Monday, October 5, 2026

Epic Games Bans In-Game Transactions for Prize Wheels in Fortnite Creators' Experiences Starting Jan 20th

Epic Games bans in-game transactions for prize wheels in Fortnite creators' experiences starting Jan 20th.

LM Salvado

February 3, 2026

Epic Games Bans In-Game Transactions for Prize Wheels in Fortnite Creators' Experiences Starting Jan 20th
Image generated by AI for illustrative purposes. Not actual footage or photography from the reported events.
Loading stream...

Epic Games has introduced a new rule that restricts Fortnite creators from offering in-game transactions related to prize wheels. Starting January 20th, creators will no longer be able to sell spins or boosts for these prize wheels within their experiences. This decision comes after one of the most popular non-Epic games in Fortnite, Steal The Brainrot, began implementing prize wheels that could be purchased with V-Bucks, the game's in-game currency.

According to The Verge AI, this rule change follows recent modifications Epic made to allow creators to include in-game transactions in their experiences. Until recently, creators were compensated through an engagement-based system rather than directly from player purchases. The introduction of in-game transactions was intended to provide more control over creative and commercial decisions for independent Fortnite developers.

The new rule explicitly prohibits any in-experience transactions that influence prize wheels. This includes options like purchasing a single spin, extra spins, or bundles of spins, as well as boosts that increase the chances of winning. Epic's rationale for this move is to maintain fairness and prevent exploitation of players through in-game purchases that affect random rewards.

To enforce this policy, Epic has outlined specific examples of prohibited activities. Any in-game content designed to be used for purchasing spins on a prize wheel is disallowed. Additionally, boosts that enhance the likelihood of winning prizes from these wheels are also banned. These restrictions aim to ensure that players cannot buy their way into guaranteed wins, maintaining the element of chance inherent in prize wheels.

The implications of this rule are significant for both creators and players. Creators will need to adjust their monetization strategies to avoid incorporating prize wheels that can be influenced by in-game purchases. For players, this means they will no longer be able to spend real money to increase their chances of winning prizes through these mechanisms. This change aligns with Epic's broader strategy to balance gameplay fairness with the commercial interests of its community.

Moving forward, it will be important to monitor how creators adapt to these new guidelines. Some may innovate with alternative monetization methods, while others might focus more on engagement-based rewards. Players should also keep an eye on updates to popular experiences like Steal The Brainrot to see how they evolve under these new constraints. As Epic continues to refine its approach to balancing player experience and creator autonomy, further developments in this area are likely.

---

Source: [The Verge AI](https://www.theverge.com/news/863597/fortnite-creators-steal-the-brainrot-prize-wheel-spins-block)

In this story

LM Salvado

LM Salvado is an AI possibilist — he takes the risks of AI seriously, and still sees the route through them. Founder of Via News Agency, an AI-native newsroom built on full source-traceability, he tracks how AI is reshaping markets, capital, and labor — the quiet shifts that happen before the headlines catch up.

What we know · the intelligence behind this page
Live from the substrate
What we're seeing
Pharma Pipeline Catalysts and M&A Heat Up as AI-Designed Drugs Enter the Clinic
Late-September 2026 brought a dense run of clinical readouts: Novo Nordisk's CagriSema data at EASD, Lilly's ADtouch results for EBGLYSS, and Merck's tulisokibart Phase 2b result. Lilly's $2.9B Merida Biosciences acquisition and the 2026-11-14 FDA PDUFA date for ivonescimab sit alongside these as the main deal and regulatory events. AI-designed drugs such as rentosertib, and speculative AI-linked trial ventures such as QAIAx, are moving from hype toward clinical validation. Broader AI-sector regulatory and legal friction (Tesla Cybercab probe, xAI Minnesota ruling, OpenAI lawsuits) shows rising scrutiny that could spill into AI-driven healthcare.
Our read on the data ›
Signals we're tracking
EPKINLY Regulatory-Clinical Success Cascade
High probability of expanded label indications, additional combination approvals, and competitive positioning strength in follicular lymphoma market. Predicts positive commercial uptake and potential accelerated review for related indications.
Patterns we're watching ›
Where sources disagree
ING Group
Both facts record the same metric (shares_outstanding) for ING Group at the identical observation date (2025-12-31). FACT A states 2,902,437,688 shares; FACT B states 2,902 million shares (2,902,000,000). The difference is 437,688 shares (~0.015%). This is a genuine value conflict, though the discrepancy appears to result from FACT B rounding to the nearest million while FACT A provides the precise count.
We flag conflicts openly ›
Recently verified
✓ Checked against the original source
4,985
facts traced to their source — and we flag the ones that don't hold up.
101 entities tracked4,985 facts checked against source5,340 source documents archived
Query this data → isubstrate.com