Risk of Gaming Disorders in Adolescents: A Multiperspective

Framework for Video Games Development

Federica Caruso

1 a

, Sara Peretti

2 b

, Maria Chiara Pino

3 c

and Tania Di Mascio

1 d

Department of Information Engineering, Computer Science and Mathematics, University of L’Aquila, L’Aquila, Italy

Center of Excellence DEWS, University of L’Aquila, L’Aquila, Italy

Department of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L’Aquila, L’Aquila, Italy

Keywords:

Adolescence, Gaming Disorders, Video Game Development, Framework, Developers Education.

Abstract:

Adolescents face a high risk of gaming disorder due to neurodevelopmental imbalances. Despite its increasing

prevalence, awareness of this issue in video game development remains limited. Existing frameworks prior-

itize business-driven engagement over gamers well-being, lacking integration of psychological insights. To

address this gap, we propose a multiperspective framework that incorporates psychological and developmen-

tal considerations into video game design. This framework aims to guide developers in creating engaging yet

responsible games for adolescents, balancing entertainment with the need to mitigate gaming disorder risks.

Currently under development, it is intended to evolve into a practical tool for game developers.

1 INTRODUCTION

With the rapid advancement of digital technology,

video games have emerged as a dominant form of

interactive entertainment worldwide (Shliakhovchuk,

2024). By 2024, the global gaming population sur-

passed 3 billion, with 92.4% of gamers being adoles-

cents (Statista, 2025). While video games can en-

hance cognitive abilities and provide entertainment

(Li et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2024) excessive gam-

ing has become a growing concern, leading to po-

tential mental and physical health issues (Satapa-

thy et al., 2024). For some individuals, gaming is

purely recreational, but for others, it results in neg-

ative consequences severe enough to cause functional

impairment (Kir

aly et al., 2023). Recognizing this,

the World Health Organization (WHO) ofﬁcially in-

cluded Gaming Disorder (GD) in the 11th revision

of the International Classiﬁcation of Diseases (WHO,

2025); GD is deﬁned as a persistent or recurrent pat-

tern of gaming behavior that escalates despite nega-

tive consequences. (WHO, 2019). The global preva-

lence of GD is estimated to range between 3.05% and

4.6%, with adolescents and males being the most af-

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6167-3896

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9784-5816

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2657-2122

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8069-1168

fected groups (Grifﬁths et al., 2025). In Europe,

approximately 20% of adolescents exhibit signs of

GD (Colasante et al., 2022).

Adolescence itself is a critical risk factor for the

onset of GD due to ongoing neurobiological develop-

ment (Casey et al., 2019; Ravindranath et al., 2024).

During this period, the brain undergoes signiﬁcant

structural and functional changes, with the prefrontal

cortex—the region responsible for executive function

and decision-making—maturing last, often not reach-

ing full development until the age of 30 (Friedman

and Robbins, 2022). In contrast, the limbic system,

which governs emotions, motivation, and reward pro-

cessing, matures earlier, leading to an imbalance that

makes adolescents more susceptible to risk-taking be-

haviors and addiction (Kumar and Jha, 2024). Addi-

tionally, the adolescent brain exhibits heightened ac-

tivity in the dopaminergic reward system, which rein-

forces behaviors associated with instant gratiﬁcation,

including gaming (Dahl, 2004). The consequences

of GD can be severe, affecting vision, sleep, and

mental health while fostering social isolation (Kir

aly

et al., 2015). Despite these concerns, there are cur-

rently no speciﬁc guidelines for preventing GD. Exist-

ing recommendations for caregivers focus on limiting

screen time and encouraging breaks rather than ad-

dressing the underlying design elements of games that

contribute to addiction (Petry, 2019). Furthermore,

838

Caruso, F., Peretti, S., Pino, M. C. and Di Mascio, T.

Risk of Gaming Disorders in Adolescents: A Multiperspective Framework for Video Games Development.

DOI: 10.5220/0013467600003932

In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2025) - Volume 2, pages 838-845

ISBN: 978-989-758-746-7; ISSN: 2184-5026

within the video game industry, awareness of GD re-

mains low or unacknowledged (Petrovskaya and Zen-

dle, 2021). This lack of awareness can be attributed to

two main factors. First, game development rarely in-

corporates psychological expertise, leading to a fail-

ure in assessing the risks associated with game me-

chanics (Heinzen et al., 2015; Sachu et al., 2024).

