South Korea to Limit Online Gaming

Posted on Tuesday 13th April 2010 at 21:51 by Rangers51

Here's some news that seems to be all over the internet already, but happily won't impact, well, probably any of our regular readers. However, for those of you with ties to South Korea, note that the next time you visit you might not be able to play some games in the wee hours of the day.

The Korea Herald reports that the government is going to shut down various online games for six hour windows every night, with the windows being selected from three choices by each household. Apparently, homes in Korea have unique identifiers that are used for any sort of online registration, and this will allow the central government to shutter access as the central clock ticks over to the start of the selected window.

The government in South Korea is testing the system out now on four games, with another fifteen to be included in a few months. The entire list is unclear to me at the moment, though with the nineteen total games inclusive of "79 percent of the online gaming market," it would not surprise me to find that at some point Square Enix' online entries might soon find themselves under the restriction.

Source: Korea Herald

Posted in: Gaming Industry News, The World at Large

Written by	Rangers51
	CoN Webmaster
	Member Since: 1997-07-31
	News articles posted: 558
	More articles by Rangers51

Comments

Sephiroth	Comment 1: 2010-04-14 05:19
	I'll ask my girlfriend to find an article in Korean about this in the morning. Every foreigner in Korea knows their isn't a less reliable newspaper in Asia than the Korean Herald. However, if this does have truth to it I can't see it going over well in Korea. We're talking about a culture who's parliament broke out into a fist fight in the middle of a court because a law banning free online data exchange was passed. To be honest, I don't really see why they need this kind of thing at all. There are of course, some people who spend 90% of their lives in PC rooms, but the majority are pretty serious about making sure their children study a lot, and personally limiting the video game time their children have. This whole thing seems extremely ridiculous to me. Also, I can't see the owners of PC rooms taking this very lightly either, as their are more PC rooms in Seoul than churches in the bible belt. Or will they just be limiting households? Last time I was in Korea the rooms were about $1 per hour. It would be pretty easy to skip the six hour void if they don't limit the PC rooms. You said it's been all over the Internet. Are their other news groups covering it?
Rangers51	Comment 2: 2010-04-14 13:13
	Quote (Sephiroth @ 14th April 2010 00:19) You said it's been all over the Internet. Are their other news groups covering it? Korea Times published it, as did BBC, as did a number of gaming sites like Kotaku. Have your girlfriend look it up, if you like (as I hear she's Korean), but I don't see any reason to question its validity. I don't know, I remember some times where my own parents put limitations on my gaming twenty years ago because it was impacting my studies. I don't necessarily disagree that it should be handled at the household level rather than at the governmental level, but if even 10% or parents are neglecting their duties in this regard, then perhaps they shouldn't be trusted. Also, I'd like to mention that the concept of renting a PC that was most recently played by a MMOer grosses me out a bit.
BlitzSage	Comment 3: 2010-04-14 19:53
	Quote (Rangers51 @ 14th April 2010 09:13) I don't know, I remember some times where my own parents put limitations on my gaming twenty years ago because it was impacting my studies. I don't necessarily disagree that it should be handled at the household level rather than at the governmental level, but if even 10% or parents are neglecting their duties in this regard, then perhaps they shouldn't be trusted. The problem is that your parents didn't use a police force to impose those rules. And if you broke those rules, you didn't get jail time. I think it is up to parents, and you can't prevent bad parenting with this type of law. But the real problem is that they have the power to shut off the games themselves. That seems like the bigger issue that just some games that people aren't able to play. I mean, its one thing to not be able to play something when you want, but does the government really have the right to do such a thing? That's not really individual freedom. I know it's a different culture, but civil liberties should be a universal thing. I'm not sure how much this will affect those game publishers' profit, but I would also think that they are also outraged. Because for some people there that was the only time they could play. Overall, this just seems to be an authoritarian, foolish law.
sweetdude	Comment 4: 2010-04-14 20:35
	BlitzSage I don't think individual freedoms are universal. As far as I understand SK is a very rigidly structured society. For example the schools have a much stricter attitude to behaviour and studying, more than any other country in the world. It's understandable that a law like this would come into force in a country where the people are used to rules and regulation. Maybe they like it, I don't know, but remember with authoritarian laws comes criticism of them if they don't work how the people want, so just because it's a tough law doesn't mean it's automatically bad or undemocratic. I can't find any proof that breaking the law will result in jail time, or that it's enforced by the police. Also, it says there have been calls for such a law following a number of headlines on the issue, presumably calls from the public. I think the law makes sense from what I've read. My interpretation is that Korean people spend so much time on online games that it's become a national issue, not just something that can be left to individuals to sort out when they're not doing so. Also as far as I know Korean people are more prone to complaining about public services, especially schools, and so if another case were to crop up where a woman left her baby to starve while taking care of an online baby, there would be a national outcry and the government would be blamed. They have to make a positive effort. I might have got this wrong but that's how I see it. Yes, in short, the government does have the right to act in the interest of its people, even if it is denying them something that they want.
