[The Editors' Verdict] The Need for Separate Regulation of Digital Games and Arcade Games

Traditionally, games have been categorized by the platforms on which they are implemented, such as PC games, online games, mobile games, video (console) games, and arcade games. With the advent of the digital media era, this classification is now being redefined into ‘digital games’ (PC online games, mobile games, video games) based on the internet and digital technology, and ‘arcade games’ provided in specific spaces or locations, like the old arcade games.

Since digital games and arcade games have their own unique characteristics and have developed within different historical, social, and cultural contexts, applying the same regulatory principles, methods, and intensities within a single game law can reveal various issues. For example, among the compliance requirements for game-related businesses under the current Game Industry Promotion Act, the provisions related to prize offerings were originally introduced as a management system for arcade games when considering legislative history, purpose, and intent. However, the law itself does not differentiate by game service type and is uniformly applied to all game services.

While the game service environment has rapidly evolved into diverse platforms such as PC online, mobile, and video, the current Game Industry Promotion Act still retains provisions based on arcade games, such as those related to prize offerings, failing to properly consider the characteristics of new services and environments. As a result, many cases have occurred where unreasonable and excessive regulations that do not fit the times have been broadly applied across game services.

Therefore, a differentiated approach is necessary for digital games and arcade games regarding rating classification procedures and obligations for each business operator. In this regard, last month, Representative Lee of the People Power Party proposed the ‘Game Industry Promotion Act Amendment Bill’ that attempts to separate game services into digital games and arcade games and regulate the obligations of game operators by game service type.

First, the bill changes the term ‘game products’ to ‘games’ and limits the definition of games to digital content created based on information processing technologies such as computer programs. It also attempts to bifurcate games into ‘specific location-type games,’ meaning arcade games, and ‘digital games,’ which encompass all games other than arcade games. Next, in the rating classification procedures, digital games and specific location-type games are regulated separately in different chapters, and the compliance requirements for digital game-related businesses and specific location-type game-related businesses are also separately stipulated.

This separated regulation reflects the changes of the times and is a very welcome approach. From this perspective, it is very regrettable that Representative Lee’s full revision bill of the Game Industry Promotion Act was withdrawn about a week after its proposal for further review. It is understood that another full revision bill of the Game Industry Promotion Act, which is effectively a government bill currently pending in the National Assembly, does not apply such separated regulation. It is hoped that this issue will be thoroughly reviewed, discussed, and reflected in the future legislative process.

Hwang Seong-gi, Professor, Hanyang University School of Law