[The Editors' Verdict] Flood of Game Policy Pledges: Striking a Balance

Ahead of the 20th presidential election in March 2022, major presidential candidates are competitively announcing policy pledges related to games. Considering the abolition of the mandatory game shutdown system in the second half of 2021 and the flood of policy pledges aimed at protecting game users this time, it is astonishing to see how much political interest there is in games, making one feel a sense of rapid change.

If such interest and policy pledges help protect game users and promote the game industry, they are genuinely welcome. On the other hand, it is true that the game policy pledges announced by these presidential candidates carry the risk of excessively shrinking the game industry under the pretext of protecting game users, potentially hindering the emergence of diverse games and ultimately having a negative impact on game culture and the protection of game users.

Generally, the stakeholders with interests in game regulation are the game market (game industry), game consumers (game users), and the state (government), and these three parties are the main relevant stakeholders.

First, the state pursues public interests such as national security, order maintenance, and public welfare under the justification of public good, through legal regulatory measures that prohibit illegal games, protect youth in game usage, maintain fair game distribution and transaction order, and protect game users. Next, the game market is an area formed by game operators pursuing profit. The industry's concerns regarding regulation include the method of regulation, scope, intensity, applicability and enforceability, and predictability. Furthermore, how the regulation affects game services and industry development is also a very important concern.

Lastly, the influence of game users in the game service sector has grown to an unimaginable extent compared to the past. In this regard, game users bear certain responsibilities and obligations not to engage in illegal acts or acts that significantly infringe on corporate profits, but they also clearly possess corresponding rights and interests.

What we should focus on here is that these three parties in the game domain commonly aim to create an environment where healthy, diverse, and sustainable cultural content in the form of game content can be smoothly provided to game users. The game industry has the nature of a cultural industry, different from general manufacturing industries, which is also why game regulation is related to the constitutional principle of a cultural state.

From this perspective, just as the market and government should not be viewed as mutually antagonistic, the relationship between game operators and game users should not be assumed to be antagonistic when proposing policies. Game operators, game users, and the government should maintain a horizontal relationship of mutual cooperation toward the common goal of creating a healthy game environment, rather than a vertical relationship.

The value of protecting game users can practically be achieved when the game industry is promoted. For example, through the promotion of the game industry, a variety of games exist in the market, ultimately creating an environment where game users can fully enjoy the games they prefer. Therefore, a balance and harmony between the value of protecting game users and the value of promoting the game industry must always be pursued, and this is a fundamental principle that must always be considered in the development of game policies.

Seonggi Hwang, Professor, Hanyang University School of Law