Second, the industry prioritizes user engagement and

monetization, often employing mechanics designed

to maximize playtime at the expense of gamer well-

being (King and Delfabbro, 2019). Many of these

mechanics, such as loot boxes, mimic gambling be-

haviors and promote compulsive play.

Despite efforts from the Human-Computer Inter-

action (HCI) community to promote ethical game de-

sign (Aagaard et al., 2022), the dominant frameworks

used in game development remain focused on struc-

tural and business-driven aspects (McKenzie et al.,

2021; Junior and Silva, 2021). These frameworks

rarely integrate psychological perspectives, leaving

developers without guidance on minimizing GD risks.

To address these gaps, this paper start with Section 2

presenting background information. Section 3, pro-

poses a multiperspective framework designed to sup-

port developers in creating games that maintain bal-

ance between engagement and risks associated with

GD. Formative evaluation and the conclusions in Sec-

tions 4 and 5.

2 BACKGROUND

Game development is a complex, multidisciplinary

ﬁeld that requires the integration of multiple perspec-

tives to address its inherent challenges (Borg et al.,

2019). These perspectives include insights from psy-

chology, practical development methodologies, theo-

retical frameworks, and regulatory strategies, all of

which contribute to understanding and managing the

risks associated with video games (McKenzie et al.,

2021). However, the fragmented application of these

perspectives has resulted in signiﬁcant gaps, particu-

larly in addressing the risks of GD among adolescent

gamers (Sachu et al., 2024; Rehbein et al., 2024).

Psychologists have been studying the structural

characteristics of video games that contribute to GD

since the early 2000s (e.g., (Harrigan et al., 2010;

King et al., 2010)). Research has identiﬁed key el-

ements such as variable reward schedules, achieve-

ment systems, and social competition as signiﬁcant

factors in compulsive gaming behaviors (King et al.,

2010). More recent studies have explored how these

game mechanics interact with psychological vulner-

abilities, reinforcing compulsive gaming tendencies

(e.g. (Rehbein et al., 2021; Saini and Hodgins, 2023)).

A Risk Characteristics Checklist for Games was de-

veloped to assess the potential for GD based on game

mechanics. However, this checklist is retrospective,

meaning it can only evaluate a game after its devel-

opment, rather than guiding developers in designing

safer games from the outset (Rehbein et al., 2024)

From a practical standpoint, the current game

development process primarily integrates technical

workﬂows, creative design, and business priorities.

Developers use Agile methodologies (e.g., Scrum,

Kanban) to structure their workﬂows, but these frame-

works do not address psychological risks (McKen-

zie et al., 2021; Shrestha et al., 2025). Even spe-

cialized models like the Game Development Life Cy-

cle (GDLC) remain software-centric and fail to ac-

count for the mental health impact of game mechan-

ics (Ramadan and Widyani, 2013), Redeﬁning MDA

(RMDA) (Junior and Silva, 2021) provides concep-

tual guidance but lacks practical implementation sup-

port for addressing GD risks (Rehbein et al., 2021).

At the policy level, various countries have imple-

mented regulatory measures to limit addictive gaming

features, such as loot box bans in Belgium and play-

time restrictions in China and South Korea (Chambers

and Partners, 2024; China Legal Experts, 2025; BBC

News, 2018). However, these policies do not address

the root problem: the absence of a multi-perspective

approach in game development. Additionally, game

developers receive little education on the psycho-

logical implications of their design choices (Gil and

Arnedo-Moreno, 2020; Shrestha et al., 2025). While

HCI research has begun promoting the integration

of GD risks into game design training, these ef-

forts remain in their early stages (Gil and Arnedo-

Moreno, 2020; Aagaard et al., 2022). Given the so-

cial, health, and economic impact of GD, there is an

urgent need for a new approach that balances game

engagement with mental health considerations. Next

section presents a multiperspective framework pro-

viding structured guidance for developers in creating

video games that are engaging yet mindful of the risks

associated with GD.

