Korean Govt. Gets Behind Serious Games
Korean Govt. Gets Behind Serious Games
May 20, 2009
The Korean government will invest 80 billion won (US$63.52 million) to support the country's growing serious games business, reports Korea IT Times.
If successful, Korea will expand its serious games market by a factor of six by 2012. Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism Yu In-chon commented:
The functional game market is at an early stage, but the market is an emerging blue ocean. The government is going to give support to prompt private investment in that field.
Mervyn Levin of the U.K.'s Serious Games Institute reports on a 2008 visit to Seoul where he observed some of the Korean serious game projects in development:
An interesting Korean Serious Games project was presented by T3 Entertainment on anti-bullying, a subject of obvious relevance to the UK. The title was "Online 'Star Stone' Development for Improvement of Personal Relations".
South Korean University research was also presented demonstrating evidence of the relationship between on-line games and the development of leadership skills in the workplace...
Via: gamesindustry.biz
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGIN / REGISTER
Crispy Gamer
GamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:07pm
JDKJ: No, I did you the favor and said it for you.
JDKJ: No, I did you the favor and said it for you.
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:06pm
Valdearg: What I said was while I may have implied long term accuraccy, and that might have been incorrect, my greater point that the CBO report calculated reduced deficits, expanded coverage, and lower costs is still 100% accurate. :D
Valdearg: What I said was while I may have implied long term accuraccy, and that might have been incorrect, my greater point that the CBO report calculated reduced deficits, expanded coverage, and lower costs is still 100% accurate. :D
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:06pm
Valdearg: Like any good politician, I don't believe I said "I was incorrect." :P
Valdearg: Like any good politician, I don't believe I said "I was incorrect." :P
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:02pm
JDKJ: If you'd said "I was incorrect" 10 shouts ago, I'd have quit twisting your arm to get you see the obvious 10 shouts ago.
JDKJ: If you'd said "I was incorrect" 10 shouts ago, I'd have quit twisting your arm to get you see the obvious 10 shouts ago.
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:00pm
JDKJ: You were they one assuming 100% accuracy. In all caps, no less.
JDKJ: You were they one assuming 100% accuracy. In all caps, no less.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:59am
Valdearg: Yes, my implication that the long term estimates were facts was incorrect, but the short term calculations are absolutely facts, and even the long term estimates are still useful in attempting to determine exactly what will happen with the bill.
Valdearg: Yes, my implication that the long term estimates were facts was incorrect, but the short term calculations are absolutely facts, and even the long term estimates are still useful in attempting to determine exactly what will happen with the bill.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:58am
Valdearg: I do. The Short term costs are actually calculated facts. The long term estimates aren't necessarily 100% accurate, but to assume that they can't possibly be accurate because someone said they might not be 100% accurate is also wrong.
Valdearg: I do. The Short term costs are actually calculated facts. The long term estimates aren't necessarily 100% accurate, but to assume that they can't possibly be accurate because someone said they might not be 100% accurate is also wrong.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:57am
JDKJ: When someone says, "I could be wrong but, as best as I can tell, X," X ain't a fact.
JDKJ: When someone says, "I could be wrong but, as best as I can tell, X," X ain't a fact.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:53am
JDKJ: It's too early in the morning for you to be deaf, blind, and dumb drunk. A "my best guestimate" can't be a fact. Don't you understand the difference between the two?
JDKJ: It's too early in the morning for you to be deaf, blind, and dumb drunk. A "my best guestimate" can't be a fact. Don't you understand the difference between the two?
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:41am
Valdearg: By how much depends on variables that can't necessarily be predicted at this point in time. And yes, those Facts are accurate only so far into the future, but those estimates can certainly be used to support this measure.
Valdearg: By how much depends on variables that can't necessarily be predicted at this point in time. And yes, those Facts are accurate only so far into the future, but those estimates can certainly be used to support this measure.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:40am
Valdearg: And I'm saying, as far as the CBO report goes, the facts that it does put forward are deficit reduction, reducing costs, and expanding costs. Those ARE facts.
Valdearg: And I'm saying, as far as the CBO report goes, the facts that it does put forward are deficit reduction, reducing costs, and expanding costs. Those ARE facts.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:30am
JDKJ: You were the one championing a qualified estimate as an indisputable fact. I'm merely pointing out that it's far from indisputable. So says the estimator.
JDKJ: You were the one championing a qualified estimate as an indisputable fact. I'm merely pointing out that it's far from indisputable. So says the estimator.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:27am
Valdearg: Or are you only breaking that argument out because the CBO says that this bill is a good thing for our deficit?
Valdearg: Or are you only breaking that argument out because the CBO says that this bill is a good thing for our deficit?
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:27am
JDKJ: The CBO says that, to the extent it is possible to accurately predict defict reduction over the long term, it is likely to reduce the deficit. That's your idea of "a fact that don't lie?"
JDKJ: The CBO says that, to the extent it is possible to accurately predict defict reduction over the long term, it is likely to reduce the deficit. That's your idea of "a fact that don't lie?"
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:26am
Valdearg: Would you be singing the same tune if the CBO came back saying that the bill will likely double the deficit in 20 years??
Valdearg: Would you be singing the same tune if the CBO came back saying that the bill will likely double the deficit in 20 years??
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:26am
Valdearg: @JDKJ: Just because there is a margin of error doesn't mean that the numbers aren't at least psudo-accurate.
Valdearg: @JDKJ: Just because there is a margin of error doesn't mean that the numbers aren't at least psudo-accurate.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:25am
Valdearg: The point is that the bill reduces costs, expands coverage, and reduces the deficit.
Valdearg: The point is that the bill reduces costs, expands coverage, and reduces the deficit.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:24am
JDKJ: So why are you off and running with "facts and numbers don't lie" when the very author of the facts and numbers is acknowledging that their facts and numbers could quite easily be wrong?
JDKJ: So why are you off and running with "facts and numbers don't lie" when the very author of the facts and numbers is acknowledging that their facts and numbers could quite easily be wrong?
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:23am
Valdearg: @JDKJ: Indeed, but the 10 year is also showing a deficit reduction, and that's more accurate.
Valdearg: @JDKJ: Indeed, but the 10 year is also showing a deficit reduction, and that's more accurate.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:19am
JDKJ: Val': Isn't the CBO saying at the same time that predicting the long term deficit reduction effect isn't anywhere near an exact science? And that its prediction should be taken with that understanding?
JDKJ: Val': Isn't the CBO saying at the same time that predicting the long term deficit reduction effect isn't anywhere near an exact science? And that its prediction should be taken with that understanding?
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
Incredible. It's sad that I seriously can't imagine the UK government doing the same.
Considering the UK has a difficult enough time accepting the games industry as a legitimate industry worthy of support in any way, yeah this will never happen there.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
Does StarCraft count? In Korea, it's serious business.
Sorry, I had to go there.
Of course it counts. That 80 billion won is obviously for setting a giant LAN party for StarCraft 2 tournaments.
Korean Gov't be funding SERIOUS games! Naht dat Wii shit... I'm talkin 'bout SERIOUS games.
I think you're lost. IGN is that way.
Brace for a flood of copy+paste MMORPGS.
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.