The gaming industry in China encountered a seismic jolt as the National Press and Publication Administration released the draft of the “Network Game Management Measures” on December 22, soliciting public feedback.

These proposed regulations aimed to overhaul various facets of the gaming industry, spanning game modes, monetization methods, licensing, content guidelines, and strategies to curb addiction.

The market response was swift and punishing. During the afternoon session of December 22, the stock market witnessed a tumultuous downturn. Notably, major players like Tencent and NetEase faced a substantial plummet, with Tencent’s shares plunging by 12.35% and NetEase’s by a staggering 24.60%. The combined market value wiped out exceeded 450 billion yuan (approximately USD 63 billion) within a single day.

Zhang Wei, Vice President of Gaming at Tencent, struck a note of cautious optimism amidst the chaos, indicating that the draft regulations wouldn’t fundamentally disrupt the gaming ecosystem. He emphasized that regulatory engagement with industry and societal feedback could potentially foster a more structured and healthy evolution of the gaming domain.

However, the market repercussions were far-reaching. Beyond giants like Tencent and NetEase, smaller companies in the A-share market, including Glacial Network, ZQGame, Baotong Technology, and Sino-i Technology, experienced significant declines. Sell-offs ensued swiftly, with institutions hastening to divest from these struggling stocks.

A recent report from People’s Daily highlighted the robust growth of China’s gaming industry in 2023. The sector achieved record-breaking sales revenue, surpassing 300 billion yuan for the first time, with a user base of 668 million and mobile gaming sales soaring by 17.51% year-on-year.

The potential impact of these regulations looms large over the industry. Daniel Camilo, a gaming consultant, emphasized concerns over the prevalent “pay-to-win” models in many games by Tencent and NetEase, stating that these monetization structures could be directly affected. He pointed out the necessity for restructuring and the potential removal of certain games from stores.

Despite this turbulence, Vigo Zhang from Tencent Games pledged strict adherence to any new regulatory requirements, acknowledging the ongoing focus on fostering reasonable business models and operating patterns. He highlighted the declining expenditure and time spent by minors on Tencent’s games since 2021, aligning with Beijing’s prioritization of safeguarding younger players.

The ramifications of these regulatory overhauls reverberated beyond the gaming sphere, causing fluctuations in Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index, which saw a significant drop of more than 4% at one point.

One critical alteration proposed in the draft rules involves expediting the approval process for games within a 60-day timeframe. Additionally, game publishers would be mandated to house their data servers within China, a move aimed at controlling and safeguarding user data within the country’s borders.

As the gaming industry braces for potential restructuring and adaptation to comply with these impending regulations, the short-term repercussions have been dire, especially for smaller publishers. The uncertainty looms large, leaving stakeholders in anticipation of how these measures might reshape China’s gaming industry in the long run.

Contrary to popular belief, the gap between rich and poor continues to get smaller. This is the main argument of a new book by economist Steven Pinker, who claims that the world is becoming more equal and prosperous than ever before. I will examine some of the evidence and arguments that Pinker presents and evaluate how convincing they are.

Pinker’s main source of data is the World Bank, which tracks various indicators of poverty, inequality, and human development across countries and regions. The World Bank data is based on household surveys, national accounts, and other sources that measure the income and consumption of people around the world.

The World Bank uses a standard poverty line of $1.90 per day, which is adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP) to reflect the different costs of living in different countries. The World Bank also calculates the Gini coefficient, which is a measure of how evenly income is distributed within a country or region. A Gini coefficient of zero means perfect equality, while a Gini coefficient of one means perfect inequality.

According to Pinker, the World Bank data shows that the global poverty rate has fallen from 42% in 1981 to 10% in 2015, meaning that more than a billion people have escaped extreme poverty in the past three decades.

Moreover, Pinker argues that the global income distribution has become more equal, as the share of income going to the richest 1% has declined from 16% in 1980 to 14% in 2016. He also points out that other measures of well-being, such as health, education, democracy, and human rights, have improved significantly for most people around the world.

Pinker’s optimistic view of global progress is not shared by everyone. Some critics have challenged his use and interpretation of the World Bank data, arguing that he ignores important nuances and limitations of the statistics. For example, some scholars have argued that the global poverty line of $1.90 per day is too low and arbitrary, and that using a higher threshold would show a much larger and persistent number of poor people in the world.

Others have pointed out that the global income distribution is still highly skewed and unfair, as the richest 1% still own more than half of the world’s wealth, and that income inequality within countries has increased in many cases.

Furthermore, some critics have questioned Pinker’s causal claims about the drivers of global progress, suggesting that he overstates the role of free markets and liberal democracy, and understates the role of social movements and public policies.

Pinker’s book offers a provocative and controversial perspective on the state of the world today. While he presents some compelling evidence and arguments to support his claim that the gap between rich and poor is getting smaller, he also faces some serious challenges and criticisms from alternative viewpoints. Ultimately, the debate about global inequality and progress is not only about facts and figures, but also about values and visions for the future.