3 THE MULTIPERSPECTIVE

FRAMEWORK

The multiperspective framework is developed it-

eratively using a user-centered design (UCD) ap-

proach (Norman and Draper, 1986) to address video

game developers’ attitudes and needs. A multidisci-

plinary team, including two researchers in computer

science (HCI, game design) and two in developmental

Risk of Gaming Disorders in Adolescents: A Multiperspective Framework for Video Games Development

839

and educational psychology, leads the process. The

ﬁrst iteration is underway; it focuses on establish-

ing the main stages of the game development process,

identifying key aspects and elements, assessing their

impact on GD risks, and analyzing their interrelation-

ships. In particular, understanding user needs con-

sisted of a comprehensive literature analysis, partially

detailed in Sec. 2; deﬁning system requirements iden-

tiﬁed critical stages and elements in game develop-

ment; designing and implementing solutions outlines

the framework, presented in Sec. 3.1; and evaluating

the ﬁrst version refers to a formative evaluation, as

reported in Sec 4. Future iterations will introduce a

software tool based on the proposed multiperspective

framework, to support development workﬂows, of-

fering real-time recommendations and automated risk

assessments to further enhance responsible game de-

sign.

3.1 Framework Description

The multiperspective framework (shown in Fig. 1)

is structured into four sequential levels, covering key

stages of the game development process(Ramadan

and Widyani, 2013): Target Audience, Abstract

Level, Concrete Level, and Actual Level. These lev-

els, along with their related aspects and elements, are

outlined below:

TARGET AUDIENCE refers to the audience anal-

ysis activity in the pre-production stage of game de-

velopment. It includes key demographic elements

(e.g., Age, Biological Sex, Gender, Nationality, Cul-

ture) and target users’ needs and behaviors, consider-

ing Disabilities or Diseases, and Baseline knowledge.

ABSTRACT LEVEL refers to the ideation and

conceptual design activity in the pre-production stage

of game development, focusing on deﬁning the

game’s overarching abstract vision. It includes el-

ements for understanding and deﬁning the Serious

Aspects (i.e., those requiring careful psychological

evaluation during conceptual design) and Gaming

Aspects (i.e., elements shaping gameplay). Focus-

ing on Serious Aspects, its elements can be divided

into two primary groups. The ﬁrst, Well-Being Fac-

tors, includes both Cognitive and Emotional Fac-

tors and Psychophysical Factors, which may be in-

ﬂuenced by or have an impact on the next game-

play design. Cognitive and Emotional Factors ad-

dress psychological and behavioral elements critical

to the target audience (i.e., Adolescence), encompass-

ing sub-elements such as Craving, Sensation Seek-

ing, Emotional Regulation, Coping, and, notably, Ad-

diction. Meanwhile, Psychophysical Factors focus

on physical health concerns, including Obesity, Sleep

Disorders, Vision Problems, and Hearing Problems.

The second, the Stimulation Plan, encompasses el-

ements such as Play Time, Play Space, and Play

Supervision, which establish boundaries and guide-

lines for the gaming experience to ensure the video

game under design promotes a healthy gaming ex-

perience. Focusing on Gaming Aspects, it encom-

passes all elements shaping the game’s structure and

gameplay, including Game Genre, Rules, and Core

Mechanics. The latter is divided into Physics, Pro-

gression, Social Interaction, Tactical Maneuvering,

Internal Economy, and Rewards and Punishment Me-

chanics. In addition, Gaming Aspects include the

Game World—comprising the Scenario, Characters

(playable and non-playable), and Storyline—as well

as the Tutorial, which can be explicit or implicit.

CONCRETE LEVEL refers to the ideation and

concept design activity in the pre-production stage of

game development, transitioning from abstract con-

ceptual design to a more concrete focus. This level

deﬁnes key elements, including the technology used

to deliver the game (Technological Aspects) and how

it is presented and interacted with (Presentation As-

pects). Focusing on Technological Aspects, it in-

cludes Technological Devices, comprising Input De-

vices (e.g., mouse, keyboards, controllers, touchpads)

and Output Devices (e.g., smartphones, computers,

head-mounted displays). It also considers Technolog-

ical Drawbacks, referring to limitations or adverse

effects of speciﬁc technologies (e.g., cybersickness

from head-mounted displays). Focusing on Presenta-

tion Aspects, it includes elements shaping the gamer’s

experience. Sensory Elements, such as visual and au-

ditory components, form the User Interface. The In-

teraction Model deﬁnes how gamers engage with the

game world and characters (e.g., Avatar-based, Desk-

top, or Party-based interaction). The Camera Model

determines the gamer’s perspective, either personal

(e.g., ﬁrst-person, third-person) or impersonal (e.g.,

isometric, top-down). Lastly, the Navigation Mecha-

nism speciﬁes movement within the game world (e.g.,

Rail Movement, Point-and-Click navigation).

ACTUAL LEVEL refers to prototyping, technical

implementation, testing, and evaluation activities car-

ried out during the production and post-production

stages, culminating in the actual realization of the

video game. This level focuses on deﬁning elements

related to Implementation Aspects and Evaluation

Aspects. Focusing on Implementation Aspects, it en-

compasses elements related to both Prototype and

Full Software implementation. Speciﬁcally, Proto-

type includes elements such as the Level of Interac-

tion (high-ﬁdelity or low-ﬁdelity prototype) and the

Type of Prototype (paper-and-pencil, 3D model, or

CSEDU 2025 - 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

840

software). Full Software, on the other hand, involves

elements essential for software implementation, such

as the Programming Language, the Game Engine, the

Graphics and Rendering Pipeline, and the develop-

ment of Artiﬁcial Intelligence. Focusing on Evalua-

tion Aspects, it encompasses elements such as Eval-

uation Type (expert-based, user-based, or software-

oriented) and Evaluation Focus (Usability, Risks as-

sociated with GD and its proxies, or Technical Func-

tionality).

In Figure 1, the ﬁrst version of the multiperspec-

tive framework is conceptually outlined, illustrating

its levels and corresponding aspects that structure

the video game development process while empha-

sizing its iterative nature, by incorporating two types

of forward temporal/functional relationships (manda-

tory and suggested) and three types of backward

relationships (High Frequency/Low Cost, Medium

Frequency/Medium Cost, and Low Frequency/High

Cost). These relationships are deﬁned based on pro-

cess ﬂow, cost (effort and time), and execution fre-

quency. For instance, within the Abstract Level, revis-

iting Serious Aspects after deﬁning Gaming Aspects

is a frequent, low-cost adjustment essential for bal-

ancing engagement and a healthy gaming experience.

Conversely, returning to the Abstract Level after eval-

uating a fully implemented video game is ideally in-

frequent, as reworking conceptual design at this stage

requires signiﬁcant effort and time, making it a high-

cost endeavor.

In addition to the previously discussed relation-

ships, the multiperspective framework introduces the

inﬂuence relationship, which highlights how elements

within the framework interact. A subset of these re-

lationships speciﬁcally involves elements linked to

Addiction (under Well-Being Factors within Serious

Aspects), given adolescents’ heightened vulnerabil-

ity to GD (Sec. 1). Understanding these interactions

helps developers evaluate how design choices im-

pact GD risks. Building on this, the framework pro-

vides recommendations to minimize these risks while

maintaining gamer engagement and reducing poten-

tial harm. Subsec. 3.2 further explores how the frame-

work supports developers in integrating these consid-

erations, offering concrete strategies for designing en-

gaging games that mitigate GD risks.

3.2 How the Framework Can Supports

Developers?

The primary objective of the proposed framework is

to integrate psychological insights into video game

development, increasing developers’ awareness of

GD and the potential risks associated with ﬂawed

design choices. By embedding these insights, the

framework aims to deepen developers’ understand-

ing of how speciﬁc design decisions may contribute

to GD among gamers. Additionally, it provides struc-

tured guidance for identifying and addressing game

design elements linked to addiction, enabling devel-

opers to create more balanced gaming experiences.

The framework also includes a set of integrated rec-

ommendations to help developers design games that

maintain engagement while mitigating GD risks (a

subset of these recommendations is presented in Ta-

ble 1).

For instance, as illustrated in Fig. 2, developers

using the framework will recognize that before de-

signing gameplay elements within the Gaming As-

pects category, they must ﬁrst deﬁne the Stimulation

Plan, which includes Play Time and Play Supervi-

sion. These elements are particularly critical, as they

are closely linked to addiction. In particular, deﬁn-

ing Play Time is essential because, if left unregulated

or poorly structured, it can lead to excessive gam-

ing sessions. To address this, the framework sug-

gests integrating natural breaks, pause prompts, and

playtime notiﬁcations into the gameplay to encour-

age self-awareness and prevent compulsive play. In

line with the conceptual model outlined in Fig. 1,

once the Serious Aspects have been deﬁned, atten-

tion must shift to the Gaming Aspects. As shown in

Fig. 2, addiction is closely related to elements such as

Game Genre and the mechanics of reward and punish-

ment. With the framework’s guidance, developers can

proactively address these elements, making informed

design choices that align with the proposed recom-

mendations and help minimize GD-related risks.

