IFTA 2026: India has voted. See the winners.

India banned real-money gaming. Five months on, the player count has fallen for the first time ever.

By Karan Dutta

Updated on September 24, 2026
IST 5:33 am

India’s gamer population had gone up every single year anyone has measured it.

In 2025 it went down — from about 609 million to 555 million, a fall of roughly 9 per cent, according to Lumikai’s State of India Interactive Media report.

The cause is not hard to find: the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, which pushed out the casual players who had come only for real-money games.

What the law actually does

The Act received Presidential assent on 22 August 2025, and the largest real-money operators suspended their paid games within days. Its provisions and rules formally came into force only on 1 May 2026.

The law splits online gaming into three buckets and treats them very differently.

E-sports is recognised and promoted — for the first time in Indian statute, competitive gaming is a legitimate sporting activity with government backing.

Online social games — anything without money staked on the outcome — are permitted, and can be registered.

Online money games are prohibited outright. Not licensed, not taxed, not restricted by age. Banned, along with advertising them and processing payments for them.

The critical point, and the one most commentary got wrong at the time: the Act makes no distinction between games of skill and games of chance. Two decades of Indian litigation had turned on that distinction. Rummy and fantasy sport had won repeatedly on the argument that they were predominantly skill-based. The Act simply removes the question. If real money is staked on the outcome, it is prohibited.

A $2.3 billion category, gone

Real-money gaming was not a side business. It was the business.

The category was worth roughly US$2.3 billion in 2024 and accounted for the overwhelming majority of Indian gaming revenue. Everything else — casual games, in-app purchases, e-sports, advertising — ran on a fraction of it.

Within days of the bill clearing Parliament in August 2025, the largest operators — Dream11, My11Circle, WinZO, PokerBaazi and others — shut their real-money products in India.

This is the part that gets lost in the argument about whether the ban was right: the rest of Indian gaming did grow — Lumikai puts it up 17 per cent to US$1.5 billion — but nowhere near enough to replace what was lost.

Where the 54 million players went

A 54 million drop does not mean 54 million people stopped playing games entirely.

Most of that number is people who only ever played one kind of game — fantasy cricket around an IPL season, a rummy app, a poker table — and had no reason to open anything else once it was gone.

Some portion has moved to offshore platforms that the Act cannot practically reach. Lumikai’s indicative estimate is that about one in three former real-money players may have done so — a signal, not a census. Payment-blocking makes it harder, not impossible.

That is the standard, predictable consequence of prohibition in a digital market, and it is the strongest argument the industry has: a regulated, taxed, age-verified domestic market would at least have been visible.

The jobs number everyone is misquoting

Two figures are circulating, and they are being used interchangeably. They should not be.

Direct job losses — people employed by real-money gaming companies — have come as company-by-company cuts, such as 500 roles at Head Digital Works, the parent of A23.

The figure above 200,000 comes from the industry’s own warning before the bill passed, and counts direct and indirect jobs together, including the wider ecosystem: freelance creators, affiliate marketers, customer-support vendors, payment intermediaries, regional-language content producers and the agencies that served them.

Both are real. They are not the same thing, and presenting the larger one as a redundancy count is misleading. The direct loss is a mid-sized corporate restructuring. The indirect loss is harder to verify and considerably wider — a lot of the creator economy around fantasy sport was informal income that never showed up in an employment statistic to begin with.

What survived, and what is actually growing

The Act was not purely destructive, and treating it as such misses what is happening next.

E-sports now has statutory recognition, which changes what is possible around it — sponsorship from brands that previously would not touch Indian gaming, school and university programmes, and a plausible route to public funding.

Casual and mid-core mobile gaming was never the target and continues largely untouched. India’s game development sector — studios building for global app stores rather than domestic wagering — is one of the few parts of the industry that is unambiguously better off, because the talent pool got cheaper and less contested overnight.

The honest summary is that India traded a large, profitable, socially contested category for a small, legitimate one, and is now waiting to see whether the small one compounds.

The case is still open

This is where reporting has been least careful, so it is worth stating precisely.

The constitutional challenge to the Act is pending before a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court. The petitioners argue the blanket prohibition is disproportionate and that it overrides settled law on games of skill.

As things stand: there is no interim stay, and there is no judgment. The Act is fully in force. Any claim that the ban has been struck down, softened or partially suspended is wrong.

A ruling could reopen the skill-versus-chance question that the statute closed. It could also uphold the Act entirely. Both outcomes are live, and the industry is planning for neither with any confidence.

What this episode actually demonstrates

India did something few large markets have done: it identified a fast-growing consumer internet category, concluded the social cost outweighed the economic gain, and removed it — accepting a measurable hit to investment, employment and tax revenue in exchange.

Whether that was the right call depends on a number nobody has: how much household financial harm the category was causing. The case for the ban rested on addiction and debt among young, low-income users. The evidence for it was real but largely anecdotal, and no government study has been published quantifying it against the losses now on the record.

That asymmetry is the story. The costs of the ban are measured and on the record. The harm it was meant to prevent never was.

The Supreme Court will decide the legal question. The policy question — was this a good trade — will stay unanswerable until somebody measures the other side of it.