[The Editors' Verdict] Probability Disclosure and Verification of Probability-Based Items

Hwang Seong-gi, Professor at Hanyang University Law School.

On February 10, 2022, the Public Hearing on the Comprehensive Amendment to the Game Industry Promotion Act, proposed by Representative Lee Sang-heon of the Democratic Party, was held at the National Assembly's Culture, Sports and Tourism Committee. Although the comprehensive amendment includes various aspects related to the game industry, the discussion at this hearing mainly focused on the legalization of probability disclosure for loot box items.

Probability-based items, which are adopted as a revenue model by many games distributed domestically, typically offer the chance to purchase random boxes for a fee and acquire specific items based on predetermined probabilities. As the platform shifted from PC online games to mobile games, probability-based items have become a primary revenue model not only for domestic but also for overseas operators.

In principle, the probability-based item model should disclose the acquisition probability of specific items so that consumers can decide whether to purchase based on this information. This corresponds to the rights of game users as consumers. However, currently, most domestic games already disclose probabilities in the form of self-regulation, and if probabilities are falsely represented, sanctions such as fines can be imposed by the Fair Trade Commission under related laws like the Act on Labeling and Advertising. Therefore, there is little practical benefit in further legislation.

Perhaps aware of this, the hearing presented stronger opinions than before, such as the need for a “comprehensive survey of probability-based items in all games,” despite the uncertain legal basis and lack of feasibility in the comprehensive amendment. Probability disclosure and verification are entirely different matters, yet they seem to be understood as the same.

Moreover, considering the number of games employing probability-based items, there seems to be no recognition that a “comprehensive survey” is nearly impossible, nor is there any detailed consideration of how to verify probabilities.

According to the “2021 Annual Report on Game Rating and Post-Management” published by the Game Rating and Administration Committee, a total of 984,834 games were rated in 2020. Although not all games adopt probability-based items as a revenue model, given that it is the main revenue model in the current game market, it should be considered physically impossible to check each game for the adoption of probability-based items and verify the probabilities.

Additionally, how to verify probabilities is also problematic. Whether probability-based items are provided according to the stated probabilities requires checking actual implementation and results. However, since tens of thousands of probability-based items can be purchased daily in a single game, verifying each record to confirm acquisition according to probabilities is extremely difficult. Furthermore, as new items appear and existing items are discontinued, probability-based items frequently change according to user needs, making comprehensive verification impossible.

On the other hand, game operators themselves provide such probability-related information, but there is a problem of low trust from game users. Overcoming this and enabling game users to trust the information provided by game operators will ultimately be the way to effectively realize the rights of game users.

In this regard, self-regulation is meaningful. Rather than the government legally resolving everything, it is better for game operators to prepare alternatives themselves, for a neutral self-regulatory organization to monitor this, and sometimes to cooperate with the government through existing laws such as the Act on Labeling and Advertising to provide accurate information to game users. Rather than the practically impossible mandatory probability verification, voluntary probability disclosure and restoring trust in it may be the most effective way to achieve the goals of regulation.

Hwang Seong-gi, Professor, Hanyang University Law School

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.