4 FORMATIVE EVALUATION

The ﬁrst design iteration of the framework deﬁnes

key stages, critical elements, and GD-related risks

in video game development. To evaluate its effec-

tiveness, a formative evaluation was conducted using

workshops, chosen for their ability to disseminate in-

formation and collect structured feedback. Given the

absence of game developers in the design team, ju-

nior and senior developers—including independents

and professionals—participated, along with master’s

students in computer engineering, who often pursue

careers in game development. The workshops had

two goals: (1) presenting the framework, including

its neuroscientiﬁc basis, adolescents’ susceptibility to

GD, and its health and economic impact; and (2) gath-

ering feedback through interactive discussions to re-

ﬁne the framework. Speciﬁcally, two workshops were

Risk of Gaming Disorders in Adolescents: A Multiperspective Framework for Video Games Development

841

Figure 1: Conceptual View of the Multiperspective Framework: Levels, Aspects, and the temporal/functional relationships

that deﬁne its iterative nature.

Figure 2: Zoomed-in view of the Multiperspective Framework highlighting the inﬂuence relationships between Addiction and

other elements included in the framework.

conducted: the ﬁrst, aimed at developers, was held at

DevFest

in Pescara on November 10, 2024, with ap-

proximately 50 participants; the second, designed for

students, took place at the University of L’Aquila on

November 21, 2024, involving 15 master’s students.

The qualitative analysis of feedback from both

workshops revealed four key themes:

1. Knowledge Gaps and Awareness

• Participants showed strong interest in GD risks

but had limited knowledge of adolescent neuro-

biology and GD as a mental illness.

• Some were unaware of the connection between

GD and game mechanics, such as loot boxes

https://devfest.gdgpescara.it/

and MMORPGs, which can increase suscepti-

bility to GD.

2. Ethical Responsibilities and Industry Practices

• Developers often attributed GD risks to man-

ufacturers or regulators, overlooking their own

ethical role in game design.

• Many felt disempowered due to the lack of ded-

icated frameworks and relied on PEGI((PEGI),

2009), which they found inadequate for ad-

dressing ethical concerns.

• Students expressed frustration over the absence

of risk-aware design methodologies in their

coursework.

CSEDU 2025 - 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

842

Table 1: Subset of elements within the Framework that show a strong inﬂuence on Addiction, along with corresponding

recommendations for mitigating GD risks. Other relevant elements, such as Progression Mechanics, Player Character, and

Story, are omitted due to space constraints.

Element Framework

Hierarchy

Features Inﬂuence on GD Recommendations

Stimulation

Plan

Abstract

Level →

Serious

Aspects

Play Time Unregulated playtime can lead

to excessive gaming (Farmer and

Lloyd, 2024).

Use natural breaks, pause prompts,

and playtime notiﬁcations to en-

courage self-awareness and prevent

compulsive play.

Play

Supervision

Unsupervised gaming can increase

risk of excessive play (Lopez et al.,

2024).

Provide parental controls to moni-

tor and limit playtime, preventing

excessive or unsupervised gaming.

Game

Genre

Abstract

Level →

Gaming

Aspects

- Certain genres (e.g., MMO,

MMORPG, MOBA) have struc-

tural traits linked to higher GD

risk (Rehbein et al., 2021).

Account for GD risks in game gen-

res and design Rules and Core Me-

chanics to avoid features that pro-

mote compulsive play.

Reward

and

Punishment

Mechan-

ics

Abstract

Level →

Gaming

Aspects →

Core

Mechanics

Type of

Rewards

Among various rewards (e.g.,

points, achievements, loots, un-

lockables), XP are problematic, as

their feedback loop prolongs play

and favors short-term gains (Saini

and Hodgins, 2023).

Balance progression, cap XP re-

wards for excessive play, and of-

fer alternatives like narrative or un-

lockable content to promote health-

ier gaming.

Size of

Rewards

Rewards can be ﬁxed (predictable)

or variable (random, like loot

boxes). The latter mimic gambling,

driving compulsive play through

uncertainty (Rehbein et al., 2021).

Use balanced rewards with grad-

ual progression, set limits and

cooldowns, prioritize ﬁxed rewards,

and foster engagement through sto-

rytelling and gamer choice.

Frequency

Rewards

Controls reward frequency; contin-

uous rewards may lower long-term

motivation, while variable rewards

foster compulsive play through an-

ticipation (Guan and Chen, 2023).

