OECD Digital Economy and Society Outlook 2026

Report

5 November 2026

Chapter 4. Levelling up child well-being in video gaming

Copy link to Chapter 4. Levelling up child well-being in video gaming

Abstract

Video games are a common form of play and leisure for children worldwide, offering opportunities for fun, learning, social connection and creative expression. Video gaming can support children’s rights to play and participate in cultural life, while contributing to their well-being and development. At the same time, gaming environments pose risks to children, including contact with bad actors, privacy concerns and consumer risks, such as those related to in-app purchases and loot boxes. Beyond play, gaming extends into broader cultures and communities shaped by content creators, influencers and e-sport events. This chapter explores these opportunities and risks, presents trends in children’s gaming behaviour and time spent playing, examines the interplay between gaming and school performance, and delves into gaming cultures and practices. It concludes with policy considerations for ensuring safe, age-appropriate and beneficial gaming experiences.

Key findings

Copy link to Key findings

Children’s video gaming experiences vary by age, device and socio-economic background

Video gaming extends into broader ecosystems through streaming, influencers and e-sports, shaping norms, behaviours and commercial engagement.
In 2025, 81% of 15-year-olds in OECD Member countries play on a typical weekday, making video gaming one of the most common forms of digital leisure.
Problematic video gaming behaviours increase with playtime and frequency, especially among heavy and regular players.

Moderate video gaming shows no disadvantage for school performance, while intensive use carries risks

Children who report playing video games for around one to three hours per weekday tend to show similar or slightly higher performance in mathematics, reading and science compared with those who spend less time gaming.
Beyond this level, weekday video gaming is associated with lower academic outcomes, with earlier and steeper declines observed for girls and among students from more advantaged backgrounds.

Video gaming provides opportunities for learning and well-being, but can also expose children to harms

Video gaming can support cognitive skills, creativity, social interaction and emotional well-being, but intensive play can carry risks. For instance, about one in eight adolescents are at risk of developing gaming disorder with symptoms more common among intensive players.
Children may face exposure to harmful content, bullying and grooming, with multiplayer features increasing the potential for risky contact with strangers (e.g. on average, child abusers are able to lock children into high-risk grooming conversations in 45 minutes).
Consumer risks, such as unauthorised or unplanned purchases, may arise from in-game transactions, gambling-like features and influencer-driven activities, potentially causing emotional and financial harm.

Policies should balance safety, consumer protection, learning and equity in video gaming

Online safety laws and industry safeguards (e.g. parental supervision tools) should address the specific features of video games, ensuring that children benefit from consistent protections across platforms, clear age ratings and stronger digital literacy support.
Other relevant frameworks, such as consumer policy, may need to be reviewed to ensure children’s protection against new forms of financial and other consumer risks in video gaming.
Policies should also promote balanced gameplay that supports learning, with special attention to children’s individual differences, to prevent intensive gaming from reinforcing educational inequalities.

Introduction

Copy link to Introduction

Video games have long provided an outlet for play and leisure for adults and children alike and playing video games (or “gaming”) is a common activity for many children around the world. Gaming today has come a long way from the grainy early video games on a desktop computer, or early console games with primitive graphics that required players to come together physically to play as a group. Through Internet connectivity and advances in technology, video games have become more realistic, connected and available across a wide spectrum of devices.

Video games have led to diverse cultures that spill over to other areas of digital environments and other areas of children’s lives. Gaming culture is not limited to the gameplay itself; it is also the subject of dedicated chat or streaming platforms, such as on Reddit or Twitch. This provides children with opportunities for leisure and entertainment outside of gaming itself, such as in spaces where they watch (and comment on) the gameplay of others. It also provides opportunities for community and connection with people children already know (in person or online). However, the experience can expose children to people they have not physically met and to who they cannot be certain of their identity.

Playing video games online (or “online gaming”) is one important avenue through which children can access the many benefits that digital technologies afford, such as learning, having fun, socialising and exercising their rights. This includes the right to “rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child and to participate freely in cultural life and the arts” (“the right to rest, play, culture and arts”) (United Nations, 1989_[1]). Online gaming provides children a space to exercise that right, particularly the component of play. Playing is important for child development. As noted by the Committee on the Rights of the Child, play facilitates “children’s social skills, learning, expression, creative activities, such as music and art, and sense of belonging and a shared culture” (United Nations, 2021_[2]). As a form of digital play, online gaming can contribute to children’s well-being and development.

