In this blog post, we’ll examine the details of the shutdown system and the “Son In-chun Act” in the context of the debate over regulation versus promotion in the gaming industry, and explore whether regulatory policies targeting the gaming industry are appropriate.
Is the Gaming Industry Truly One That Needs to Be Regulated?
If you ask people on the street, “What comes to mind when you think of the Korean Wave?” most would likely think of TV dramas or K-POP. However, a look at the export volume of South Korea’s content industry reveals that the gaming industry has long been one of its core export sectors. Even today, games remain one of the sectors accounting for the largest share of South Korea’s content exports and maintain a very high level of competitiveness compared to other content industries, including music and TV dramas.
This trend is not limited to South Korea. Many countries, including the United States, China, and Canada, recognize the gaming industry as a future growth sector and continue to provide various forms of policy support. While the methods of support differ by country, the common goal is to foster the gaming industry as a vital cultural and high-tech sector. In contrast, in South Korea, there has long been a significant perspective that views gaming as an “industry that needs to be regulated.”
In this article, I will first examine whether the gaming industry is indeed a legitimate target for regulation. I will then discuss whether South Korea’s gaming regulation policies were appropriate, focusing on the “shutdown system”—which sparked significant controversy within the industry—and the “Act on the Prevention of Internet Game Addiction,” also known as the “Son In-chun Act,” which was proposed at the time.
Let’s take a closer look at the gaming industry. The gaming industry has maintained steady growth for a long time and has developed into a market that attracts attention from countries around the world. These changes are easily observable in our daily lives. Online gaming has become an established form of leisure culture among college students and office workers, and the mobile gaming market has also grown rapidly since the widespread adoption of smartphones. Gaming has become such an integral part of daily life that virtually anyone who uses a smartphone has likely received a game invitation via a messaging app at least once.
South Korean games have also demonstrated strong competitiveness in overseas markets. For example, “CrossFire” has enjoyed immense popularity in the Chinese market for a long time, and South Korean game companies continue to achieve success in the global market. Recently, South Korean companies have been actively expanding overseas not only in PC games but also in mobile and console games. The gaming industry is a sector with high growth potential for the future and is regarded as one of South Korea’s competitive industries. Therefore, the gaming industry can play a crucial role in the South Korean economy, which must continuously identify new growth engines.
Furthermore, gaming has already established itself as a cultural phenomenon. Students and working professionals build bonds by playing the same games together and spend their leisure time watching esports matches or game streams. It is no longer unusual for major updates or server maintenance for specific games to attract significant public attention. In this way, video games have transcended mere entertainment to become a form of cultural content.
So, should the video game industry be exempt from regulation simply because it holds significant economic value or has become established as a cultural phenomenon? Of course, that is not the argument being made. To examine the appropriateness of regulating the video game industry, we must first consider the perspectives of those advocating for regulation.
Some argue that games can be addictive, and that this can indeed become a social problem. Others argue that games should be regulated because there is a possibility of crimes being committed that mimic scenes from games.
However, whether these arguments are sufficiently persuasive is a separate issue. It is difficult to conclude that video games are as addictive for most people as alcohol, drugs, or gambling. While there are cases where some users become excessively immersed, it is hard to attribute all such cases solely to the games themselves. This is because various factors—such as an individual’s psychological state, family environment, and social factors—often interact to produce such outcomes. Therefore, it is difficult to attribute specific problems entirely to the influence of video games.
Let’s consider another example. Just because a family faces financial difficulties due to excessive use of home shopping channels does not mean all responsibility lies with the home shopping companies. Similarly, just because a student spends the entire day watching TV does not mean that broadcasters or TV manufacturers should bear direct responsibility. Video games should be approached from a similar perspective.
The U.S. experience regarding video game regulation is also worth noting. In 2012, a bill was proposed in the U.S. state of Oklahoma to impose an additional tax on violent video games. At the time, the bill was pushed forward as the link between criminal incidents and specific games became a subject of public debate. However, the bill ultimately failed to pass. The main reasons cited included a lack of sufficient grounds to single out video games for regulation and the absence of clear evidence that games directly cause social problems.
Of course, the U.S. example cannot always be considered the definitive answer. However, it is worth noting that regulating specific content requires prior, thorough research into its impact and objective evidence. Academic discussions surrounding gaming disorder continue to this day, and there are diverse research findings regarding the causal relationship between games and social problems. Therefore, we must exercise caution when viewing the entire gaming industry as a target for regulation based solely on general perceptions or isolated cases.
For these reasons, I believe the gaming industry should fundamentally be viewed as a sector to be promoted rather than regulated. While appropriate systems to protect users are certainly necessary, an approach that views the entire industry negatively may fail to fully realize the development potential of South Korea’s gaming industry.
The Shutdown System and the “Son In-chun Act”
Let’s now broaden the scope to discuss the shutdown system and the “Son In-chun Act.”
