growth