Implement a progressively spaced

reward system, with frequent early

rewards that decrease over time

to maintain motivation without en-

couraging compulsive play.

Event

Frequency

Duration

Regulates event frequency and du-

ration; short, frequent events create

urgency and scarcity, pressuring ex-

cessive play (Jensen et al., 2023).

Hold events less often with longer

durations to reduce pressure and al-

low ﬂexible participation without

continuous engagement.

Punishment

Features

Negative consequences for in-game

failures (e.g., losing progress, re-

sources, or health) inﬂuence behav-

ior. Inactivity penalties create obli-

gation, driving compulsive play to

avoid losses rather than for enjoy-

ment (Caffarone, 2023).

Schedule events less frequently

with longer durations to reduce

pressure, allowing gamers to partic-

ipate ﬂexibly without feeling com-

pelled to engage continuously.

3. Framework Perception and Practical Applica-

tion

• Developers valued the framework’s academic

foundation, recognizing academia as a crucial

source of awareness.

• Students supported the development of a soft-

ware tool based on the framework, with many

eager to contribute via internships and thesis

projects.

4. The Role of Technology

• Both groups acknowledged the positive poten-

tial of video games in skill development and

well-being, despite the risks of excessive use.

Overall, the workshops provided valuable feedback to

reﬁne the framework, ensuring it ﬁlls identiﬁed gaps

and meets industry and developer needs.

Risk of Gaming Disorders in Adolescents: A Multiperspective Framework for Video Games Development

843

5 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE

WORKS

This paper presents a multiperspective framework to

support video game developers design adolescent-

focused games that balance engagement while mit-

igating GD risks. Most development approaches

prioritize engagement and revenue (Aagaard et al.,

2022), while few incorporate psychological in-

sights (Heinzen et al., 2015; Sachu et al., 2024). Due

to limited training and awareness of GD risks, de-

velopers often rely on personal judgment, as domain

experts are rarely involved in the process (Cormio

et al., 2024; Rehbein et al., 2024). A comprehen-

sive multiperspective framework is being developed.

As part of its initial design phase, a formative evalua-

tion involving developers and future developers was

conducted to gather feedback for reﬁnement. The

qualitative analysis of feedback collected highlighted

two key ﬁndings: academia is perceived as a primary

source of awareness and knowledge, while technol-

ogy is seen as a means for improvement and positive

impact. Moreover, the idea of evolving the framework

into a software tool that actively supports and trains

developers throughout the video game development

process was widely appreciated.

By leveraging the perception of technology as a

“saving” force, the framework aims to elevate the de-

sign process by reframing technology as an exogenous

modulator. An exogenous modulator originates exter-

nally and complements endogenous changes, such as

the neurobiological transformations occurring during

adolescence that contribute to GD risk (Toga et al.,

2006; Kolb and Gibb, 2011). In this context, tech-

nology—speciﬁcally video games—is positioned as

a tool that can counterbalance these developmental

changes. The proposed framework, and its future im-

plementation as a software tool, aims to promote a

more conscious approach to game development, en-

suring that engagement is prioritized alongside the

mitigation of GD risks. Through this perspective,

video games could be redeﬁned as exogenous modu-

lators that support adolescent neurobiological devel-

opment, transforming a potential risk factor into a

beneﬁcial inﬂuence during this critical life stage.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work has been funded by the European Union

- NextGenerationEU under the Italian Ministry of

University and Research (MUR) National Innovation

Ecosystem grant ECS00000041 - VITALITY - CUP

E13C22001060006

REFERENCES

Aagaard, J., Knudsen, M. E. C., Bækgaard, P., and Do-

herty, K. (2022). A game of dark patterns: Design-

ing healthy, highly-engaging mobile games. In CHI

Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems Ex-

tended Abstracts.

BBC News (2018). Video game loot boxes declared illegal

under belgium gambling laws. Accessed: 2025-01-13.

Borg, M., Garousi, V., Mahmoud, A., Olsson, T., and

alberg, O. (2019). Video game development in a

rush: A survey of the global game jam participants.

IEEE Trans. Games, 12(3):246–259.

Caffarone, A. (2023). Virtual gaming, actual damage:

Video game design that intentionally and successfully

addicts users constitutes civil battery. Duke Law &

Technology Review, Forthcoming.

Casey, B., Heller, A. S., Gee, D. G., and Cohen, A. O.

