[MUD-Dev] Korea and online world responsibility

[Sean Kelly]

Koster, Raph wrote:
 
> start quote--->

> Online game developers pledge to restrain destructive aspects
> Officially acknowledging the widespread theory that online games
> could be of serious detriment to society, Korea's online game
> developers vowed to contain the destructive fallout of online
> games - especially their ill effects on minors.

...

> The industry initiative calls for a string of technological
> breakthroughs to discourage users from playing long hours and
> installing a program for parents to control playing time on
> personal computers at home.

So it appears the fear is spreading.  But is this any different from
the attribution of games like DOOM to events like the Columbine
shootings? Are the producers of potentially addictive products
responsible for aiding in the control of that addiction?  And could
all these problems just be solved by better parenting?

> Also, game developers expressed their intention of establishing a
> number of rehabilitation and counseling centers for online game
> addicts, while offering an array of alternative offline
> entertainment programs for youths.

So now there will be Gamer's Anonymous.  "Hi my name is Bob and I've
been 1337-free for 0xA days now."  I understand the need for game
developers not to be seen as Bad People, but should it really be
necessary for them to fund alternative entertainment programs?

> "However, the current problems will only be temporary as they have
> arisen from the inevitable lag of legal and moral norms that are
> to regulate and provide some kind of guideline for the speedy
> development of the industry and technology," he remarked.

There shouldn't be a need for established moral norms in order for
parents to deal with some behavior of their child that they don't
find healthy.  And in the case of the people who died from simply
playing too long while sitting in internet cafes -- I'm amazed that
(a) the cafes are apparently open 24 hours a day and (b) that no one
working at the cafe thought to intercede when the guy at table 12
hadn't left the PC for over 26 hours.  Lack of legal precedent is no
excuse for moral responsibility.

> In the past, the game industry played down the seriousness of the
> destructive social aspects of their products to be "isolated" and
> "highly individual" cases.

And, statistically, they still are.

> The industry's decision to correct some detrimental social effects
> is viewed as a response to the widespread negative public opinion
> of online games in general and the government's stern action
> against anti-social elements in such games.

So is the problem the in-game violence leading to RL violence, or
that people are becoming addicted to the games and their lives are
suffering as a result?

This certainly isn't the first instance of potentially addictive
products being targeted at children.  Heck, the business model of
collectible card games like Pokemon practically rely on this.

> Evident social problems caused by the growing number of online
> game addicts aside, the highly competitive nature of some games
> has paved the way for the illegal practice of buying and selling
> online items and accessories for cyber games and even led to scams
> and vicious crimes in the real world. As a result, the government
> classified "Lineage," Korea's single most popular Internet-based
> multi-user game, as only fit for adults, citing the level of
> violence and overly competitive rules of the game as being
> unhealthy for its abundant teenage subscribers.

Ah, here's the meat of it.  So games are, by association, guilty as
charged.  It is just like the FPS/DOOM media hoo-ha here.  Do Korean
schools have PE classes?  And do they participate in competitive
sports in those classes?  What about academic competition?  That's
certainly a big deal in Japan.  And how are these kids paying for
these cyber-products?  I assume they aren't old enough to get credit
cards.

> Handed down by the Korea Media Rating Board last month, the ruling
> was expected to severely undercut the profitability of NCSoft, the
> developer of Lineage, and sent a shockwave through the industry,
> which paid only nominal attention to the social repercussions of
> its products.

So my question is: do game developers have a moral responsibility to
consider the potential social repercussions of their products, and
if so, what can they do to address them?  Is it merely violence in
games that is at issue?  Is it competitive behavior in general?  And
is the potential for addiction a concern?  For subscription-based
games, would it be enough to email a usage log to the bill-payer
each month?  I would like to think that the ultimate responsibility
for addressing these concerns is the concerned party, ie. the
parents, and that they may merely be ignorant of how much time their
child is spending online.


Sean


_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev