South Korea is determining whether AI character chat applications such as Zeta and Crack could be classified under current game rules. This could be when they roll out paid, probability-based features. National Assembly Research Services (NARS) provided a review to the office of Democratic Party lawmaker Lee Jeong-moon on September 21. It demonstrated that AI character chat in their primary form cannot be categorized as games under Game Industry Promotion Act. The legal categorization could change when creators add structured regulations, goals or rewards. The question put forward becomes crucial as users spend paid-in app currency on probability results.
When Could AI Character Chat Apps Count As Games In Korea?
NARS said features such as affection meters, anniversary records and relationship levels do not suffice to make an AI character chat app a game. The classification becomes complex when services introduce mechanics that look like traditional games. These can include level systems, experience points, dice-based results, success-or-failure conditions and branching story endings.
According to the review, the strongest case for game categorization comes when users spend paid currency on a probability-based mechanism and can gain or lose virtual items or currency based on the result. NARS said this structure type is likely to add an AI chat service within the game regulations sphere. It also raises a different question over whether the feature has traits that need examination under gambling rules.
The problem already persists around Crack, an AI character service operated by Wrtn Technologies. In December 2025, Crack launched an event called “ Cracker Baking.” Users spent paid in-app currency for a probability to increase their holdings or lose them. The event was closed shortly after roll out subsequent to concerns about its gambling-like structure.
Why GRAC Ratings Struggle With AI Character Chat Content
NARS said it was strenuous to categorize the event as a gambling game because gains and losses involved in a currency rather than cash or games. The Game Rating and Administration Committee (GRAC), said in August that the blend of player currency and probability-based wins and losses could be a crucial factor when determining such content qualifies as a game. If the content is considered a game, a distinct assessment would then be needed to determine whether it has gambling traits.
The differentiation is particularly relevant as AI character services introduce interactive mechanics alongside their conversational functions. Zeta and Crack are primarily created around conversations with AI characters, but both can include elements such as relationship levels, rewards, and other features.
Why Crack’s Cracker Baking Event Raised Gambling Questions
NARS said AI chat services can be on the same wavelength as games as creators introduce more regulations and result-based systems. However, a single game-like feature does not mean that an AI chat application becomes a governed game. Instead, regulators would need to evaluate the entire structure of the service and how users interact with it.
Paid probability-based features are crucial for gambling-related questions because users are placing something of value at risk in exchange for an ambiguous result. This makes the combination of payment and probability a necessary consideration in evaluating the legal status.
Crack prior “Cracker Baking” event provides an example of this problem. While the feature involved paid in-app currency and uncertain gains or losses, NRS noted the difficulty of treating it outright as a gambling game because the reward involved in-app currency rather than cash. The wider question is becoming more relevant as AI character chat services gain viability in South Korea’s gaming and entertainment markets. Crack operator Wrtn Technologies is the main sponsor of G-Star 2026, the first non-game company to lead Korea’s largest game show, an annual international video game exhibition.
Another regulatory issue comes from the way AI services create content. Conventional games receive ratings before distribution, letting regulators evaluate the content before release. AI services can create new content based on individual conversations. This made it arduous to assess every probable result prior.
That builds a distinct regulatory problem for AI character platforms. Their primary function may be conversational rather than game-based, while extra systems can slowly introduce game features. For now, the newest South Korean review does not categorize AI character chat applications as games across the board. It recognizes certain features that could affect their legal status, with paid currency and probability-based results being necessary factors.
The review leaves the categorization question reliant on how sole services are organized. It also sees how their users interact with paid and outcome-centric mechanisms. There is not a definite legal position covering all AI character chat applications.