(2019). Development of the emotional brain. Neu-

rosci. Lett., 693:29–34.

Chambers and Partners (2024). Gaming law 2024:

South korea. https://practiceguides.chambers.com/

practice-guides/gaming-law-2024/south-korea. Ac-

cessed: 2025-01-13.

China Legal Experts (2025). China gaming

laws. https://www.chinalegalexperts.com/news/

china-gaming-laws. Accessed: 2025-01-13.

Colasante, E., Pivetta, E., Canale, N., Vieno, A., Marino, C.,

Lenzi, M., and et al. (2022). Problematic gaming risk

among european adolescents: A cross-national evalu-

ation of individual and socio-economic factors. Ad-

diction, 117(8):2273–2282.

Cormio, L., Giaconi, C., Mengoni, M., and Santilli, T.

(2024). Exploring game design approaches through

conversations with designers. Des. Stud., 91:101253.

Dahl, R. E. (2004). Adolescent brain development: a period

of vulnerabilities and opportunities. keynote address.

Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., 1021(1):1–22.

Farmer, G. and Lloyd, J. (2024). Two sides of the same vir-

tual coin: Investigating psychosocial effects of video

game play, including stress relief motivations as a

gateway to problematic video game usage. Health-

care, 12(7):772.

Friedman, N. P. and Robbins, T. W. (2022). The role of pre-

frontal cortex in cognitive control and executive func-

tion. Neuropsychopharmacology, 47(1):72–89.

Gil, R. M. and Arnedo-Moreno, J. (2020). Designing an ac-

tivity to help reﬂect on” healthy engagement vs video

game addiction”. In 8th Int. Conf. on Technologi-

cal Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality, pages

682–687.

Grifﬁths, M. D., Stavropoulos, V., Pontes, H. M., Carbonell,

X., King, D. L., Lin, C.-Y., and et al. (2025). Gaming

disorder among children and adolescents. In Hand-

book of Children and Screens: Digital Media, Devel-

opment, and Well-Being from Birth Through Adoles-

cence, pages 187–194. Springer.

Guan, J. and Chen, T. (2023). Exploring addiction mecha-

nism of different game types. J. Educ. Humanit. Soc.

Sci., 8:1490–1496.

CSEDU 2025 - 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

844

Harrigan, K. A., Collins, K., Dixon, M. J., and Fugelsang,

J. (2010). Addictive gameplay: What casual game

designers can learn from slot machine research. In

Int. academic Conf. on the future of game design and

technology, pages 127–133.

Heinzen, T. E., Gordon, M. S., Landrum, R. E., Gurung,

R. A., Dunn, D. S., and Richman, S. (2015). A paral-

lel universe: Psychological science in the language of

game design. In Gamiﬁcation in education and busi-

ness, pages 133–149. Springer.

Jensen, K. H., Fynbo, L., and Hansen, N. N. (2023). The in-

terplay between game design and social practice. New

Media & Society, page 14614448231187820.

Junior, R. and Silva, F. (2021). Redeﬁning the MDA Frame-

work—The Pursuit of a Game Design Ontology. In-

formation, 12(10).

King, D. and Delfabbro, P. (2019). Video game monetiza-

tion (eg,‘loot boxes’): A blueprint for practical social

responsibility measures. Int. J. Ment. Health Addict.,

17:166–179.

King, D., Delfabbro, P., and Grifﬁths, M. (2010). Video

game structural characteristics: A new psychological

taxonomy. Int. J. Ment. Health Addict., 8:90–106.

Kir

aly, O., Grifﬁths, M. D., and Demetrovics, Z. (2015).

Internet gaming disorder and the DSM-5: Conceptual-

ization, debates, and controversies. Curr. Addict. Rep.,

2:254–262.

Kir

aly, O., Koncz, P., Grifﬁths, M. D., and Demetrovics, Z.

(2023). Gaming disorder: A summary of its character-

istics and aetiology. Compr. Psychiatry, 122:152376.

Kolb, B. and Gibb, R. (2011). Brain plasticity and be-

haviour in the developing brain. Journal of the Cana-

dian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,

20(4):265.

Kumar, M. and Jha, A. K. (2024). Adolescent brain devel-

opment: Limbic system and emotions. In Encyclo-

pedia of Religious Psychology and Behavior, pages

1–10. Springer.

