Yes.

I mean, for one thing, that's a misrepresentation. You don't need a behavioral scientist to figure out that "come back tomorrow for another reward" is a good engagement tool. For another, it's a misnomer, because that's not a dark pattern, it's a deliberate, out-in-the-open design that is transparent about how it works.

But do I think that people freaking out about engagement tools they don't like while giving functionally similar ones they do like a pass is a moral panic?

100%, absolutely yes.

There's a reason why the PEGI rep talking to Eurogamer clarifies that this specific wording would absolutely have unintended consequences and they're limiting the age ratings impact and leaning on content descriptors instead:

"There was some discussion here," he added. "Some people pointed out that these are features that make the game engaging and fun - this is enriching the game experience similar to a cliffhanger in a Netflix series. So we mostly want to inform parents about this, because there's no reason why we should give Animal Crossing a very high rating. So this is going to stick to a PEGI 7 but it will have a descriptor that explains this. The exact language of the descriptors still needs to be figured out."

So yes. Slippery slope, moral panic, will somebody think of the children stuff.