In this blog post, we’ll examine the background and controversies surrounding game regulation in South Korea, its impact on the industry, and potential avenues for improvement.

Background and Controversies Surrounding Game Regulation

In February 2011, a report titled “Violent Games, Aggressive Children… Inciting Real-Life Violence” aired on MBC’s “News Desk,” sparking significant controversy. For this report, hidden cameras were installed in a PC café frequented by customers to investigate the impact of violent online games on adolescents. An experiment was conducted in which the power was suddenly cut off, and the users’ reactions were observed. The footage showed users reacting with panic—such as becoming flustered or swearing—in response to the sudden situation, followed by an interview with a psychology professor who stated that adolescents exposed to violent games exhibit high levels of aggression.
Although it has been a long time since this report aired, it remains widely known—so much so that anyone who frequently uses the internet has likely come across it at least once. At the time, many netizens criticized the report by parodying it in various ways. This was because, even from a common-sense perspective, the report was perceived as having been produced with an excessively biased view of violent video games. The logic behind this experiment is not much different from secretly placing a rock in a customer’s rice soup at a restaurant and then claiming there is a link between the soup and aggression based on the customer’s angry reaction.
The problem was that there were numerous instances on broadcast news where, lacking sufficient understanding or expertise regarding online games or the gaming industry, reporters repeatedly highlighted only the negative aspects of games—such as violence, sexual content, and addictiveness. Furthermore, at the time, there were movements to regulate games by associating them with alcohol, drugs, and gambling as part of the so-called “four major addictions,” and these discussions served to further worsen the public perception of the gaming industry. However, the relevant legislation was not ultimately enacted, and the system that would have legally classified games as one of the “four major addictions” alongside alcohol, drugs, and gambling is not currently in effect.
In this article, I will examine whether government regulations and the mass media’s perspective on games are truly reasonable, and consider the effects and side effects of these policies, as well as directions for future improvement.

The Content and Purpose of Gaming Regulations

First, it is necessary to examine the major gaming regulations that were implemented in South Korea. One of the most prominent regulatory debates at the time was the “Bill on the Prevention of Internet Game Addiction and Support for Recovery.” This bill contained a wide range of provisions and was expected to have a significant impact on both gamers and game companies.
A prime example of regulations targeting gamers was the strengthened “shutdown system.” It included provisions restricting minors under the age of 19 from accessing online games during late-night hours and requiring parental consent for game use or paid services. However, following subsequent policy changes, the mandatory shutdown system was abolished in 2021, and a game time management system centered on parental choice is currently in place.
Various regulations were also proposed for game companies. Measures such as notifying parents of their children’s gaming activity and requiring addiction-related assessments for games scheduled for release were discussed, and the proposals also included provisions for imposing fines for violations. In particular, the clause requiring online game operators to pay a certain amount as a levy sparked the most controversy within the industry.
Concerns were raised that the method of imposing a levy based on a certain percentage of revenue could place a greater burden on small and medium-sized enterprises than on large corporations. Furthermore, critics argued that the more popular a game is, the higher the likelihood of user immersion; using this as a regulatory standard would make it difficult for companies to develop competitive games. Consequently, many of these bills were either never enacted into law or were amended or scrapped.
On the other hand, some regulations were viewed positively by both the gaming industry and users. A prime example is the regulation of “random-drop items.” Random-drop items have long been a subject of social controversy because they can induce users to make repeated in-game purchases in the hope of receiving high rewards. Consequently, a system requiring the disclosure of probability information was established, and currently, under the “Act on the Promotion of the Game Industry,” the disclosure of probability rates for certain random-drop items is mandatory. This system is viewed relatively positively for ensuring users’ right to know and enhancing the transparency of game operations.

Arguments in Favor of Game Regulation

Proponents of game regulation argue that gaming addiction and excessive immersion can lead to social problems, and that there are limits to resolving these issues through the efforts of individuals or families alone. Therefore, they contend that the government must establish a certain level of regulatory framework to protect minors and foster a healthy gaming culture.
Additionally, it is argued that, as many parents worry, some games contain violent or provocative elements that can have a negative impact on minors. Furthermore, cases where highly gambling-oriented games—such as the past “Bada Story” scandal—have caused social problems, along with the gaming industry’s insufficient efforts to resolve such issues on its own, are cited as grounds for regulation.

Arguments Against Gaming Regulation

Various counterarguments have been raised against these pro-regulation views. First, defining “gaming addiction” is a difficult issue in itself. How many hours per day must be spent gaming before it can be deemed an addiction? While some people experience difficulties in their daily lives due to gaming, others—such as professional gamers or those in gaming-related professions—play for long hours every day without showing withdrawal symptoms or disruptions to their daily lives. Therefore, it is difficult to determine addiction based solely on gaming duration.
Furthermore, there is debate over whether the claim that gaming addiction cannot be resolved at home is sufficiently substantiated. Regarding the claim that video games incite violence, numerous studies have shown that it is difficult to establish a simple causal relationship at this point. While some studies suggest a certain correlation, others have failed to confirm a clear causal relationship. In other words, the relationship between video game use and aggression is generally understood to be a complex issue involving multiple interacting factors.
Opponents of video game regulations argue that such regulations stem from a biased perspective. In particular, they contend that the older generation’s negative perception of video games has served as the backdrop for stricter regulations. In fact, the debate over video game regulations gained momentum in part due to the voices of parents concerned about their children’s gaming habits. Many parents have long viewed video games as one of the biggest factors hindering their children’s academic performance. As a result, there have been numerous instances where students who diligently completed their schoolwork were immediately labeled as addicted simply for playing video games for about two to three hours a day at home.
In the past, the “shutdown system” sometimes prevented high school students from accessing games after returning home from evening self-study sessions, even if they wanted to play. However, as mentioned earlier, this mandatory shutdown system has since been abolished, and the approach to managing minors’ gaming has shifted to prioritize parental choice.

