[hjek]

So it's not just 3 hours per week, it's three specific hours a week, but also only for online games services. It's interesting that the law covers the service, not the client.

Now, I wonder what qualifies as an online game service. If I play correspondence chess over email, would the email host be running an online game service? If someone modifies the Battle of Wesnoth network code to run over IRC messages, would the IRC host be running an online game service? (What about decentralized network game protocols?)

Lots of legal grey areas to explore, like with Phil Zimmerman putting the PGP code in bookform. I'm sure you could find a way to game online without relying on an online game service.

[sushid]

This is a such a classic HN comment:

1. Law does x 2. HN commenter: what about x+y? what about x-1?

The answer to your decentralized chess is that no one would care if it broke the rules or not unless millions of people were hopelessly addicted to it and it warranted a second look.

Your average Zoomer is not interested in decentralized chess or any other gaming service that requires only an intermittent internet connection. I can see local network mobile MOBAs becoming a thing but I'm sure workarounds like that would be eventually squashed as well.

[hjek]

> This is a such a classic HN comment:

Thanks!

> The answer to your decentralized chess is that no one would care if it broke the rules or not unless millions of people were hopelessly addicted to it and it warranted a second look.

Ok, so you'd have a online gaming vacuum for all <18 gamer kids of China. Don't you think someone would make a game or two run over IRC (or SMTP some other protocol) if it meant capturing that entire market? Then it would be millions; and then perhaps authorities would care, and then perhaps herpaps an IRC server could* be "an online gaming platform", which would be interesting and peculiar legally, is what I'm saying.

(What really distinguishes / categorizes something as a game network protocol as distinct from written human language, legally..?)

[nearbuy]

I'm pretty sure if this policy got kids to play chess or Go over IRC, instead of games like League of Legends, the government would call it a big success and pat themselves on the back.

[eunos]

Yes the target should violations occur is game company. Not the parents, or youths.

[beaunative]

The regulation, technically not a law, is meant for companies in the video game industry. If you went length to circumvent the online game definition, no one cares, but if a corporate does that, it would sure trigger investigation.

* Hell, you don't even need to circumvent the defintion if you can get around it technically.

[moulei]

It seems that "online games" include all games can download from the Internet, whether they have a multiplayer component or not. Steam China also includes an "anti-addiction" system, even though the vast majority of games on there are solo game. https://m.jiemian.com/article/4445107_yidian.html

[est]

> If I play correspondence chess over email, would the email host be running an online game service? If someone modifies the Battle of Wesnoth network code to run over IRC messages, would the IRC host be running an online game service? (What about decentralized network game protocols?)

It's simple, Every MMORPG or online-game requires a license. The government can fine your company for violations. If you run games through email or IRC, pray your underground game network doesn't attract attentions.

btw there are tons of "grey" area online game services in China.

[lnyng]

I believe this all comes down to enforcement, which is grey in the first place. It also matters if the game got (maliciously) reported to enforcement agents.

[azernik]

It's impossible to regulate clients - there are too many of them, and they're under direct physical control of minors who are opposed to the regs.

In this as in many things, big central institutions are much easier for a state to work with.