Online gaming also poses risks to children. Those risks may be related to the people they meet or the content they see in online games. For instance, child sexual offenders may engage in online gaming platforms because children are likely to be there. Through the use of the same communication and content-sharing features that can provide beneficial connections for children, offenders are known to contact children on popular gaming services before luring them to less moderated platforms (Suojellaan Lapsia, Protect Children, 2024_[3]). Beyond contact risks, online games also bring privacy and consumer risks to children (OECD, 2021_[4]). Consumer risks, such as loot boxes or incentives to make continual in-app purchases, are prevalent in online games, and those are risks to which children are particularly vulnerable (Ash, Gordon and Mills, 2023_[5]).

The online gaming market is vast and diverse, offering a broad spectrum of experiences ranging from simple puzzle-solving to complex multiplayer strategy games and immersive world-building (eSafety Commissioner, 2023_[6]). The devices on which video games can be played range from those that offer basic games (such as smartphones or tablets) to dedicated gaming consoles and virtual reality headsets. Gaming titles popular among children feature distinct characteristics with their own genres, gameplay mechanics, narrative and design. The appeal and child-accessibility of specific games can vary depending on the child’s age, sex, country, skill level and personal preferences.

The gaming ecosystem extends beyond games themselves, encompassing a wide array of social and cultural practices. Certain games attract large communities of players across multiple platforms and are often structured around high-profile content creators and influencers. These communities contribute to the emergence of gaming subcultures, shaped by shared norms, language, values and events, ranging from online interactions to large-scale in-person gatherings such as e-sports tournaments (Lee, 2025_[7]).

Online gaming is not an inherently harmful activity, but children could be more exposed to certain safety, privacy and consumer risks than adults, particularly when unsupervised (OECD, 2021_[4]) (UNICEF, 2024_[8]). Because digital technologies continue to develop at a fast pace, building safe, age-appropriate, rights-preserving and fun online games can benefit from input from children and collective efforts from all stakeholders.

This chapter examines current trends in online gaming among children, focusing on how gaming can contribute to, or hinder, child well-being. It provides an overview of the different types of video games that are popular among children; the features and functionalities they offer; and the broader gaming cultures that influence, and are influenced by, children. After examining how much children game and how it relates to school performance, the chapter reflects more broadly on the opportunities and risks that online gaming can bring to children, considering aspects of well-being such as safety and mental health. The chapter concludes with an examination of policy issues raised by online gaming now and in the future.

The features of games and gaming environments

Copy link to The features of games and gaming environments

Children navigate a highly diverse gaming landscape, and one that has significantly evolved over time. Games today, for instance, can have hyper-realistic graphics and less friction than earlier games through continuous save functions and easily found cheat codes or instructional videos. Games are offered on different types of devices and via different platforms. There is a wide choice of games that have different features, are aimed at different age groups and have varying functionalities beyond simple gameplay (e.g. chat functions, integrated purchases). Gaming ecosystems also have distinct cultures and communities, but they often converge in online spaces (like streaming or chat platforms) that exist separately from the games themselves.

The effects of online video games on children depend on many factors, including their genre and functionalities. An OECD report stresses the impacts of gaming depend on the content (e.g. educational, social simulation), context (e.g. co-operative games, playing alone), delivery interfaces (e.g. virtual reality-based devices, screen-based devices), interactivity (e.g. action video game play, puzzle games) and users (e.g. stages of neurodevelopment) (Burns and Gottschalk, 2020_[9]).

This section provides an overview of that landscape, setting out the devices and platforms on which children play games, the types of games available to them, different functionalities within games and an overview of gaming culture(s).

Games are played on a variety of devices and platforms

Figure 4.1 shows the different types of devices commonly used by children to access and play games:

Figure 4.1. Types of devices commonly used by children to play video games
Copy link to Figure 4.1. Types of devices commonly used by children to play video games

The types of devices children use vary depending on factors such as the country they live in, age group and sex. For example, in the United Kingdom, consoles are the most popular gaming device with 56% of parents of children aged 3 to 17 reporting that their child uses a console to play games. Younger children are more likely to game on a tablet (53% of children aged 3 to 12 compared to 22% of those aged 13 to 17), while older children are more likely to use a console or portable device (66% compared to 51%) and/or a mobile device (56% compared to 40%) (Ofcom, 2025_[12]). In the United States, most children aged 13 to 17 play video games on a gaming console (73%) or a smartphone (70%), 49% play on a desktop or laptop computer, 33% do so on a tablet and 24% play on a virtual reality headset (Pew Research Centre, 2024_[11]). Boys are more likely than girls to play video games on all devices except tablets, which boys and girls use equally (Pew Research Centre, 2024_[11]).

The places where children access games also vary. While some games can be purchased in a physical location, most are widely available through two main types of online platforms.