Li, Y., Wang, C., and Liu, J. (2020). A systematic review of

literature on user behavior in video game live stream-

ing. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 17(9):3328.

Lopez, D. A., Foxe, J. J., van Wijngaarden, E., Thomp-

son, W. K., and Freedman, E. G. (2024). The lon-

gitudinal association between reward processing and

symptoms of video game addiction in the adolescent

brain cognitive development study. J. Behav. Addict.,

13(4):1051–1063.

McKenzie, T., Morales-Trujillo, M., Lukosch, S., and Ho-

ermann, S. (2021). Is agile not agile enough? a study

on how agile is applied and misapplied in the video

game development industry. In 2021 IEEE/ACM Joint

15th Int. Conf. on Software and System Processes (IC-

SSP) and 16th ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. on Global Soft-

ware Engineering (ICGSE), pages 94–105. IEEE.

Norman, D. A. and Draper, S. W., editors (1986).

User-Centered System Design: New Perspectives on

Human-Computer Interaction. LEA, Hillsdale, NJ.

(PEGI), P. E. G. I. (2009). Pan european game information

(pegi). https://pegi.info/. accessed: 2025-01-13.

Petrovskaya, E. and Zendle, D. (2021). Predatory mon-

etisation? a categorisation of unfair, misleading and

aggressive monetisation techniques in digital games

from the player perspective. J. Bus. Ethics, 181:1065–

1081.

Petry, N. M. (2019). Pause and reset: a parent’s guide

to preventing and overcoming problems with gaming.

Oxford University Press.

Ramadan, R. and Widyani, Y. (2013). Game development

life cycle guidelines. In 2013 Int. Conf. on Advanced

Computer Science and Information Systems (ICAC-

SIS), pages 95–100. IEEE.

Ravindranath, O., Perica, M. I., Parr, A. C., Ojha, A.,

McKeon, S. D., Montano, G., and et al. (2024).

Adolescent neurocognitive development and decision-

making abilities regarding gender-afﬁrming care. Dev.

Cogn. Neurosci., page 101351.

Rehbein, F., Gentile, D. A., Lemmens, J., and Rumpf, H.-J.

(2024). Structural game characteristics and problem-

atic gaming. Sucht.

Rehbein, F., King, D. L., Staudt, A., Hayer, T., and Rumpf,

H.-J. (2021). Contribution of game genre and struc-

tural game characteristics to the risk of problem gam-

ing and gaming disorder: A systematic review. Curr.

Addict. Rep., 8(2):263–281.

Sachu, B., S, K., and R, J. (2024). Investigating online game

addiction: An in-depth analysis of design elements

through the player engagement model. ShodhKosh J.

Vis. Per. Arts, 5(3):91–100.

Saini, N. and Hodgins, D. C. (2023). Investigating gam-

ing structural features associated with gaming disor-

der and proposing a revised taxonomical model: A

scoping review. J. Behav. Addict., 12(2):352–374.

Satapathy, P., Khatib, M. N., Balaraman, A. K., R, R.,

Kaur, M., and et al. (2024). Burden of gaming disor-

der among adolescents: A systemic review and meta-

analysis. Public Health Pract., page 100565.

Shliakhovchuk, E. (2024). Video games as awareness rais-

ers, attitude changers, and agents of social change. Int.

J. Comput. Games Technol., 2024(1):3274715.

Shrestha, A., Zuo, F., Qian, G., and Rhee, J. (2025). A sur-

vey and insights on modern game development pro-

cesses for software engineering education. In Software

and Data Engineering, pages 65–84, Cham.

Statista (2025). Video Gaming Worldwide - Statistics &

Facts. https://www.statista.com/topics/1680/gaming.

Accessed: 2025-01-13.

Toga, A. W., Thompson, P. M., and Sowell, E. R. (2006).

Mapping brain maturation. Trends in neurosciences,

29(3):148–159.

WHO (2019). International Classiﬁcation of Diseases, 11th

revision (ICD-11). https://icd.who.int/en. Accessed:

2025-01-16.

WHO (2025). Adolescent health. https://www.who.int/

health-topics/adolescent-health. Accessed: 2025-01-

16.

Zhang, L., Han, J., Liu, M., Yang, C., and Liao, Y. (2024).

The prevalence and possible risk factors of gaming

disorder among adolescents in China. BMC psychi-

atry, 24(1):381.

Risk of Gaming Disorders in Adolescents: A Multiperspective Framework for Video Games Development

845