The South Korean Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism (MCST), in partnership with Korea Venture Investment Corp, officially announced the creation of a 731.8 billion KRW (approx. $547 million) content policy fund for 2026. While the fund represents a record-breaking 22% increase from the previous year, the gaming industry—the undisputed powerhouse of Korean content exports—is raising alarms over the lack of a dedicated support plan.
A Disproportional Slice: Film Gets an Account, Games Get a Mention
The most glaring issue for industry insiders is the disparity in how funds are allocated across sectors. The 2026 plan provides highly detailed, independent accounts for the film industry, while the gaming sector remains a secondary thought.
- Dedicated Film Support: The MCST has allocated 81.8 billion KRW specifically for the film sector, including a 56.7 billion KRW fund for main investments in Korean films and a 13.4 billion KRW fund for mid-to-low budget productions.
- The “Etc.” Treatment for Games: In contrast, gaming is lumped into the Culture Technology (CT) Fund (100 billion KRW) and the New Growth Fund (75 billion KRW). In the official documentation, games are only mentioned as part of a list: “Performance, video, games, etc.” No specific investment targets or independent accounts were established for the gaming sector.
The Irony of Export Data
The lack of a “Game-specific Account” is particularly striking when looking at the contribution of games to the Korean economy.
- Export Dominance: As of the first half of 2023, games accounted for a staggering 64% of total content exports, reaching an annual value of roughly $8.4 billion (11 trillion KRW).
- Global Standing: South Korea remains the 4th largest gaming market in the world, trailing only the US, China, and Japan. Despite this, the sector is forced to compete for attention within general IP and export funds against webtoons, dramas, and films.
The “Profitability” Excuse vs. The Indie Crisis
The MCST has defended its decision by citing concerns over the profitability of a dedicated game fund. Lim Seong-hwan, Director General for Media Policy at the MCST, expressed worry that a dedicated account could be jeopardized if it suffered significant losses.
Industry experts were quick to point out the double standard.
“The film fund isn’t inherently more profitable,” argued one official. “In fact, the primary role of a policy fund should be to support the indie and small-to-mid-sized developers that private investors find too risky.”
While giants like Nexon and Krafton have sufficient capital, the “grassroots” of the industry—small indie teams—are struggling. Developing a quality game often requires millions of dollars in upfront costs with no return for 2–3 years, a gap that private capital is increasingly unwilling to bridge in the current economic climate.
Success Stories Driven by Private Capital, Not Policy
The global success of Korean indie games highlights the missed opportunities for government policy.
- SANABI: Developed by five college students, it achieved a 98% “Overwhelmingly Positive” rating on Steam.
- Skul: The Hero Slayer: Became the first Korean indie game to surpass 2 million sales.
- Shape of Dreams: Reached 1 million sales within three months of release.
Notably, these hits succeeded primarily through private investment and publishing support (such as from Neowiz) rather than direct government funding. Critics argue that without a dedicated “Game Account,” many other promising IPs will vanish before they ever reach a publisher, due to a lack of early-stage development capital.
Summary of the 2026 Content Policy Fund
| Category | Fund Scale (KRW) | Targeted Areas |
| IP Fund | 200 Billion | Strategic IP expansion |
| Export Fund | 200 Billion | Global market entry |
| Culture Technology | 100 Billion | R&D in video, performance, and games |
| Film Account | 81.8 Billion | Independent dedicated support |
| New Growth | 75 Billion | Startups, webtoons, games |
As the MCST pushes toward its goal of a “300 trillion KRW K-Culture era,” the gaming industry is calling for more than just slogans. They are demanding a transparent, independent funding structure that reflects the industry’s actual contribution to the national economy.