App stores have large libraries of games, with sections of the stores dedicated to children and with recommendations such as “teacher approved apps and games” (Google, 2025_[14]) or “top apps for kids” (Apple, 2025_[15]), sometimes divided into different age groups (OECD, 2025_[16]).
Digital game distribution services allow players to buy and download games from the Internet directly to their devices (e.g. console, immersive technology device). Such services enable instant access to vast libraries of game titles without discs or cartridges, facilitate cross-platform gaming because users can access their game libraries from multiple devices, and often offer functionalities for chatting and socialising with other players (DeGraide, 2024_[17]). Some gaming distribution sites are connected to a particular device platform, whereas others offer third party, multi-platform distribution.

Additionally, cloud gaming facilitates play regardless of a user’s device by enabling players to stream games by directly accessing a server. Through cloud technology, players can access a large selection of games on demand with minimal entry barriers, saving time, storage capacity and money (Van Der Zwan, 2024_[18]).

Children play multiple types of games

The online gaming industry offers a wide selection of games, ranging from single-player puzzles and quizzes, flight simulation, shooting and racing to multiplayer strategic battles, role playing and social simulations. Games can be classified into genres according to their player modes, gameplay, narratives, pricing structures and user bases.

Game genres

Video game genres are useful for classifying games based on how they are played, rather than on their visual or narrative elements. Table 4.1 presents common video game genres and sub-genres, along with examples of games that are popular among children.

Genres	Sub-genres	Examples
Action	First person shooter Third person shooter Battle royale Fighting Action-Adventure	Call of Duty, Valorant, Apex Legends Splatoon 3, Fortnite, Grand Theft Auto V Fortnite: Battle Royale, PUBG: Battlegrounds Super Smash Bros., Brawl Stars The Legend of Zelda, Tomb Raider
Adventure	Adventure Graphic adventure Point-and-click	Disney Dreamlight Valley The Walking Dead, Tales from the Borderlands Foolish Mortals, The Book of Unwritten Tales
Role-playing games (RPG)	Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) Tactical role-playing games (TRPG)	World of Warcraft, Genshin Impact Final Fantasy Tactics, Fire Emblems
Puzzle	Puzzles Escape room	Candy Crush, Angry Birds Escape Academy, The Room
Social games	Party	Among Us, Mario Party
Simulation	World building / sandbox Sports Social simulations Farming simulations	Minecraft, Roblox FIFA, NBA 2K The Sims, Animal Crossing, Stardew Valley, Coral Island
Strategy	Multiplayer online battle arena (MOBA) Real-time strategy (RTS) Tower defence	League of legends, Dota 2 Age of Empires, StarCraft Clash of Clans, Plants vs. Zombies

Notes: This is a non-exhaustive list. Individual games may belong to several genres and/or sub-genres depending on game modes.

Sources: eSafety Commissioner (2024_[19]), Levelling up to stay safe: Young people’s experiences navigating the joys and risks of online gaming, https://www.esafety.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-02/Leveling%20up%20to%20stay%20safe%20-%20gaming%20report.pdf; App Figures (2025_[20]), Top ranked IOS app store apps, https://appfigures.com/top-apps/ios-app-store/united-states/iphone/games; Ofcom (2025_[12])Children and Parents Media Use and Attitudes Report, https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/research-and-data/media-literacy-research/children/childrens-media-use-and-attitudes; Stream Hatchet (2025_[21]), Most Watched Games on YouTube Gaming, https://streamhatchet.com/rankings/youtube/games/?period=last-30-days; Twitch Tracker (2025_[22]), Twitch Game Statistics, https://twitchtracker.com/statistics/games; Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation (2025_[23]), A guide to gaming technology, https://responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au/documents/1372/Factsheet_A_guide_to_gaming_terminology.pdf.

Box 4.1 provides definitions for some of the genres and sub-genres:

Box 4.1. Glossary of popular game genres and sub-genres

Copy link to Box 4.1. Glossary of popular game genres and sub-genres

First person shooter: weapon-based game where players assume the character of a shooter and see the game through their eyes; players cannot see their characters, but they can see the weapon they are holding.
Third person shooter: weapon-based game where the view is from behind and slightly above or from above, and players can see their characters.
Battle royale: multiplayer game where players or teams compete to be the last one standing, while the area of play constantly or intermittently shrinks, so remaining players are forced closer and closer to each other, compelling combat.
Role-playing game (RPG): players assume the role of a character with specific strengths and attributes in a fictional setting. RPGs can be single player or multiplayer and normally involve completing quests by acting out their role through structured decision making.
Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG): a vast, interactive world where thousands of people play together online and go on missions to defeat enemies.
Multiplayer online battle arena (MOBA): a player controls a single character in a team that competes to destroy the opposing team’s main structure.
Sandbox: players are free to roam through an open world and select whatever task or activity they want to participate in. This may include building structures, exploring different parts of a city, or interacting with various characters.
Tower defence: players defend their territory or possessions by strategically placing traps and towers to set off waves of enemies.