BlitzSage	Comment 5: 2010-04-14 22:58
	Just because it is an aspect of their society doesn't make it right. In the United States, if you're openly gay, you cannot serve in the military. Our country has a strong religious background, but does that make it right? Government is instituted to protect people's liberties, and in many cases, to protect them from themselves. Should we go about with no government whatsoever, as some libertarians would wish? No, but this law does not appear to protect the people. In this case, it should be the individuals and/or the parents that decide how much time they spend on games. If you spend six hours playing instead of studying, that is called being stupid. And that's how natural selection works.
sweetdude	Comment 6: 2010-04-15 01:20
	Quote (BlitzSage @ 14th April 2010 23:58) Just because it is an aspect of their society doesn't make it right. In the United States, if you're openly gay, you cannot serve in the military. Our country has a strong religious background, but does that make it right? Government is instituted to protect people's liberties, and in many cases, to protect them from themselves. Should we go about with no government whatsoever, as some libertarians would wish? No, but this law does not appear to protect the people. In this case, it should be the individuals and/or the parents that decide how much time they spend on games. If you spend six hours playing instead of studying, that is called being stupid. And that's how natural selection works. This is a much more dubious ideological line compared with discharging openly gay soldiers. It's not really fair to say that your interpretation of what's right is better than theirs in this case. Like I said before, maybe people like authoritarian governments because they are more effective and create a more stable society. Just because action is tough doesn't mean it's unaccountable and undemocratic. I don't agree with leaving people to languish in their problems just to prove and ideological point. We all know that if you leave people to play six hours of games at night instead of sleeping they'll do worse in school, but that achieves nothing. It's not really a celebration of individual freedoms.
finalalias	Comment 7: 2010-04-15 23:22
	Well, Blitzsage, you said: Quote Because for some people there that was the only time they could play. but the original post mentioned that they have a choice of three possible 6 hour windows, so I guess that wouldn't be an issue. I'm not sure how much of an effect it will have, though. I think it's probably easy for most people to switch over their addiction to some other game to fill the gap. It should be interesting to see, though, and I hope it will have a healthy impact on people who need it. It seems the smaller democracies and republics of the world (very loosely termed here) seem to be pretty creative about what they try to achieve with their legislation, or to put it into rpg terms, with lightness comes agility .
BlitzSage	Comment 8: 2010-04-15 23:41
	Quote (finalalias @ 15th April 2010 19:22) Well, Blitzsage, you said: Quote Because for some people there that was the only time they could play. but the original post mentioned that they have a choice of three possible 6 hour windows, so I guess that wouldn't be an issue. I didn't notice that. You're right, what I said is wrong. But the real problem, that the central government can shut people's internet off, is still the issue that I think is ridiculous. Now, I agree with sweetdude, that it's not the best example of individual freedom. But nevertheless, the principle is still there. Now, I am aware that I'm about to use a slippery slope argument, but I think it sticks. Give people that amount of power, problems can occur. Complete idividual freedom can cause problems (US), so to can the opposite.
Tonepoet	Comment 9: 2010-04-16 15:48
	I'd agree that this is hardly comparable actually. General sexual policy in the military could be reasoned to establish a professional atmosphere under the risky, high duress, violent, sometimes subversive, usually demanding and primal situations war is prone to. While one could say it's biased against gays, I'd suggest it might not be, as policies are in place to prevent similar situations with heterosexuality too, via the more readily identifiable means of gender segregation. While the manner of fact is that as practices of general policy these are by no means perfect ideals, one could say they're necessary evils in such an especially sensitively specialized case. That being said, there are no interpersonal relations necessarily made with people to online games. The only person you stand to harm directly from playing an online game too much is yourself, so it's nobody else's business how much or little you play. I realize that playing games too much may leave some more prone to negligence of obligations you've set for yourself elsewhere. However the real problem there is that you're shirking off your obligation. Imposing a widespread curfew upon