Measures needed to prevent game addiction, but revive industry

Intense controversy has flared up in the Internet over the proposed “Act on prevention, control and treatment of addiction (Game addiction act), which defines online games as one of the “Four vices” along with alcohol, drug and gambling. The bill submitted by Rep. Shin Ui-jin of the ruling Saenuri Party suggests that the state consider Internet games as a substance and action that causes addiction and establish a national additional control committee to manage and control game addiction. The bill is designed to approach game addiction from the perspective of mental health of youth, and increase the state’s responsibility for it.

As game players staged an online signature collection campaign against the bill, more than 200,000 people have signed up. On the other hand, the national coalition for child health, a civic group that is concerned about children’s health, has started an offline signature collection campaign in support of the bill. Most parents support the “Game addiction act,” but teenagers protest it, saying that “What’s wrong with playing game briefly when feeling tired after long study.” Signs of conflict have brewing up between teenagers who regard games as a culture of peers and parents who emphasize studying and achievements. The key issue would be the degree at which children are engaged in playing games.

The gaming industry raises question about whether the state could categorize game, a kind of play culture, into the same group as drug or gambling. It worries that at the pretext of treatment of addicts the state could levy penalty fees on the industry, or toughen regulations and end up forcing the gaming industry out of business. The industry’s argument that other countries would not import games that are classified in Korea as addictive substance is not totally groundless as well. The view that the state should rather nurture the gaming industry also has some point. Games are cash cow products that spearhead the entire contents industry, and comply with creative economy envisioned by the Park Geun-hye administration.

But objection by the gaming industry and game users derives to a large extent to misunderstanding about the provisions in the bill. The game addiction act is not meant to regulate games but to introduce a systematic system for prevention of game addiction and its treatment. Just as playing cards on holidays or online games would not constitute gambling, playing online game once in a while should not be considered addiction. However, among people who use games, there are obviously those who display symptoms of addiction so serious that it disrupts their ordinary living. The gaming industry is advised to join efforts to prevent such people from emerging, and prevent addiction and treat addicts.

Clue to resolving the dispute would be to understand that the game addiction act and promotion of the gaming industry are not incompatible with each other. The gaming industry would also wish to spread quality contents that many people can play and enjoy, rather than generating game addicts. If so, the gaming sector should proactively participate in the efforts in our society to prevent teenagers from becoming addicted to games, and provide useful information to parents who are agonizing over their children’s addiction to games