What Should We Define Games As?

We Still Haven't Agreed on What Games Are

When the forced shutdown system was abolished in 2021, many read it as deregulation. It made sense—a decade-old system that blocked game access for youth under 16 after midnight had disappeared. But the abolition wasn't an ending; it was the start of a question. What was removed is clear, but no one has said what should replace it.

This is where people often get confused. It's the habit of narrowly viewing game regulation as a matter of 'how much children play games.' Parental worries, addiction, time limits. Within this frame, the shutdown system's abolition looks like the end of policy. But games are no longer an activity of sitting in front of a console passing time. They are payment systems, devices for collecting minor data, and vast economic spaces where probabilistic algorithms operate. The object of regulation has shifted from time to structure, but our language still remains stuck on time.

Games Are Not Playgrounds but Data Infrastructure

Let's start with an easy analogy. If you think of games as neighborhood arcades, regulation becomes a matter of setting entry hours. Until what time can they play, who will be let in. But today's games aren't arcades—they're closer to bank branches. Money moves inside, transaction records accumulate, and each user behavior is converted into data and stored. Probability-based items are effectively financial products accessible to minors. It's as if lottery tickets with undisclosed odds have been sold under the name of games.

Viewed this way, the questions regulation should ask change. Not until what time they play, but what data is collected by whom inside, and what financial transactions occur under what transparency. Korea mandated disclosure of probability-based item information by law in March 2024. Late, but the right direction. But beyond this single measure, a larger framework treating games as data infrastructure still remains empty.

Not Individual Usage but Society's Capacity to Understand

Game issues are often attributed to individual choice. Can't you just exercise restraint, can't parents manage it. The trap in this logic is that it turns structure into a matter of individual will. The design of probability-based items, reward loops that constantly induce payment, algorithms that prevent disengagement. These aren't the kind of things individuals can overcome with restraint. It's like not saying 'weak will' in front of a casino.

So what's needed isn't individual usage but society's capacity to understand. Citizens understanding in common language how games make money, what they collect, what psychological design goes into them. This isn't just a game industry problem. It's a matter of digital literacy penetrating the entire realm of recommendation algorithms, generative AI, and platform economy. Games are merely the oldest and most sophisticated case among them.

A counterargument is possible here. The claim that excessive regulation undermines Korean game industry competitiveness. Many remember the shackles Korean games faced in the global market during the shutdown system era. A valid concern. However, the key isn't the amount of regulation but the type. Time-blocking regulations weakened the industry while providing weak protection. Conversely, regulations demanding transparency and accountability for data processing turn user trust into assets, strengthening the industry's foundation. Establishing good regulation in place of bad regulation—that's the task after abolition.

The EU and China Already View Games as a Matter of Sovereignty

Looking overseas makes the void clearer. The EU directly regulates algorithm transparency and minor protection of large platforms through the Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA). It doesn't separate games but treats them as part of the entire digital environment. It nails down in institutional language how data flows and who is responsible.

China is the opposite direction but the essence is the same. It strongly limits minors' game time to a few hours per week and connects real-name authentication with the national system. Difficult to agree with from a freedom perspective, but it's clear that China views games as social resources the state must control. The directions are opposite, yet both the EU and China share the commonality of treating games not as individual entertainment but as a domain requiring state standards.

Where does Korea stand? Discarding the crude tool of the shutdown system was right. But it failed to establish the language of digital sovereignty in its place. When boasting games as a cultural content export industry, it wears the face of industry; when youth problems erupt, it suddenly turns to the face of control. It only oscillates between the two, with no definition yet of games as public spaces where citizen data and economic activity occur. Recalling that Busan is a city claiming to be an axis of the game industry, hosting G-Star annually, this void comes closer. We know how to exhibit games but not how to define them.

A Country That Understands Properly Rather Than Uses Well

The void in game policy isn't just about games. It's a microcosm of how Korea handles digital technology. When new technology arrives, it only oscillates between the two extremes of industry promotion and regulatory control, with no middle language of how society will understand this technology and position it within institutions.

AI is following exactly the same path. Praising generative AI as a productivity tool, or blocking it as dangerous. Between those two, the work of citizens understanding this technology's structure and creating common standards remains empty. To avoid repeating in AI the failures repeated for nearly 30 years in games, filling the void in game policy now becomes practice.

There are many countries that use technology well. Korea is one of them. But using well and understanding properly are different capabilities. Countries that use well rapidly adopt technology and grow it into industry. Countries that understand properly define in common language what that technology does to citizens, data, and democracy, and establish institutions upon that. The void after the shutdown system asks us: Which side does Korea intend to be?