Note: The list is non-exhaustive.

Sources: Fillari (2019_[24]), Battle royale games explained: Fortnite, PUBG and what could be the next hit, https://www.gamespot.com/articles/battle-royale-games-explained-fortnite-pubg-and-wh/1100-6459225; Halai (2024_[25]), Demystifying tower defense game architecture: A practical guide, https://www.cubix.co/blog/demystifying-tower-defense-game-architecture-practical-guide; Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation (2025_[23]), A guide to gaming technology, https://responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au/documents/1372/Factsheet_A_guide_to_gaming_terminology.pdf.

Children’s gaming preferences may vary depending on many factors such as their country, age group or sex. A 2024 study of children aged 8 to 17 in Australia revealed that young gamers play a wide variety of games spanning multiple genres (eSafety Commissioner, 2024_[19]). In the United Kingdom, the most popular game genre among children aged 3 to 12 is creative and building games, followed by puzzles or quizzes, and action/adventure games. Conversely, among children aged 13 to 17 the most popular types are games played against multiple people/teams, followed by creative and building games, and shooter games (Ofcom, 2025_[12]). The most popular types of games played by girls are creative and building games (46%), puzzles or quizzes (42%), playing in a virtual world (28%) and action/adventure (28%). For boys, it is playing against multiple people/teams (43%), creative and building games (43%) and sports games (41%) (Ofcom, 2025_[12]).

Player modes

Commonly referred to as player modes, the type (computer or human) and number of players vary in online games. Regarding the number of players, evidence shows that multiplayer mode is popular among children. For example, four out of five young Australian gamers play with others online, including two in five (40%) who play with people they do not already know offline (eSafety Commissioner, 2024_[19]). Likewise, in the United Kingdom, three in ten children who game online play with people they do not otherwise know (Ofcom, 2025_[12]). In the United States, 89% of children aged 13 to 17 say they play with other people, in person or online, whereas only 11% play on their own (Pew Research Centre, 2024_[11]).

Other gaming terminology describes the types of interactions between players and the game environment, as explained in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2. Common types of interactions between players and the game environment
Copy link to Figure 4.2. Common types of interactions between players and the game environment

Target audience

Audiences for games can be divided into three main groups (Figure 4.3).

In principle, games may target different age groups, but in practice children may access those designated as adults only. Likewise, games for a mixed audience may have a minimum age (frequently 13) and/or safeguards that restrict certain functionalities (e.g. direct messaging, livestreaming, targeted advertising) for certain age groups. However, children may nonetheless access those functionalities or games if services do not have effective age assurance mechanisms in place (OECD, 2025_[16]). Furthermore, even though some games are expressly branded as “child-friendly” or “family-friendly”, they do not necessarily prohibit adults from using them.

Pricing

Online games may have different pricing policies. Pay-to-play models (i.e. P2P, PtP or premium) require either an upfront payment or a monthly subscription. Free-to-play models (i.e. F2P, FtP or freemium) ostensibly have no cost but often incorporate microtransactions to generate revenue. Microtransactions are in-game purchases, usually small amounts, and they often use virtual currency.1 Pay-to-play games may also use microtransactions, for example, to access add-ons or extra features (Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, 2025_[23]).

Games offer a range of functionalities

Depending on the device and game, children may have access to a range of in-game functionalities to enrich their experience. These can include role play and customisability, rewards and quantification, communication and content-sharing features. Some games use age-tiered safeguards2 to restrict the use of certain functionalities, particularly the latter two, for all children or a certain age group (OECD, 2025_[16]).

Role play and customisability

Players are often given choices that affect the game mechanics and create a more customised experience (Ascanio, 2023_[26]). For instance, many games allow players to embody a character (e.g. play as a particular character in an action/adventure or fighting game). Alternatively, players may have the option to customise aspects such as their character’s physical appearance (e.g. hair, facial features, skin colour), skills and weapons, or to tailor settings, narratives and dialogues. Social simulation games or RPGs often enable users to create and customise an avatar (i.e. a graphical representation of the player, or the player’s alter-ego or character) (Ascanio, 2023_[26]) (Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, 2025_[23]). Character customisation varies depending on the game genre. For example, in a RPG, game mechanics may allow players to choose from a variety of races and classes, each with its own unique abilities and attributes. Conversely, in a first-person shooter game, players may customise their weapons, armour and other equipment (Ascanio, 2023_[26]).

