In this blog post, we’ll examine the validity of the Game Shutdown Policy, focusing on its background, purpose, justification, and effectiveness.
- What is the gaming curfew system?
- Was the justification for the gaming shutdown policy sufficient?
- What were the issues regarding the effectiveness of the game shutdown system?
- What is the best approach to addressing the issue of excessive gaming?
- What lessons did the gaming shutdown policy leave behind?
What is the gaming curfew system?
Is there anyone who hasn’t heard the word “game”? Today, we are surrounded by a wide variety of entertainment and media, and games have established themselves as a form of cultural content that plays an indispensable role in our lives. Games have now evolved beyond mere entertainment to become a culture in their own right; on the subway, while many people watch TV or read the news on their smartphones, it’s also easy to spot people enjoying games. College students, too, often engage in various conversations about games, just as they used to discuss sports in the past. Amid this gaming culture, there is a policy that has sparked significant social controversy: the gaming shutdown policy.
So, what exactly is this gaming shutdown policy that has generated so much debate? The gaming shutdown policy is a system that restricts minors under the age of 16 from playing online games during late-night hours. However, with the amendment of the relevant law in 2021, the so-called “mandatory shutdown system” was abolished, and the system has now been revised to strengthen parental choice and oversight. At the time, the system was evaluated as having both positive and negative effects, given that it restricted minors’ gaming use during certain hours, and it remained a topic of social debate in online communities and on broadcasts for a long time. In this article, I will critically examine the game shutdown system as it was implemented at the time and discuss what direction would be more desirable.
First, to understand the game shutdown system, it is necessary to examine the reasons and intent behind its introduction. The background for the enactment of this law was the significant increase in public concern regarding the violence in games and the problem of excessive gaming. Amid these concerns, the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family implemented the gaming curfew system to prevent various adverse effects and social problems that adolescents might face. The core of this system was to prevent gaming addiction by restricting adolescents’ online gaming during late-night hours and to support their normal academic and social lives by ensuring sufficient sleep.
In fact, excessive gaming can lead to various negative effects, such as reduced participation in social activities or strained family relationships, and I believe that the social effort to address this problem among adolescents is, in itself, highly meaningful. I also agree with the intent to ensure sufficient sleep for the healthy development of adolescents and their normal academic and social lives. However, I believe it is a separate issue whether the gaming shutdown system, implemented to achieve these two objectives, was indeed an appropriate means. So, what is the reason for this? In this blog post, I intend to examine the system’s shortcomings from two perspectives: its justification and its effectiveness.
Was the justification for the gaming shutdown policy sufficient?
Before discussing the justification for the gaming shutdown policy, it is necessary to clarify one premise: while one may hold a sufficiently critical view of gaming addiction, one must maintain an objective perspective on gaming culture itself. If we define the act of playing games itself as inherently harmful to adolescents, subsequent discussions are likely to lose their objectivity.
As mentioned earlier, the purpose of this system was to prevent and treat excessive gaming among adolescents while simultaneously establishing a minimum safeguard to ensure adequate sleep. However, a question that arises here is whether the prevention of excessive gaming and the guarantee of the right to sleep are issues that can truly be closely linked within a single policy.
Several counterarguments can be made regarding this. First, just because a student is excessively immersed in gaming does not necessarily mean their right to sleep is being infringed upon. For example, if asked which of the following students is closer to gaming addiction—one who plays from 3:00 p.m. to midnight, or one who plays for only 30 minutes starting at midnight—most people would choose the former.
Of course, restricting gaming during specific time periods may yield some preventive effects, but linking this directly to the protection of the right to sleep seems to be a bit of a logical leap.
Second, gaming is not the only factor that impairs the right to sleep. In reality, sleep deprivation among adolescents results from a complex interplay of various factors, including academic pressure, smartphone use, watching videos, exercise, and various social activities. Nevertheless, these activities are not restricted uniformly simply on the grounds of the right to sleep. Of course, one could interpret the policy’s purpose as being to reduce “sleep deprivation caused by video games,” but this somewhat conflicts with the perspective presented earlier—that video games themselves must be viewed objectively.
Summarizing this discussion, while “the prevention and treatment of video game addiction” and “the guarantee of the right to sleep” may be related, they are elements of a different nature and cannot be grouped under the same policy objective. Therefore, the gaming shutdown system at that time can be seen as having had limitations in its policy design, in that it attempted to resolve two distinct issues through a single system. In other words, from the very outset, the connection between the policy’s objectives and the means employed was not sufficiently convincing.
Furthermore, this issue of justification gave rise to various controversies even before the system was implemented. The right to sleep is an area influenced by a complex interplay of various social factors, and the system’s attempt to address the issue of excessive gaming through this right had inherent limitations. Furthermore, the approach of imposing uniform restrictions during specific time periods was subject to various criticisms even before the system’s implementation, as it could potentially impact adolescents’ autonomy in managing their time as well as parents’ methods of educating and raising their children.
What were the issues regarding the effectiveness of the game shutdown system?