game playing does nothing to expressly prevent that. In the particular case where the child had starved, it seemed like the parents weren't prepared to undertake the responsibility in the least. This is suggested by the fact that all they felt was necessary for the sustained well being of their child, was one feeding per day. Anybody holding this belief could easily distract themselves with any number of things they'd rather do than care for their actual child and lend themselves to similar incidents, provided they have the means to procrastinate. Restricting such means of procrastination is by no means going to solve the problem of negligent parenting though, as the root cause lies deeper than that. All in all, if this action is solely aimed at an outcry to deal with that one manner, I'd say the efforts are hopelessly misaimed and oppressive. Insofar as individual freedoms go, the only problem I see with them is that they're often self-conflicting. I'd say the primary role of government to provide fair grounds for when these exact instances conflict, like when somebody want to kidnap someone else. I fail to see how video games could pose any threat except that of cultural severance, in which case, it's I fail to see how it's anybody else's business, as others can still live their lives how they please. Granted, there might be some degree of cultural bias speaking here, but in this case, I feel such expectant imposition can only be a good thing.
sweetdude	Comment 10: 2010-04-16 17:39
	Quote (Tonepoet @ 16th April 2010 16:48) Insofar as individual freedoms go, the only problem I see with them is that they're often self-conflicting. I'd say the primary role of government to provide fair grounds for when these exact instances conflict, like when somebody want to kidnap someone else. I fail to see how video games could pose any threat except that of cultural severance, in which case, it's I fail to see how it's anybody else's business, as others can still live their lives how they please. Granted, there might be some degree of cultural bias speaking here, but in this case, I feel such expectant imposition can only be a good thing. America isn't the only country with a written consitution. Civil liberties and human rights were being codified hundreds of years before America was even discovered. Have a look for yourself. Surely, by now, we've all learned that 'expectant imposition' isn't fair, especially on the basis that you believe your culture is better and should therefore be imposed on others. Basically, in response to you saying that 'others can still live their lives how they please', you might want to take into account that maybe the law is popular and there have been calls by the public to make this law, and therefore it is how the people want to live their lives.
BlitzSage	Comment 11: 2010-04-16 18:32
	Quote (sweetdude @ 16th April 2010 13:39) Quote (Tonepoet @ 16th April 2010 16:48) Insofar as individual freedoms go, the only problem I see with them is that they're often self-conflicting. I'd say the primary role of government to provide fair grounds for when these exact instances conflict, like when somebody want to kidnap someone else. I fail to see how video games could pose any threat except that of cultural severance, in which case, it's I fail to see how it's anybody else's business, as others can still live their lives how they please. Granted, there might be some degree of cultural bias speaking here, but in this case, I feel such expectant imposition can only be a good thing. America isn't the only country with a written consitution. Civil liberties and human rights were being codified hundreds of years before America was even discovered. Have a look for yourself. Surely, by now, we've all learned that 'expectant imposition' isn't fair, especially on the basis that you believe your culture is better and should therefore be imposed on others. Basically, in response to you saying that 'others can still live their lives how they please', you might want to take into account that maybe the law is popular and there have been calls by the public to make this law, and therefore it is how the people want to live their lives. Exactly right. In fact, our Declaration of Independence and Constitution was basically a collection of ideas from English and French political thinkers that believed that people's rights are universal, and that a government that does not protect those rights should be abolished. It should be noted that Article 17 of their Constitution states that "the privacy of no citizen may be infringed." Telling someone when they can indulge in a form of entertainment should be a violation of that article. Also, not everything that is popularly supported is right. It was popular with many conservatives to restrict military access to people with a different sexual orientation. It was popular to invade Iraq, wiretap without warrants, segregate society, enslave members of society, remove Native Americans, and so on. But it should be said that it's really not the restriction of games that is the problem. What if they decide that it wasn't video games, but the internet itself that is affecting studies or workrate? They have shown that they have the power to shut down video games, and they can shut off the rest of the internet too. But ultimately, you're right sweetdude. I look at it and say it is wrong, but I don't live there, and the majority of South Koreans apparently have no problem with it. While I do not think that popularity judges what is right or what is just, the entire idea of democracy is to run by consensus, majority, and even popularity. I myself am often at odds with what most people here think, but I live here, and I live with it. And with instances like what might happen with Uganda's proposed legislation, there are definitely more troubling matters regarding individual freedom than video game restriction.
