Currently, the hottest issue in the game industry is the regulation of probability-type items. The industry still insists on self-regulation, but it was 2015 when self-regulation began. Even though it is six years old, the effect is also questionable, and it has not been supported by public opinion. It is often pointed out that the conflict over probabilistic items is deepening, and that the industry is unlikely to solve the problem by itself. At this point, it is clear that the time for legalization rather than self-regulation is necessary.
However, the currently proposed law is not a perfect alternative. There is a need to come up with a practical way to force participation of overseas game companies that have failed in the end of self-regulation, and a system to check whether the information disclosed by the company is true is also needed. Further, it is necessary to find other ways to solve the problem of probability-type items beyond the probability disclosure. Game Mecca pointed out what needs to be improved in order to truly solve the problem of probability-type items based on the contents of the currently proposed bill.
The domestic agent system that failed in the orthodox law, it is questionable whether it will be effective in the game
The first part to look at is whether foreign game companies can be brought into domestic law. In particular, in the case of mobile games with many probability items, there are a number of games that are directly serviced by overseas game companies, so if they do not disclose probability information, there is a realistic limitation on penalizing local companies for violation of domestic laws. If the domestic service of overseas games that violate the law is unilaterally blocked, damage to the domestic consumers who enjoy the game will occur. .
The’domestic agent designation system’ included in the all amendments proposed this time is the only way to arrest overseas game companies that do not have domestic branches. The domestic agent designation system, in simple terms, is to appoint an’agent’ who can hold an overseas game company that does not have a domestic branch responsible for complying with domestic laws. This concept was implemented through other laws such as the Information and Communication Network Act before the Game Act.
The problem is that there are no successful cases of the domestic agent designation system. In March 2019, the Information and Communication Network Act was enacted, which contained a system for designating a domestic agent in relation to the protection of domestic users of overseas operators. However, for one year and six months after the enforcement of the Act, the Korea Communications Commission has not requested or took corrective action from a domestic representative to submit data related to user protection work. This part was also on the cutting board during the national audit of the Korea Communications Commission held in October last year, and it was pointed out that the domestic representative designation system was not famous.
In addition, the domestic agent designation system, which has been included in the whole amendment of the Game Act, only penalizes a penalty of 10 million won if an agent is not designated. The punishment is relatively light considering that the amendment is included in the amendment that if probabilistic information is not disclosed or incorrect information is disclosed, a criminal punishment of up to two years imprisonment or a fine of 20 million won will be imposed. Therefore, other means are required to increase the effectiveness of the domestic agent designation system for overseas game companies, or to enforce the obligation to disclose probability to overseas game companies in addition to the designation of agents.
The government must have a system to verify probability information.
Rep. Lee Sang-heon, who initiated the whole amendment of the game law, said that the disclosure of the probability was “the minimum right to know the user wants.” If so, one more thing to think about when disclosing probability information by law is to make sure that the disclosed probability is correct. However, there is only a large content of’probability information disclosure’ in the current law, and concrete implementation methods or verification procedures are not reflected. Therefore, in order to preserve the purpose of guaranteeing consumers’ right to know, it is also necessary to verify the disclosed probability.
If it is impossible to include all the details in the law, detailed information should be included in the enforcement decree that states how the law will be enforced after the law is passed. It includes how to disclose probability information, which organization will verify the information disclosed by the game company through what procedure, and so on. This is because it is possible to secure the effectiveness of the disclosure of probability information.
Unless a new agency is created in the current administration structure, organizations suitable for probabilistic information verification will be narrowed down to the top of the game. If the post-management authority for probabilistic items is given on the game, the regulatory authority that the government has will increase, so a method to check the government’s regulatory authority that has become bloated must be prepared together. At the same time, it is also a point to examine whether it is possible to secure a realistic manpower and budget for the Game Committee to properly conduct business. Since there are criticisms that the post-management of the game commission is poor every year, there will be a work gap for probability-type items if there are no supplementary measures.
A means and system for users to directly verify and report probability results are also required.
In addition to the improvements mentioned earlier, there are other areas to consider. First, the range of probabilistic items defined by the law is appropriate. It includes not only paid probabilistic items, but also the type that determines the outcome by combining paid items and free items, and enhancements that increase equipment stats.
However, there are regrets in the details. Most notably, the provision of a means to check the results of the probabilistic items used by the user himself is not reflected in the amendment. Although it is not a domestic game, Chinese game company Mihoyo’s original spirit provides a service that allows individual users to check the use time of probability items and the results in the game. If the means for verifying the result of using the probability type item is provided as described above, the user himself can clearly confirm whether the disclosed probability is properly applied to the game.
Of course, the government needs to verify whether the disclosed probability information is correct, but enormous budget and manpower are required to check all games in one institution. Also, even with this, it is practically difficult to identify all problems. Therefore, it is possible to reduce the administrative burden as much as possible if the user himself verifies the probability result and if there is a problem, attaches the data and establishes a system that can directly report it to the responsible institution. In addition, it is necessary to consider fundamental ways to solve the problem of probability-type items going beyond probability disclosure.
Conversely, the law also includes content that is practically impossible to enforce. This is the part to display probability information on the game advertisement. Usually, game advertisements are conducted in the form of a 15-second or 30-second video or portal banner. It is impossible to show all the probability information organized in a long table through such advertisements. This is true even from the perspective of consumers. No user wants to see what new work is coming out, so only the numbers they don’t know are listed in the game ad they watch and end.
Probabilistic item legal regulation fits the market trend in that the law contains the most-selling paid products in the market. However, as mentioned earlier, it is also true that there are parts that are lacking. Regarding this, Congressman Lee Sang-heon said, “In the process of preparing the amendment, we mainly included the content that is likely to be enforced, but we agree with the criticism. If there is anything that can be supplemented, I will review it.” In addition, the office of Congressman Lee Sang-heon will hold a public hearing on the entire revision of the Game Act and collect opinions during the bill review process.