In this blog post, we’ll examine the problem of video game addiction, the limitations of the shutdown system, and potential alternatives.

Gaming Addiction and the Emergence of the Shutdown Policy

If you’re in your 20s or older these days, you’ve probably had at least one experience of getting completely absorbed in a game. Games that once fueled the PC bang craze include Rainbow Six, StarCraft, and Diablo II; even people who don’t play games have likely heard of these titles at least once. I, too, enjoyed a variety of games, but I spent my teenage years especially immersed in StarCraft. Although it’s now just a memory, playing StarCraft with friends back then was a matter of pride.
However, while moderate gaming can become a shared memory across generations, excessive immersion can lead to addiction. Since gaming is, after all, an activity that takes place in a virtual space, becoming overly absorbed in games rather than reality can lead to losing touch with one’s real self or a decline in social skills. These issues have been consistently raised for a long time through various media outlets and research studies.
As one of the policies aimed at addressing these issues, South Korea introduced the “shutdown system” in 2011. The shutdown system was a regulation that restricted online gaming for minors under a certain age between midnight and 6:00 a.m. At the time, the intent was to prevent excessive gaming among minors by forcibly limiting their access during late-night hours. However, since its implementation, the system has been mired in controversy over its effectiveness and alleged infringement of fundamental rights; following extensive public debate, it was abolished in 2021. At the time, I believed the Shutdown System had two fundamental flaws that made it difficult to achieve its original purpose, and for these reasons, I viewed it as unlikely to serve as a fundamental solution to the problem of gaming addiction.
First, I believe the very way the shutdown system was operated was ineffective in preventing excessive gaming. The system restricted gaming only between midnight and 6:00 a.m. To put it bluntly, it could not prevent adolescents from continuing to play games before midnight or after 6:00 a.m. Realistically, students find it difficult to play games while at school, and parents can manage gaming to some extent at home when they are present. Therefore, an approach that takes school life and the home environment into account may be more effective than simply restricting specific late-night hours.
However, changing the restricted hours to 6:00 p.m. to midnight could excessively restrict adolescents’ right to pursue happiness and their freedom of privacy. Consequently, I believe it is more reasonable to limit the total daily gaming time to a certain level rather than uniformly blocking access during specific hours. For example, we could consider limiting continuous play to a maximum of 2 hours and total daily play to no more than 3 hours.
However, even if limiting maximum gaming time as described above is more effective than the shutdown system, it is still unlikely to be a complete solution. This is because it is difficult to accurately verify the true identities of gamers accessing games via the internet from private residences. At the time, the shutdown system relied on verifying users’ identities through resident registration numbers. Specifically, to identify minors under a certain age, users were required to enter their resident registration number and name upon signing up for a game; however, this method proved largely ineffective. In particular, for adolescents who were excessively immersed in gaming, it was not difficult to use their parents’ resident registration numbers to play games.
Furthermore, large-scale personal data breaches in the past significantly eroded trust in the method of verifying users’ identities using only their names and resident registration numbers. Ultimately, there were limitations to accurately identifying minors under a certain age using only resident registration numbers and names, and the technology to fully replace this method had not yet been sufficiently developed at the time. Therefore, it can be argued that this method alone was insufficient to effectively address the problem of excessive gaming among minors.