Skins are another important customisation tool: they are vanity items that enable players to change the look of a character or weapon. They sometimes entail a commercial value and can be used as in-game currency or elsewhere, such as on special gambling websites. Skins can be earned while playing or purchased using real money or in-game currency (Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, 2025_[23]).

Rewards and quantification

In-game rewards (i.e. virtual items such as loot boxes, badges, skins, objects) and the quantification of progress (e.g. levels, points, scores, goals) are key elements of video games across genres. For instance, experience points are commonly used in RPGs to “quantify a player’s progress through a game” (Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, 2025_[23]). The frequency and content of rewards vary from game to game. Shooter games often reward players with “higher ranks and flashier cosmetics the more they play the game” (Warner, 2019_[27]). Fighting games tend to grant the player access to more characters and styles as they progress, and sporting games imitate real-life football or basketball games and scores. Similarly, many app games use rewards and other gamified items to boost user engagement (Bitrián, Buil and Catalán, 2021_[28]).

This reward-based system plays a key role in keeping players engaged. Game developers use different psychological techniques, such as creating situations in which players experience a surge of dopamine every time they receive a reward. They may also leverage social comparison dynamics between players where rewards “become markers of status and prestige, driving players to strive for recognition and validation within their gaming communities” (Pass, 2023_[29]).

Communication features

As gaming can be a social activity, many video games offer communication features. Children value such features and use video games to socialise, just like they would use a social media service. For instance, in the United States, 72% of children aged 13 to 17 who play video games say that one reason they play is to spend time with others (Pew Research Centre, 2024_[11]). In the United Kingdom, three quarters (74% in 2024) of children who game online report that they use the in-game chat functions while gaming. More than six in ten (63%) of the same group say they chat to people they know outside the game via these in-game chat functions (Ofcom, 2025_[12]).

As an example, Roblox a popular platform among children, offers experiences that are “explicitly designed for users to meet, chat and socialise” (Revealing Reality, 2025_[30]). Users can engage in scenario-based interactions, socialise in private settings (e.g. virtual houses, hotels or restaurants) and participate in social hangouts to meet new people. Interaction features include a public chat text, private chat, voice chat (only for users over 13), as well as emojis3 and animations (Revealing Reality, 2025_[30]). Likewise, since its creation, Fortnite evolved from a fighting video game to “the meeting place, messaging service and increasingly central social gathering space for its millions of teen and tween players” (Bloom, 2019_[31]). Beyond simple communication tools, some games provide social spaces where children gather to hang out and conduct a range of activities, and where they may also be confronted with commercial content. Roblox, for instance, blends together elements from games, advertising and social media. A marketing agency employed by Roblox has described the platform as “a kind of digital arcology where living, talking, shopping, and streaming are merged into one digital omni-existence” (Biddle, 2025_[32]).

Content-sharing features

Some video games enable users to share content with others on their services by, for example, enabling creation of public content or exchange of content (e.g. screenshots, videos) via private chat. Sandbox and open world games typically revolve around user-generated creative content where players can produce and share their work with friends or on a public feed.

Gaming platforms may also allow users to broadcast their gameplay while playing live, such as through streaming services. In some cases, however, gaming services restrict access to livestreaming functionalities for certain age groups (OECD, 2025_[16]). This type of feature illustrates the interconnectedness of gaming services with other types of services, and how gaming content can circulate across multiple platforms. Immersive video games, for instance, provide sharing features that enable users to share their virtual reality experience by livestreaming video to their networks on social media platforms (Meta, 2025_[33]).

Children experience diverse gaming cultures

The gaming ecosystem is far from limited to the games themselves. Through gaming, children can have access to, and help shape, numerous, diverse and constantly evolving gaming subcultures. Thus, online games not only reflect culture; they also create it (Kowert, 2025_[34]).

One key feature of the gaming ecosystem is its organisation into online communities that produce their own structures, cultural norms and practices (Lee, 2025_[7]), playing a central role in shaping the experiences of children. Users of a specific game or platform can form large or small communities based on shared interests and values (ECPAT UK, 2022_[35]). For example, massive communities have emerged around games like Fortnite, Call of Duty and World of Warcraft, “creating spaces where players can socialise, strategise, and form connections beyond the game” (Bycer, 2024_[36]). Gaming experts stress that this can foster “a strong sense of belonging due to the importance of building communities which reflect and challenge norms in person” (ECPAT UK, 2022_[35]).