First, the shutdown system was a measure introduced to restrict late-night gaming by minors under a certain age during specific hours. At the time, a mandatory shutdown system was enforced, restricting online gaming for minors under the age of 16 from midnight to 6:00 a.m. However, controversy persisted regarding the system’s effectiveness and its infringement on adolescents’ right to self-determination, and the mandatory shutdown system was ultimately abolished through a revision of the relevant law in 2021. Currently, the system centers on an optional parental control system that allows guardians to directly manage their children’s gaming time.
The rationale behind the implementation of the shutdown system at the time was to protect adolescents whose values and self-control had not yet fully developed. The logic was that, just as movies have age ratings, a certain level of usage restriction was necessary. This can be understood in the same vein as how aspirin, while generally an effective pain reliever, is restricted for use by young children because it can be dangerous to them.
Of course, there are diverse opinions on whether the state should directly assume responsibility for such protection. Some argue that it is preferable to leave this to the discretion of parents, while others contend that it is more efficient for the state to establish minimum standards. I fully sympathize with the goal of protecting adolescents. However, usage restrictions should not be excessively expanded, nor should they unduly limit adolescents’ basic cultural enjoyment and leisure activities. This is because imposing excessive time restrictions even on adolescents who have reached the age at which they can enjoy games risks infringing on their freedom to engage in cultural activities.
Furthermore, some have pointed out that even if the shutdown system is implemented, it can be easily circumvented by using a parent’s account or borrowing their name. Such issues can be addressed to some extent through technical measures, such as strengthening identity verification or implementing parental notification features.
In contrast, the “Son In-chun Act” was somewhat different in nature from the shutdown system. The “Bill on the Prevention of Internet Game Addiction” proposed at the time included provisions requiring all games to display an addiction risk index, mandating that game companies contribute to a prevention fund, and expanding the shutdown hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
Furthermore, the rationale for the bill cited child sexual abuse cases that had occurred at the time to emphasize the need for preventing internet game addiction. In other words, the bill was drafted on the premise that internet game addiction is a social problem that can affect not only adolescents but anyone in South Korea.
However, this approach drew significant criticism. In particular, the practice of directly linking sensational criminal cases to online games was criticized for lacking sufficient evidence of a causal relationship. Furthermore, the requirement to display an “addiction index”—a metric that does not exist even for tobacco or alcohol—on all games was criticized as a form of regulation that prematurely classified games as excessively dangerous and harmful media.
Consequently, the bill tended to overemphasize the potential risks of games while seeking to impose broad liability on game companies. Furthermore, the provision to significantly extend the “shutdown hours” raised concerns that it could unduly restrict adolescents’ cultural lives and their right to self-determination.
Above all, academic debate regarding the definition and causes of gaming disorder continues to this day, and a cautious approach is necessary when directly linking specific crimes or social problems to games. Considering these points, it can be argued that the bill at the time failed to secure sufficient social consensus and objective evidence regarding both the perception of games and the regulatory approach. Therefore, I believe this bill was a regulatory measure that did not sufficiently consider the characteristics of the gaming industry or the rights of users.
Conclusion
A system that limits the playtime of certain games within reasonable limits based on the user’s age can be understood as a policy designed to protect younger users rather than a policy intended to regulate the gaming industry itself. In fact, South Korea’s mandatory shutdown system was also introduced with the aim of protecting minors, but during its implementation, it faced ongoing controversy over its effectiveness and alleged violations of fundamental rights, and was ultimately abolished. This example demonstrates that, regardless of the necessity of protecting minors, regulatory approaches must sufficiently reflect social consensus.
In contrast, the “Son In-chun Bill” examined earlier differs in nature from the shutdown system in that it views the gaming industry as a direct target of regulation. While the bill proposes various regulations based on the premise that games are addictive, it was difficult to conclude that clear evidence or sufficient social consensus had been presented to demonstrate that games directly cause social problems. Furthermore, the bill had the limitation of not sufficiently considering the cultural and economic value of the gaming industry or the freedom of users.
Today, games have evolved beyond mere entertainment to become cultural content and a high-tech industry, growing into one of South Korea’s leading export sectors. The industry has secured a high level of competitiveness in various fields, including esports, game broadcasting, game development technology, and global services, and is highly likely to continue advancing by integrating with new technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), virtual reality (VR), and augmented reality (AR).
Of course, issues such as gaming addiction and user protection remain ongoing challenges that require continuous discussion. However, to address these issues, it is preferable to establish user protection policies based on objective research findings and social consensus, rather than viewing the entire gaming industry as a target for regulation. This is because the protection of minors and industrial development are not conflicting values but rather goals that can be pursued together.
Ultimately, the gaming industry should not be subject to one-size-fits-all regulation but rather should be continuously nurtured while fostering a healthy culture of use. Going forward, we hope that policies will be developed to enhance the competitiveness of South Korea’s gaming industry—policies that evaluate not only the negative aspects of games but also their value as a cultural industry and a future growth sector in a balanced manner.