The Impact of Gaming Regulations on the Industry

The primary argument against gaming regulations is that such measures could weaken the competitiveness of the gaming industry. In fact, some analyses have suggested that industry growth slowed following the tightening of regulations; to verify this, one can examine the industry statistics from the Korea Creative Content Agency (KOCCA) at the time.
The content industry encompasses various fields, including publishing, comics, music, broadcasting, and advertising. While the gaming industry did not account for a larger share than some other industries in terms of revenue and value added, it held a very significant share of content exports. The South Korean gaming industry has long maintained global competitiveness and remains one of the key players in the global gaming market today.
Statistics from that period show that the industry’s growth slowed compared to previous years during the time when game-related regulations were being actively discussed. Of course, it is difficult to conclude that these changes were entirely due to regulation, as various factors—such as the global economic climate, shifts in the mobile game market, and intensifying international competition—all had a simultaneous impact. Nevertheless, the industry has consistently voiced the opinion that regulations placed a certain burden on corporate investment and the development of new titles.

What are the other underlying factors behind game regulations?

In addition to the surface-level reasons for implementing game regulations, several other underlying factors can be considered.
The first is the political aspect. Some argue that political circles actively pushed for game regulations out of concern for public opinion. In particular, there was analysis suggesting that pushing for strict regulations could be politically advantageous during a time when games were viewed negatively by the older generation, including parents. From this perspective, critics argue that some bills were pushed through without sufficient public debate or consultation with the industry.
In fact, some bills at the time were criticized for lacking practicality or for potentially conflicting with other laws. For example, provisions requiring game companies to notify parents or homeroom teachers when minors used games sparked controversy regarding personal information protection.
Another perspective interprets these regulations in connection with the government’s fiscal policy at the time. It is argued that policy considerations, such as securing national revenue, likely played a role in making the gaming industry subject to new levies or regulations. However, rather than treating this as a clearly proven fact, it is more appropriate to view it as one of the various interpretations raised in society at the time.

How Are Games Regulated Overseas?

While regulations on games exist overseas as well, the approaches vary significantly from country to country.
Germany is known for its relatively strict review of violent games, while Greece tends to have strong regulations on games of chance. On the other hand, there are countries that rely primarily on industry self-regulation rather than direct government regulation.
Prominent examples include the United States and Japan. The U.S. operates a self-regulatory system through the ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board), and Japan does so through CERO (Computer Entertainment Rating Organization), both of which provide age ratings and content information.
In the case of China, while it previously implemented policies that heavily restricted games, it has since shifted toward a approach that combines regulation with support, in line with policies to foster the gaming industry as a strategic sector. However, national-level regulations—such as limits on gaming time for minors—remain in place even today, indicating that the level of government oversight remains relatively high.

What kind of balance is needed between the gaming industry and regulation?

South Korean professional gamers have long boasted world-class skills. South Korean players have consistently won championships in international tournaments across various titles, including “Warcraft,” “StarCraft,” “League of Legends,” “Overwatch,” and “PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds.” In the past, an incident involving a South Korean teenager competing in an international *StarCraft II* tournament—who faced difficulties during the match due to the “shutdown system” in effect at the time—sparked controversy even within the overseas gaming industry.
Not only professional gamers but also South Korea’s gaming industry maintains a high level of competitiveness in the global market. Games have long been established as one of the core sectors of South Korea’s content exports and play a vital role in the K-content industry. Recently, alongside K-pop, dramas, and movies, games are also recognized as a cultural content industry that represents South Korea.
K-pop, too, went through a period in the 1980s and 1990s when it was not fully appreciated due to negative perceptions of popular culture. The webtoon industry also faced various prejudices and difficulties in its early days, as it was perceived merely as “online comics.” However, over time, its cultural value and industrial potential were recognized, and it grew into a competitive industry on the global market.
The gaming industry can be seen as having gone through a similar process. Of course, it is also true that the gaming industry, in its focus on short-term profits, has at times introduced elements that erode user trust, such as gacha-style items and excessive monetization structures. These issues must be continuously addressed through appropriate regulations and the industry’s own self-regulatory efforts.
However, we must also consider the possibility that overly stringent regulations could weaken the competitiveness of the entire industry and stifle new game development and investment. Therefore, gaming regulations must be designed to strike a balance between the two goals of protecting users and fostering industry development.
To achieve this, it is essential, above all, to foster greater social understanding of games. Rather than relying on the preconceptions or one-sided perspectives of older generations, it is crucial to establish a process of social consensus where experts, users, parents, the education sector, the government, and the gaming industry engage in dialogue based on a thorough understanding of gaming culture and the industry’s characteristics.
Furthermore, rather than the government attempting to resolve every issue through legislation, the gaming industry itself must continue to operate responsibly and make ongoing efforts at self-regulation. An approach in which the industry establishes a trustworthy self-regulatory system—as seen in the United States and Japan—while the government provides minimal institutional safeguards where necessary may be a more desirable long-term direction.
Games have now transcended mere entertainment to become both a culture and an industry, and they have emerged as a key sector driving South Korea’s economic and content competitiveness. Therefore, rather than unconditional support or opposition, game regulation should aim for balanced policies that ensure both user protection and industrial development.