In addition to in-game interactions, children engage with online communities when they conduct activities linked to gaming in the broader digital environment. In the United Kingdom, for example, 41% of children aged 3 to 12 and 49% of children aged 13 to 17 watch game tutorials, walk-throughs or others playing games (Ofcom, 2025_[12]). Many popular games host large and active player bases that extend across multiple platforms and communication channels:

Streaming services: children use streaming services to broadcast and watch live streams and pre-recorded videos of people playing video games (eSafety Commissioner, 2025_[37]). For example, Fortnite is closely tied to a broader influencer ecosystem on Twitch and YouTube, where streamers shape gameplay trends, language and consumer behaviours.
Social media services: children use social media services to discuss gaming-related topics. For example, there are communities on Discord and Reddit “centred around gaming topics such as Minecraft and Fortnite” (Ofcom, 2025_[12]).

Gaming cultures have their own language, extending well beyond the written or spoken word, with shared values, references and representations. These can be reinforced through in-game features (e.g. emojis, chat functions) and out-of-game participation (e.g. streaming, tournaments, fan art) (Lee, 2025_[7]). Children may learn oral and written words, expressions, abbreviations, codes, acronyms and emotes, to designate game names, actions, weapons or characters. Because the terminology is constantly evolving and can be difficult to understand for parents, or simply gaming culture outsiders, it has given rise to multiple guides and glossaries, sometimes with hundreds of entries (Blue, 2024_[38]).

Influencers and streamers are an essential component of gaming cultures. Some prominent players who create game-based content attract millions of followers, particularly young ones, on platforms like YouTube, Twitch and TikTok, influencing game preferences, in-game behaviours and language. Some such players are children themselves, which contributes to peer dynamics and trend building among younger audiences.

Additionally, e-sports (i.e. video game competitions) have become a central component of gaming culture, with large-scale in-person events and international tournaments featuring famous players and attracting young spectators. The most common video game genres associated with e-sports include MOBA), first-person shooter games, fighting games or RTS.

How much do children game and how does gameplay relate to school performance?

Copy link to How much do children game and how does gameplay relate to school performance?

Gaming has become a near-universal form of digital leisure among children, playing a central role in their daily lives across countries, sexes and age groups. A survey in five European countries4 found that one quarter of all gamers are under 18 (Video Games Europe, 2023_[39]). In the United Kingdom, 89% of children aged 3 to 17 play video games, often on a daily basis, and this number reaches 89% for those aged 8 to 17 in Australia, and 85% for those aged 13 to 17 in the United States (eSafety Commissioner, 2023_[6]; Ofcom, 2025_[12]; Pew Research Centre, 2024_[11]).

Data from the 2025 and 2022 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) provides insights into the gaming habits of 15-year-old students in a range of OECD Member countries, as well as how these habits vary between boys and girls, and between children in different socio-economic circumstances. These data also shed light on how gaming – and the amount of time spent gaming – affects children’s performance in school. This section examines the association between video gaming and academic outcomes in mathematics, reading and science, with particular attention to understanding how time spent gaming interacts with other forms of online activity.

While most teenagers game moderately, a minority engages intensively

PISA captures gaming across all platforms, including smartphones, gaming consoles and online applications, providing a comprehensive measure of gaming activity (OECD, 2025_[40]).5 Across OECD Member countries,6 84% of students reported playing video games in a typical week in 2025 (OECD, 2026_[41]).7 Within the wider digital landscape, children also engage extensively in other online activities. For instance, almost all adolescents browse the Internet for fun (95%) or use social networks (96%), while a smaller share (65%) create or edit digital content (OECD, 2026_[41]). Video gaming is therefore among the most common forms of online leisure.

Although participation is widespread, weekday gaming time is unevenly distributed. On average across the OECD, 19% of students reported not playing at all on a typical weekday in 2025 (Figure 4.4). About half (54%) played for up to three hours per weekday, a level classified in this chapter as moderate leisure use. In contrast, 26% played for more than three hours per weekday, the threshold used in this chapter to define intensive gaming. Notably, 5% of all students reported playing more than seven hours per weekday, indicating that the longest sessions are concentrated within a relatively small segment of adolescents (OECD, 2026_[41]).

