With reference to South Korean law, this paper explores the possibility of codifying and enforcing the proposed measures as law and argues that overly paternalistic regulations are insensible and impractical. This paper argues that the proposed measures are unlikely to be widely adopted by the video game industry, given the industry’s economic interests in the continued unhindered implementation of predatory monetisation their preference for continued ‘self-regulation’ and their past resistance against potential regulation. This paper rectifies a game example mistakenly used by King and Delfabbro and provides further game examples to illustrate, critique and extend the proposed measures. King and Delfabbro (2019) proposed the adoption of social responsibility measures to combat predatory monetisation in video games, such as loot boxes. This paper recommends the use of regulatory nudging to encourage video game companies through incentives, such as discretionary grants and tax relief schemes, to adopt the proposed social responsibility measures and develop towards an ethical game design framework. This paper argues that the proposed measures are unlikely to be widely adopted by the video game industry, given the industry’s economic interests in the continued unhindered implementation of predatory monetisation, their preference for continued ‘self-regulation’ and their past resistance against potential regulation. King and Delfabbro (2019b) proposed the adoption of social responsibility measures to combat predatory monetisation in video games, such as loot boxes.

Hex shards of fate failing