sweetdude	Comment 12: 2010-04-16 19:43
	Quote (BlitzSage @ 16th April 2010 19:32) It should be noted that Article 17 of their Constitution states that "the privacy of no citizen may be infringed." Telling someone when they can indulge in a form of entertainment should be a violation of that article. I noticed that too. I'm not sure whether it would be in violation. Just on what's there I would say no. Protections on privacy are never the be all and end all of law. There was a major case in the European court, Laskey v UK, that dealt with whether men could agree to hurt eachother in private if they all consented, relying on a European convention and a human rights act. Just because it was in their private lives doesn't mean the law cannot affect them. I'm almost sure that SK courts would see it the same way. I mean, it's an absurdity if that article is solid base law, it means that someone watching child porn cannot be prevented on the basis that he's doing so in private, and the government cannot infringe upon his rights. The argument against this might be that child porn is much worse than games on any level, and that's true, but on the question of privacy there is no difference. I agree that not everything popular is right. But, interestingly, you're contradicting the basic principles of civil liberties. Theoretically, if half the people in a nation want to sleep during the day and play games at night, I assume you would agree that they have the right to do so. However, just because it's popular doesn't mean it's right. So what's left is a crossroads where we have to decided between civil liberties and keeping a country running, for the betterment of the state and its people. It's against liberal principles to deny their rights when they aren't harming others, but liberals agree that sometimes popular opinion is very wrong. It's bizarre. I understand liberals acting to prevent harm, that's a given, but when you take out harm and still see a wrong, liberals believe that people will just learn for themselves, or they throw everything they believe out the window and act like conservatives on the issue.
BlitzSage	Comment 13: 2010-04-16 20:19
	Quote (sweetdude @ 16th April 2010 15:43) So what's left is a crossroads where we have to decided between civil liberties and keeping a country running, for the betterment of the state and its people. Well, that's the difficulty. It is so complex that it is hard to decide which way is right. It is the most basic civil liberty to have an opinion, but what if that opinion oppresses others? Furthermore, what if your freedoms harm others, which is often the case? I can definitely see why you objected when I used the "to each his own" argument, because it is rather primal, or Darwinistic. I mean, I even used the words natural selection to describe it. The rule of law exists to partially take away our freedoms for the good of all people. Now, in the case of those men that consented to fight each other, what a difficult case when you think about it. One might say that both men agreed, so they basically said we'll accept the consequences, such as injury or death. But can a government allow its people to kill each other if they agree to? You might not think so, but what do you call boxing, or any other sport with violence? Isn't boxing that very agreement this case is speaking of? But that's what it so difficult. If the Korean government is going too far with this, or if they're not, where is that line? That's an argument that has been really going on since before the Magna Carta was signed. Edit Even more strange, is that I was reading about the Magna Carta, and basically King John was forced to sign it. So these freedoms were brought about by force, or essentially, violating King John's freedoms as the ruler of England at the time. All of this is just too complicated.
sweetdude	Comment 14: 2010-04-16 21:55
	Quote (BlitzSage @ 16th April 2010 21:19) Now, in the case of those men that consented to fight each other, what a difficult case when you think about it. One might say that both men agreed, so they basically said we'll accept the consequences, such as injury or death. But can a government allow its people to kill each other if they agree to? You might not think so, but what do you call boxing, or any other sport with violence? Isn't boxing that very agreement this case is speaking of? I don't know about anywhere else, but here consent is not a defence for assault. Boxing and sport that has rules is allowed. Even UFC has rules, although it says they don't, the big liars. Although a million die-hard liberals will complain about rights and liberties, domestic abuse victims will be glad that their partners cannot force them to say that she or he consented to the abuse, or she doesn't want her partner to go to jail so lies on her own accord. This just goes to show the same point that I hold strong to, we have to sacrifice our civil liberties for the betterment of others in society. And FWIW, the Laskey case was about sado-masochistic gay men doing truly horrible things to eachother for sexual pleasure. Look it up if you're interested... in the case. Quote (BlitzSage @ 16th April 2010 21:19) Edit Even more strange, is that I was reading about the Magna Carta, and basically King John was forced to sign it. So these freedoms were brought about by force, or essentially, violating King John's freedoms as the ruler of England at the time. All of this is just too complicated. Wot? So the Declaration of Independence was a violation of the King's rights too?