Cross-country differences in the full distribution of weekday gaming time are shown in Figure 4.4. In the Slovak Republic (28%), Czechia (26%) and Slovenia (25%), more than one-quarter of students reported not gaming at all on a typical weekday in 2025. In contrast, in the United Kingdom fewer than one in seven students reported zero weekday gaming. Differences are also visible in the upper tail of the distribution. In Chile, 9% of students reported playing more than seven hours per weekday, compared with less than 3% in Australia and Iceland. Finland had the highest share of students who are moderate video game players (61%) with a low share of intensive gaming (24%). In contrast, the Slovak Republic had at the same time a high share of students who are intensive video game players (32%) and those who do not play at all during weekdays (28%) with a smaller group of moderate players (40%). These patterns point to distinct national profiles in how gaming time is allocated across 15-year-olds.

Figure 4.4. The distribution of weekday gaming time varies markedly across countries
Copy link to Figure 4.4. The distribution of weekday gaming time varies markedly across countries

*Distribution of time spent playing video games on a typical weekday among 15-year-olds, 2025 (or most recent)*

A specific focus on intensive gaming can further illustrate cross-country differences (Figure 4.5). On average across the OECD in 2025, 26% of 15-year-olds report playing for more than three hours per typical weekday. However, the share ranges from 17% in Spain and 18% in Switzerland to 36% in Chile. In the United Kingdom, Sweden and Lithuania, around one in three students reported gaming for more than three hours per weekday, whereas in Austria (19%), Iceland (19%) and Italy (20%), the share was closer to one in five.

The prevalence of intensive gaming in a country is not simply a reflection of its overall participation rate. High levels of participation do not automatically lead to high intensity, nor does a large pool of non-gamers prevent a country from having a significant share of intensive users. For example, the share of non-gamers is relatively high in Czechia (26%) and the Slovak Republic (28%), yet intensive gaming is above the OECD average (30% and 32%, respectively). Conversely, in Spain, where participation is more widespread (25% of non-gamers), the share of students gaming for more than three hours remains the lowest in the OECD (17%).

Figure 4.5. The share of students gaming intensively differs widely across countries
Copy link to Figure 4.5. The share of students gaming intensively differs widely across countries

*Percentage of 15-year-olds playing video games for more than three hours per typical weekday, 2025 (or most recent)*

Complementing PISA’s focus on 15-year-olds, the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) 2021/2022 survey covers 11-, 13- and 15-year-olds across 44 countries and regions in Europe, Central Asia and Canada,8 and shows that weekly gaming is common from early adolescence (Boniel-Nissim et al., 2024_[42]). About 36% of 11-year-olds and 34% of 13-year-olds reported gaming (almost) every day, while the share is lower among 15-year-olds (28%). At the opposite end, approximately 11%, 18% and 25% of 11-, 13- and 15-year-olds respectively reported almost never gaming. These patterns reflect the levels of gaming prevalence reported via PISA while adding more information on younger children, showing that gaming is already common in children’s daily life by age 11 (Figure 4.6).

Figure 4.6. Most children game regularly, with frequent gaming slightly declining with age
Copy link to Figure 4.6. Most children game regularly, with frequent gaming slightly declining with age

*Average distribution of gaming frequency among children, by age, 2022*

Data show that moderate daily gaming dominates: about 55% of 11-year-olds reported playing one to two hours per day, compared with 45% of both 13- and 15-year-olds. The share playing more than four hours per day increases slightly with age, from around 17% at age 11 to over 22% among 13- and 15-year-olds, consistent with PISA evidence showing that intensive gaming is concentrated in a minority of children (Figure 4.7). Moreover, the data indicate that both daily frequency and intensive use reach a peak at age 13, followed by a gradual decline as children approach age 15. This downward trend appears to persist into late adolescence; for instance, longitudinal data from Germany’s Federal Statistical Office show that average daily gaming time continues to decrease significantly as young people transition into adulthood and take on greater professional or academic responsibilities (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2025_[44]).

Figure 4.7. Most 11-, 13- and 15-year-olds play one to four hours per day on average
Copy link to Figure 4.7. Most 11-, 13- and 15-year-olds play one to four hours per day on average

*Average distribution of time spent gaming on a typical day among children, by age, 2022*

Boys game more than girls, with intensity falling as socio-economic status rises

Digital divides are correlated not only with access and socio-economic factors, but also with a child’s sex. Figure 4.8 shows that patterns of online engagement was strongly differentiated between boys and girls in 2022. Boys were more likely to participate intensively in video gaming and girls were more active social media users (OECD, 2026_[45]; Boniel-Nissim et al., 2024_[42]). PISA data from 2025 confirm this divide extends to the intensity of gaming: girls9 represent the majority of non-gamers or light users, while boys dominate the higher-use categories. Among 15-year-olds, around 29% of girls and about 10% of boys reported not playing video games on weekdays. At the other end of the scale, 7% of boys and 3% of girls spent more than seven hours per weekday gaming (OECD, 2026_[41]).