If various issues were raised even before the law took effect, what results emerged after its actual implementation? At the time, various problems regarding the system’s effectiveness came to light, and numerous controversies ensued. Of course, it is possible to counter arguments questioning the law’s effectiveness by stating, “Effectiveness can be gradually improved during the implementation process.” In reality, every law has loopholes, and one cannot necessarily conclude that the law itself is flawed simply because it has some shortcomings. However, if there are doubts about the fundamental justification of the law itself, criticism of its effectiveness can also be a perfectly valid discussion.
The biggest problem was the limited scope of application. At the time, the game shutdown system was applied primarily to online games, so there were cases where it was not applied equally to mobile games or certain console games. Additionally, for games that did not require an internet connection or older games, it was sometimes technically difficult to apply the system in the same way. For example, due to technical issues, it was difficult to apply a separate shutdown system exclusively to minors for “StarCraft,” which was hugely popular at the time, and this led to various controversies during the implementation process.
Furthermore, concerns were raised that it was difficult to apply the same regulations to overseas game services. As a result, a controversy over so-called “reverse discrimination”—the argument that South Korean game companies might face a relatively greater burden—also ensued. Ultimately, a significant number of games were exempt from the shutdown system, and it was difficult to believe that restricting only certain games would fundamentally resolve issues such as excessive gaming or sleep deprivation.
In addition to the limitations of its scope, various operational issues were raised at the time, including workarounds such as logging in using someone else’s resident registration number and the ambiguity of the criteria for applying the system to online games. For these reasons, there was ongoing debate regarding the extent to which the shutdown system actually achieved its policy objectives. Subsequent studies presented mixed analyses—some suggesting the system had only a limited effect on reducing adolescents’ gaming time, while others indicated it was somewhat effective—and diverse views on the policy’s effectiveness persist to this day. Following this controversy, the mandatory shutdown system was abolished in 2021 and has since been replaced by a system that emphasizes voluntary management by families and strengthens parental choice.
What is the best approach to addressing the issue of excessive gaming?
As we have seen, the gaming shutdown system at the time revealed several limitations, both in terms of the appropriateness of the policy tool and its actual implementation.
However, the underlying intent of the policy—to protect adolescents from the risks of gaming addiction and ensure they get sufficient sleep—is certainly worthy of support.
So, how should we best address these issues? As mentioned earlier, I believe that while gaming addiction and the right to sleep are related, they are not the same problem; therefore, solutions must be developed separately for each. I believe it is more reasonable to address gaming addiction as a distinct issue in its own right, and to address the right to sleep as a separate issue related to lifestyle habits and the right to health.
In this article, considering that the right to sleep is linked to various social factors and that the core objective the gaming shutdown policy ultimately sought to address was the prevention and treatment of gaming addiction, I will focus on the issue of gaming addiction.
I believe gaming addiction should be approached from the perspective of an addictive behavior, much like alcohol dependence or problem gambling. To this end, we can examine the societal response to problem gambling as a case study.
First, let’s consider the preventive aspect. From a young age, we are educated about the dangers of gambling at school and at home, and we are exposed to these risks through various public service announcements and educational programs. Similarly, preventing a form of addictive behavior requires improved awareness across society and ongoing education. Similarly, excessive gaming should not be dismissed as merely a form of play for young children; rather, we need to establish a social environment where appropriate preventive education and counseling can be provided when necessary. Of course, the act of enjoying games itself should not be viewed negatively. What matters is not the culture of gaming itself, but situations where excessive use leads to problems in daily life.
Second is treatment and counseling. Currently, specialized counseling agencies and treatment programs are in operation not only for gambling problems but also for internet and gaming addiction, and various forms of support are available through youth counseling and welfare centers, educational institutions, and mental health organizations. In the past, various systems—including the Wee Project, a youth counseling support system—were in place, and these support systems continue to be expanded and refined today. I believe this prevention- and counseling-centered approach can provide more practical help in resolving the problem of gaming addiction.
Of course, we must be cautious about comparing gaming addiction to gambling or alcohol dependence on an entirely equal footing. However, I believe that efforts to adopt a prevention-, counseling-, and treatment-centered approach—viewing these as forms of addictive behavior—are a direction worth considering. Rather than imposing blanket restrictions on gaming itself, if we address gaming addiction as an addiction issue and view the right to sleep through the lens of healthy lifestyle habits, we can develop more effective alternatives than the policies implemented at that time.
What lessons did the gaming shutdown policy leave behind?
The gaming shutdown policy was a measure proposed and implemented to prevent excessive gaming among adolescents and to safeguard their right to sleep. The goal of protecting adolescents is, in itself, extremely important, and it is clear that both excessive gaming and healthy lifestyle habits are issues that require sustained social attention. However, the attempt to simultaneously address two distinct problems through a single policy had several limitations.
It is also difficult to assert that the prevention- and counseling-centered approach I have proposed is the definitive solution. Nevertheless, I believe that the process of continuously discussing and refining various solutions will lay the groundwork for better policies. I hope that the government, educational institutions, families, and the gaming industry will continue to work together to develop realistic and balanced alternatives while upholding the original intent of protecting adolescents.
