It is refreshing to encounter a discourse that so eloquently questions the clinical concept and notion of excessive video gaming as an addictive disorder. There are many recreational activities capable of generating arousal and excitement, and absorb attention to the extent that an individual may lose track of time. This is not an abnormal process and Wood is correct in asserting the need to avoid responding to media hype by pathologizing this form of behaviour as an addiction. Richard Wood’s critique also contains some interesting and important implications for the oft repeated claim that structural and situational characteristics contribute to the inherent addictive nature of electronic gaming machines.

Wood notes the absence of a consensually agreed set of clinical criteria delineating video addiction. Conceptually, simply adapting and applying a set of diagnostic criteria used to define one disorder, for example substance abuse or pathological gambling to define a new disorder is not scientifically acceptable or logical. It must be empirically demonstrated that similar and consistent aetiological processes and principles apply across each related disorder.

Wood has well argued that comparing video gaming arcade or multi-player type games to gambling is invalid given the multiplicity of essential differences between the two behaviours. For example, video gaming does not involve risking an item of value on the outcome of a chance event. Rather, it is a skill-based game designed to improve individual performance or compete against others in a multiplayer interactive game. In this respect, video gaming is no different from other activities in a broad range of domains designed to enhance performance, for example, billiards, golf, tennis or basketball. The motivation, benefits and costs of engaging in these forms of activities differ significantly from gambling and indeed from substance dependence. Playing has a personalized meaning and relevance for the individual and is conducted within a set of rules, objectives and outcomes. These benefits may be limited to the intangible goal of self-satisfying accomplishment through to improved skills performance. Understanding the intrinsic personalized meaning of video gaming allows us to appreciate that an individual may be highly motivated to engage in a game that is engrossing and to accept the opportunity costs associated with such a choice, even if this leads to some adverse consequence.

It is all too simplistic to suggest that video games are addictive on the grounds that these behaviours are repetitive and result in negative consequences, particularly losing track of time and interference with alternative activities and socialization. To so do suggests confusion and overlap between terms such as use, misuse, abuse, dependence and addiction. Video gamers may misuse their time and energies playing games as determined by parental value judgements or concerns. Parents may also express concern that excessive video use is significantly interfering with study and socialization. Harm may emerge following excessive play but this is not equivalent to an addiction.

In one sense, the implication is that cessation of video gaming will inevitably lead the individual to resume study or re-engage socially. This is yet to be determined: individuals may switch to other activities that engross their attention. As Wood notes, it is yet to be established that video gaming plays a direct causative role in the development of harm. He points to the need to exclude the possibility that individuals gravitate to video gaming because of pre-existing mental health problems or difficulties in coping with social demands.

Further, I am in agreement with Wood when he states that spending time engaged in an activity that results in some negative consequence does not imply the presence of an addiction. There are many recreational activities that allow people to become absorbed in, and distracted from, daily stresses and hassles. Some individuals become immersed in the deliberate pursuit of these pleasures, pleasure which may have attendant high risk of harm, for example, rock climbing, abseiling and racing go-karts. Yet there is no suggestion of addiction unless the necessary requirement of impaired control is demonstrated. It is argued that harm is not sufficient for an addiction. The necessary and crucial element is impaired control, that is, the experience of recurrent difficulties in containing behaviours despite the genuine motivation to cease or cut-back. Salience, tolerance, withdrawal and reinstatement are additional features that need to be assessed as characteristic of video gaming for it to be classified as an addiction. Much research remains in this domain of the so-called non-substance behavioural addictions.

I would like to now turn to the implication of Wood’s article to gambling. He advances the argument that it is of questionable validity to blame video games if this activity is used as a means of escape in order to cope with difficulties, seek relief or avoid responsibilities. Video gaming is a symptom rather than a specific cause. Applying this to problem gambling raises the comparable argument that gambling is a symptom and not a cause. This undermines the notion of problem gambling as a disorder in itself as compared to the manifestation of poor coping, depression or personality defects. Thus Wood appears to be advocating the view that for a proportion of individuals who meet criteria suffer a pre-existing mental illness and are therefore in reality misdiagnosed as problem gamblers. I agree with this perspective and argue that further research is conducted in exploring the role of pre-existing mental illness and the development of problem gambling.

Finally, video gaming like electronic gaming devices, involves a human–machine interaction. While Griffiths (1993) has offered valuable opinions on the structural characteristics contributing to addiction in electronic gaming machines, it is interesting to observe that Wood refers to research failing to identify any such characteristics of video games that were inherently problematic. However, Griffiths and Wood (2000) among others have stated that video gaming shares many features in common with slot machine gambling. Teasing out the relative addictive property of each structural characteristic in video gaming and electronic gaming machines therefore may provide invaluable insights into the processes leading to problem gambling. Is it the continuous nature, the sounds, the rate of play, winning and losing features, game dynamics or control of machines that lead to the persistence and maintenance of these activities? It is my contention that player rather than structural characteristics are the primary factors leading to the addictive properties of either gaming or gambling but empirical data only will (dis)confirm this hypothesis.

Let us not fall prey to media hype by viewing video gaming as an addiction and applying the stereo type of an isolated, asocial, fragile and introverted individual totally immersed in a fantasy world of video images who is capable of violent acts if torn away from obsession. Video gaming has positive attributes for the majority; for the minority, pre-existing vulnerabilities draw them to involvement in this form of recreation.