泥中蟠龍's Game愛歌 [A love song for games of the dragon waiting for an opportunity] China's double standard

泥中蟠龍's Game愛歌

[A love song for games of the dragon waiting for an opportunity]

China's double standard

October. 11. 2018.

There is a Korean slang "naero nahmbool". The abbreviation, that seems like an idiom, literally means that “my affair is a romance, but other people's romances are all loved affairs." It is often used to satirize someone who is inconsistent or distorts the same situation to his/her advantage.

 The 2018 BRICS summit was held in South Africa this July. BRICS is the acronym coined for an association of five countries: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. They are major emerging national economies with a large territory, big population, and rich resources. Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, strongly criticized the U.S. in his keynote speech. Xi argued, "While unilateralism and protectionism are increasing over the world, we should be against economic hegemony and power politics." The paramount leader recently repeated his assertion that blaming American unilateralism and monetary hegemony, China—as a key country, builder, and contributor in the current international system—would firmly support multilateralism and liberalize trade and investment. I don't want to stand up for either of both in the China–United States trade war. However, his argument is a typical "naero nahmbool".

 China is the best-known example of pursuing of protectionism. The country has used various ways of non-tariff barriers based on its huge domestic market. Today I'd like to talk about unfair trade practices in the content industry among many other industrial sectors. Tencent, the top Chinese multinational conglomerate, has rapidly grown by publishing imported games in the Chinese on-line gaming market where foreign game companies have been prohibited to directly access it. If Korean game developers could publish their games themselves in China, the world's largest video game company wouldn't have existed. Many internet businesses, that are so profitable by running the mobile games market, also wouldn't have survived if Google would have entered the Chinese market with its Google Play store. South Korean stars have been banned appearing in Chinese TV shows since Hallyu falls victim to Korea-China diplomatic row. A K-drama made by a local drama production company that I invested in is into its second year without passing broadcasting regulations although a Chinese state-owned company laid out the money in and a Chinese actor starred in. Online video-sharing platforms patterned after YouTube is making a big gain because it is blocked in mainland China. The Chinese government has helped the growth of its businesses—Baidu, Alibaba, Weibo, and WeChat, etc.—to build their castle while their competitors—Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, and KakaoTalk, etc.—all have been banned in China. Now Korean games are even excluded from selling by Chinese publishers in China proper. Besides, many Korean companies, that signed a contract with Chinese businesses, suffered from economic difficulties or ended up declaring bankruptcy after receiving notice of the cancellation of the contract or rejection of deliberation. It's not making news anymore.

 We should be against the economic hegemony and power politics of China as long as it pursues its protectionism and unilateralism. China is not a responsible country despite its economic power and doesn't play a vital role in the current international system. China's claim about the US hegemony is far from a romance. It is only a play-the-victim love affair.

 

※ This is from Kyunghyang Games column by 泥中蟠龍 since September 2013.

   (http://www.khgames.co.kr)

   Translation by Kim Ki-hui

泥中蟠龍's Game愛歌 [A love song for games of the dragon waiting for an opportunity] True journalist or presstitute

泥中蟠龍's Game愛歌

[A love song for games of the dragon waiting for an opportunity]

True journalist or presstitute

September. 27. 2018.

The price rises quickly but declines slowly, which seems to apply to various goods in the market. Companies, that increase the price of products they sell as soon as possible under the justifications, on the other hand, make all kinds of excuses for keeping the price high as long as possible. This is common in the market economy and I understand the businesses' position although I don't think it's right and just.

 The media is bitterly criticizing the government's economic policies. I've seen a lot of critical articles where the South Korean government is going against the flow, citing U.S. big businesses that perform well and even have trouble recruiting workers. Ironically, only a few years ago, they praised mythic "trickle-down effect" and insisted that the government must support large enterprises. There was no outcome over the past decade and no one apologized for what they wrote about.

 I read a ridiculous article where there is no way to protect management control and preserve corporate governance if the voting rights of conglomerate chairmen will be limited. The right given to corporate leaders doesn't need to be defended. There is no reason to help them exercise their vote. Native advertising—articles paid for and/or written by a brand that lives on a publisher’s site—that advocates chairmen's rights even mentioning the introduction of tenure voting—which gives the long-term shareholder additional voting right and dividend—makes me annoying because it gives readers significant confusion as to what constitutes an article and what makes up an ad. A South Korean media outlet published a net neutrality-related article where the right to telecommunications operator's property—telecommunications equipment—should be protected, on the other hand, ironically, argued that shareholder's voting rights should be limited in another article. It would be more like adperson, rather than a journalist.

