During the parliamentary audit on the 23rd, the issue of 'duplicate rating'—where developers must pay for new ratings when porting games to different platforms—was brought to light. However, as this issue has already been resolved across PC, mobile, and console sectors, the fact-checking of the materials provided by the representative's office is being called into question.

During the Culture, Sports and Tourism Committee audit on the 23rd, Representative Jeong Yeon-wook challenged GRAC Chairman Seo Tae-geon on various aspects of the game rating system. 'Arcade and web-board games require separate reviews per platform,' Jeong argued. 'Charging 3 million won for PC and then double-billing for consoles feels redundant. Why should they pay twice for the same game?'

However, this 'duplicate rating' problem was largely put to rest back in 2020 when the GRAC amended its regulations. Under current rules, if you port a game from PC to mobile or console, your existing rating remains valid. You don't need a fresh review. Chairman Seo confirmed this, stating, 'We do not charge duplicate fees, nor do we issue double billing. Developers can simply check the 'content modification' box to port platforms at no extra cost.'

Of course, arcade and web-board games are a different case due to gambling concerns, making them harder to treat like standard PC or console titles. Because the initial materials from the office failed to specify this distinction, the narrative of 'duplicate rating' has already spread across various media outlets. It is a point of confusion—it leaves the public thinking a problem solved five years ago is still plaguing the industry today.

That said, Representative Jeong did raise some valid points. For instance, the base fee threshold for PC games—set at 300MB—is outdated. He also questioned the logic of charging a 500,000 won 'business trip fee' when the Busan-based GRAC travels to inspect games within Busan itself.

Representative Jeong argued that under current calculations, PC game rating fees could exceed 3 million won. He compared this to the 2.28 million won fee for the blockbuster movie 'Avatar,' which cost 500 billion won to produce, suggesting that the game industry is being squeezed unfairly—a burden he fears will crush the creative spirit of indie developers.

However, comparing a game to a three-hour film is difficult. A three-hour game is considered 'short'; most titles run for ten hours, and some push well over a hundred. While reviewers do check trailers and gameplay footage, the sheer volume of content in a game requires significantly more effort than a standard movie, making direct comparisons somewhat complex.

Chairman Seo responded: 'Our rating fees are roughly 50% to 10% of what you’d see overseas. Furthermore, these fees fund our entire operation—we receive no state funding for rating processes or travel expenses. Every won we collect reduces the burden on the national budget.'

On the subject of on-site inspections, he added, 'In principle, all arcade cabinets should be brought to us. We visit sites as a courtesy. Shipping those massive machines can cost up to 800,000 won round-trip. Even so, if the industry feels the burden, we are willing to work toward more realistic solutions.'