Tonepoet	Comment 15: 2010-04-17 01:38
	Quote (sweetdude @ 16th April 2010 10:39) Quote (Tonepoet @ 16th April 2010 16:48) Insofar as individual freedoms go, the only problem I see with them is that they're often self-conflicting. I'd say the primary role of government to provide fair grounds for when these exact instances conflict, like when somebody want to kidnap someone else. I fail to see how video games could pose any threat except that of cultural severance, in which case, it's I fail to see how it's anybody else's business, as others can still live their lives how they please. Granted, there might be some degree of cultural bias speaking here, but in this case, I feel such expectant imposition can only be a good thing. America isn't the only country with a written consitution. Civil liberties and human rights were being codified hundreds of years before America was even discovered. Have a look for yourself. Surely, by now, we've all learned that 'expectant imposition' isn't fair, especially on the basis that you believe your culture is better and should therefore be imposed on others. In your quoted text, I hadn't said that any of the Americas were the only place with a written constitution, nor had my claims been baselessly made. My first of my two links, if you hadn't noticed, was to the French Rights of Man. It actually quite readily tells us why imposition is often necessary in Quote (Point 16:) A society in which the observance of the law is not assured, nor the separation of powers defined, has no constitution at all. Which is to say no legal system unless it can be imposed upon others, as anybody would be able to freely ignore it otherwise. Regardless of the thought's origins, this holds equally true everywhere, be it The United States, Briton, Australia or Japan unless you are to assume everybody's naturally compliant. The mere existence of criminal activity, no matter how little there is, serves as evidence that they're not. Quote (Sweetdude") Basically, in response to you saying that 'others can still live their lives how they please', you might want to take into account that maybe the law is popular and there have been calls by the public to make this law, and therefore it is how the people want to live their lives. This is really quite a trickier proposition to handle, especially when believing the above to be true. The only answer I can give is that when you have belief in basic human rights, one has to recognized that they have to be protected from external threats, otherwise these rights aren't really rights at all. Sure, it may say the individual has the right to personal safety on paper and the general public may even assent to it but if nobody does anything to prevent an attacker from killing them, their mortality won't care. Similarly, are rights that can be taken away really rights at all, or are they simply privileges that the powers that be allow you to have? With these thoughts in mind mind, one has to realize that the democratic process, however well evolved it may be, is quite imperfect like everything else. Surly there are times when even the those in power misuse it whether they have the best of intentions in mind or not. Since the public is composed of individuals, its prone to all the same fallibility as anybody else. The best way to show this is to ask a question: What if the public wanted to have slavery? It has happened many times in the past in all manners of time period and cultures. I'd say there is certainly no justifiable reason for one person to baselessly exhibit power over another, since with all things otherwise considered, they're innately equal. It's just not a fair expectation to be had. If all people are innately equal, which we have no reason to disbelieve, no one person in this case deserves to have the servitude of the other more-so than the other way around. With our Korean case here, the issue is kinda similar. All the person is doing by playing the game is pursuing their own personal happiness, which I now know is a right expressly allowed by article 10 of Korea's own constitution. So it's rather undeniable that even with cultural boundaries considered is "Why should the public be allowed to do this?" rather than "Why shouldn't the public be allowed to do this?" In fact unless the former of these questions is asked, I don't think there is any such thing as rights at all, for reasons I addressed above. There might be a fairly acceptable reason here though. What I'd failed to do here is read the source article and see that the shutoff primarily applies to people who're underaged. People who from a legal viewpoint are those who have to be protected from the consequences of their own decisions, if not only because they haven't been given a fair enough chance to develop their skills at doing such. Such could be said to be a right as much as it is a demand, depending on the way you view it. I'm unsure of the slowdown portion though. P.S. What does playing games on a publicly accessible server have to do with privacy rights? You're kinda making open declaration of your actions. This is why I don't play Wesnoth anymore, ever since they introduced the public replay archive. I just don't want everything I say in a game to be on permanent public record, regardless of its nature...
Please Log In to Add Comments

More Comments

There are more comments on this than we can show here. Please visit this thread at the forums to see more and have another opportunity to add your own.

Printable Version (in new window) · Top of Page

Caves of Narshe Version 6
©1997–2025 Josh Alvies (Rangers51)

All fanfiction and fanart (including original artwork in forum avatars) is property of the original authors. Some graphics property of Square Enix.