 It's been a little over a year since the new government was inaugurated. As I mentioned earlier, a government policy against corporate's interests is slowly reflected. Companies especially increase their efforts to delay adopting the new one against the policymaker's decision when it comes to the policy that incurs an immediate loss. A fast-acting drug is like narcotics. It works fast but has big side effects. The press urged regulation of video games considering a disease in the same category as drug addiction and now asks the government for the drug-like immediate impact of its policies, which is a comedy. Numerous game developers have been growing under various regulations over the years. The press never supported the gaming industry when it went through a difficult time, however, now is siding with their advertisers against government regulations and policies.

 The impact of a new policy is not instant. It especially takes longer to infringe on the privileges of minority vested interest. I'd like to give some presstitutes advice to stop running native ads neglecting the fundamental duty to report new impartially before mentioning Koreans' short-tempered nature. A reporter, who runs an article-like ad, is no longer a true journalist. Video games and drugs shouldn't be treated equally and piece-of-garbage articles should be regulated. I support the government to apply medicine that improves its constitution while it would take a long time. Plus, I wish the game industry promotion policy could be together.

 

※ This is from Kyunghyang Games column by 泥中蟠龍 since September 2013.

   (http://www.khgames.co.kr)

   Translation by Kim Ki-hui

泥中蟠龍's Game愛歌 [A love song for games of the dragon waiting for an opportunity] Video game and the separation of banking and commerce

泥中蟠龍's Game愛歌

[A love song for games of the dragon waiting for an opportunity]

Video game and the separation of banking and commerce

September. 12. 2018.

Recently, I read an article on the subject of ease regulations on the separation of banking and commerce and video game by Kim Sang-Hyun, an executive editor in our paper. In the article, he was full of hope for positive effects: game developers such as Netmarble and Nexon run an online bank—internet-only bank, which can boost the local gaming industry thanks to ample capital and financing. I also completely agree with him about the aggressive investment in domestic games. But I do oppose to ease banking-commerce separation per se so that I'd like to deal with it this week's column.

 What does the term mean? It means that industrial capital should be separated from banking capital; banks are not allowed to affiliate with other businesses. Separation of industrial and financial capital is analogous to the principle. It means that industrial capital should be separated from financial capital; businesses are restricted from owning not a bank alone, but an insurance company or securities, etc. The word "regulation" generally implies quite a negative connotation such as "control" or "oppression". And most regulations are accompanied by criticism and opposition due to their ineffectiveness and inconveniences. It is hard to deny regulations are ineffective and inconvenient. So, why are the regulations made?

 Regulations are commonly used as a way to diminish the risk. The key lies in how to maintain their low-risk efficiency. If we can go across the road wherever we want, it would be very convenient and efficient. But jaywalking is regulated by law. Because it's too dangerous.

 While industry fields related to FinTech are globally in the limelight in recent years, we have often heard that restrictions on the separation of banking and commerce retards the development of financial technology-connected sectors only in South Korea. I partly admit it. However, I don't think that the growth of fintech-linked industries is positively necessary as much as we take risks to ease regulations on the separation of banking and commerce. I'd rather say that we need the separation of industrial and financial capital. About a 0.01 percent chance of accidents can be 100 percent if I, unfortunately, have an accident. There was a smaller savings bank-related financial crime in 2011. The amount of damage by the authorities was estimated at almost 7 trillion won. We hardly imagine how much damage a large bank will get by a financial irregularity. It's easy to lift restrictions but reregulation is harder than creating new regulations.

 Many CEOs of smaller video game companies say that it's difficult to let their employees follow workplace rules. They add that there are lots of backlash against new administrative rules. And the workers get used to the rules and the controversy is abated somewhat over time. However, chief executives would be the face of stronger resistance by the staff when they try to bring an abolished policy back. This seems to be the case for the separation of banking and commerce. It wouldn't be easier to strengthen the regulation again once the government moved toward deregulation for one reason or another. We deposit money with a bank because we believe that it is safe. Someone, who prefer the high-risk high return, may choose to invest in stocks, futures, or option, etc. Another would go to casinos for higher risks higher returns. A representative, who completely ruined a game project where many people got involved in due to a small number of troubled employees, would heartily agree with what I say. Screw up and one's way home is long and dark.

 

※ This is from Kyunghyang Games column by 泥中蟠龍 since September 2013.

   (http://www.khgames.co.kr)

   Translation by Kim Ki-hui