The Importance of Parental Guidance and the Limitations of the Shutdown System

Clearly, excessive gaming among minors is a problem that society must address. However, an approach that relies solely on the shutdown system—which lacks sufficient effectiveness—is unlikely to serve as a fundamental solution. So, what methods can prevent excessive gaming among minors as an alternative to the shutdown system? I believe this problem can be approached from two main directions: one within the home, and the other outside the home.
First, the most important way to prevent excessive gaming within the home is through family education—specifically, strengthening parental education. While this may seem like a familiar solution, a new policy does not necessarily equate to a better solution. Rather, it is more important to accurately identify the root causes of the problem and devise fundamental solutions.
The “shutdown system” was introduced after the issue of excessive gaming among adolescents gained prominence as a social concern. As various broadcasters and media outlets reported on severe cases of excessive gaming, public interest grew, prompting the government to implement the shutdown system as a new policy. However, I believe this approach is somewhat simplistic. Rather than adopting the approach of “Let’s forcibly block games because gaming addiction is a problem,” it would be a more comprehensive and effective strategy to first analyze why adolescents become excessively immersed in games and then address the root causes.
So why does gaming addiction occur among adolescents? Of course, the causes vary from person to person, but I believe the home environment is also one of the key factors. Speaking from personal experience, many of my friends who were overly dependent on games during my teenage years often came from families where both parents worked, or where they did not receive sufficient attention and care at home. Of course, this does not apply to every case, but a healthy home environment and appropriate education can play a crucial role in preventing excessive gaming among adolescents.
In this regard, I believe that excessive gaming among adolescents and school violence share a common underlying context—namely, the home environment and education—which must be examined together. Simply strengthening punishments or regulations will not solve the problem. While policies that impose harsher penalties to reduce school violence may be effective to some extent, in the long run, a healthy family environment and social environment must be fostered together. The same applies to the issue of excessive gaming.
In the past, it was argued that excessive gaming was a cause of school violence. Of course, various studies have been conducted on the possibility that highly violent games may increase aggression in some users. However, based on a synthesis of research findings to date, it is difficult to conclusively identify gaming itself as a direct cause of school violence. Rather, it is understood that a complex interplay of various factors—such as an individual’s psychological state, family environment, peer relationships, and school life—is at play. Therefore, simply because gaming addiction and school violence occur simultaneously does not mean that gaming is the direct cause of school violence; such a conclusion may be an overly simplistic interpretation of causality.
In what direction should family education be improved? In the past, TV programs such as “Our Child Has Changed” garnered significant attention. These programs documented the process of identifying and resolving the causes of problem behavior in children; in many cases, however, the root of the problem was found not in the children themselves but in their parents’ parenting styles. Some even remarked that the program’s title could just as easily have been changed to “Our Parents Have Changed” without sounding out of place.
As such, proper family education begins with the role of parents, and parent education and family education are inextricably linked. Parent education can be helpful not only for parents who hold misconceptions about raising children but also for those who are unable to devote sufficient attention to their children due to circumstances such as both parents working. To this end, various parent education programs should be operated at the community and school levels to promote desirable parenting methods, and schools must also strive to carefully monitor students’ home environments and living conditions.
While specific implementation plans must be reviewed and developed by experts in the relevant fields, my argument is that redirecting the administrative resources and funding currently devoted to one-size-fits-all regulations—such as the “shutdown system”—toward improving home environments and supporting parent education would be a more effective long-term policy.

Approaches Outside the Home and Improving the Gaming Environment

I believe that institutional oversight of the environment in internet cafes is necessary to address the problem of excessive gaming outside the home. While I explained earlier that improving the home environment is crucial for preventing school violence, this does not mean that punishment or institutional measures are entirely unnecessary. A certain level of institutional support and oversight is also essential. The same applies to the issue of excessive gaming. However, I do not believe that such measures should take the form of a “shutdown system.”
Policies should support the strengthening of parental education and family education within the home, while outside the home, measures to manage the PC bang environment more systematically through institutional frameworks should be considered. There are two main approaches to institutional management of PC bangs.
First is ensuring stricter compliance with existing regulations governing youth access. Currently, South Korea has regulations in place regarding minors’ late-night access to PC bangs, and business operators are obligated to comply with them. Therefore, rather than treating these regulations as a mere formality, it is necessary to strengthen management and supervision to ensure they are thoroughly enforced on the ground.
Second is a measure to limit the amount of time minors spend playing games at PC cafes. As explained earlier, if minors’ identities can be accurately verified, limiting the maximum daily gaming time could be more effective than the shutdown system. Since PC cafes can verify users’ identities during the entry process, this approach is relatively easy to implement.
From a technical standpoint, managing gaming time is far more feasible now than in the past given current systems. However, such measures must be implemented without infringing on users’ personal information or privacy, and it is preferable to adopt methods that do not generate unnecessary usage records. For example, a system that automatically calculates gaming time and restricts further use after a certain period would achieve the policy’s objectives while minimizing privacy intrusions. If such a system is properly implemented, it could also help young people naturally redirect the time they spend at PC cafes toward exercise or other leisure activities.
We have examined the limitations of the shutdown system and potential alternatives. Although these alternatives may not represent groundbreaking new policies, I believe it is more important to enhance the effectiveness of existing systems and to analyze the causes of gaming addiction more accurately in order to develop appropriate countermeasures.
Rather than applying ineffective regulations across the board, it is preferable to comprehensively analyze the various causes of gaming addiction and establish policies tailored to those causes. In particular, the shutdown system has already been abolished, and a wider range of policies—such as the parental choice system, self-regulated usage management, digital literacy education, and counseling and treatment support—are now being discussed. The issue of excessive gaming also requires comprehensive measures involving families, schools, and society as a whole, rather than being solved by a single policy.
Most things closely tied to our daily lives have both positive and negative aspects. Video games have now established themselves as a form of content that represents culture and leisure, and they play an important role in education, sports, and industry as well. Therefore, rather than viewing video games themselves negatively, it is most important to prevent excessive engagement and create an environment that promotes healthy use. Only then can video games continue to create even more positive value as childhood memories, wholesome leisure activities, and new cultural content.