Figure 4.8. Boys are more likely than girls to game intensively on weekdays
Copy link to Figure 4.8. Boys are more likely than girls to game intensively on weekdays

*Distribution of time spent playing video games on a typical weekday among 15-year-olds, by sex, OECD average, 2025 (or most recent)*

Time spent playing video games on weekdays also varies substantially by students’ socio-economic background, again with differences between boys and girls.10 In 2025, PISA data indicate that boys consistently reported more hours gaming than girls across all socio-economic groups. Among disadvantaged students, boys spent on average 21 hours gaming per week compared with around 13 hours for girls. The gap between boys and girls persists among students from medium socio-economic backgrounds, with boys gaming 19 hours versus 11 hours per week for girls. Among advantaged students, boys spent 17 hours per week gaming compared with 9 hours for girls. Overall, weekly gaming declines as socio-economic status increases, suggesting that both sex and socio-economic status shape patterns of engagement with video games (Figure 4.9).

Figure 4.9. Gaming decreases as socio-economic status rises, with boys gaming more than girls across all groups
Copy link to Figure 4.9. Gaming decreases as socio-economic status rises, with boys gaming more than girls across all groups

*Average weekly hours of gaming among 15-year-olds, by socio-economic status and sex, OECD average, 2025 (or most recent)*

Gaming and school performance: Balancing potential benefits and risks

Understanding how the engagement of 15-year-olds in video gaming relates to learning requires a measured and evidence-based perspective. Gaming is now one of the most common forms of digital leisure among 15-year-olds across the OECD. Prior research has identified both potential benefits (e.g. problem solving, persistence, social interaction) and possible risks, particularly when gaming displaces other activities (OECD, 2024_[47]).

Box 4.2. Gaming and academic outcomes: Non-linear patterns and cognitive pathways

Copy link to Box 4.2. Gaming and academic outcomes: Non-linear patterns and cognitive pathways

Research over the past two decades consistently underscores that the relationship between video gaming, and cognitive or academic outcomes, is complex and highly context-dependent (Granic, Lobel and Rutger, 2014_[48]). Cross-sectional analyses, including large-scale surveys such as PISA and national cohort studies, often reveal a broadly non-linear pattern: moderate engagement is typically associated with better school performance, while very high levels of gaming correlate with lower outcomes (OECD, 2024_[49]; Drummond et al., 2020_[50]). These studies emphasise heterogeneity across game type, individual characteristics and socio-economic background, and caution against interpretations based solely on total “screen time”. Negative associations with academic outcomes at high levels of gaming are often interpreted through “dose-response” mechanisms, where benefits plateau and excessive use displaces time for sleep, study or physical activity (Ferguson, 2017_[51]; Przybylski and Weinstein, 2019_[52]). However, cross-sectional data cannot establish whether gaming drives cognitive benefits, or whether higher-performing students engage differently with gaming.

Longitudinal research provides more insight into temporal patterns and potential mechanisms. Cohort studies tracking adolescents over months or years indicate that moderate gaming can precede improvements in attention, working memory and problem-solving skills, while excessive gaming is associated with later declines in academic engagement, attention regulation, or socio-emotional adjustment (Kühn et al., 2014_[53]; Gentile et al., 2011_[54]; Przybylski, 2014_[55]; Twenge and Campbell, 2018_[56]). These findings suggest that cognitive and behavioural effects accumulate over time and that non-linear associations may reflect both beneficial stimulation at lower doses and detrimental displacement or fatigue effects at higher exposure.

Experimental and quasi-experimental studies further identify potential mechanisms. Controlled interventions show that certain types of games, particularly action or strategy games, can enhance visual attention, cognitive control and spatial reasoning (Green and Bavelier, 2003_[57]; Boot et al., 2008_[58]). Neuroimaging and laboratory studies confirm that such improvements correspond to measurable changes in brain activity and connectivity. However, prolonged or intensive gaming has also been associated with attentional dysregulation, increased impulsivity, and reduced grey matter density in regions linked to executive control (Yao et al., 2017_[59]). This provides plausible pathways through which excessive engagement may hinder academic performance.

Collectively, research highlights a nuanced picture: gaming is neither inherently beneficial nor harmful for school performance. Outcomes depend on duration, context, game type and, individual characteristics. This suggests that the relationship follows an inverted U-shaped pattern where limited engagement may stimulate cognitive skills, but excessive use risks diminishing returns through displacement and fatigue.

Building on these insights, PISA 2025 microdata allow a closer look at how patterns of gaming relate to achievement in mathematics, reading and science. This analysis considers variations between weekdays and weekends, as well as differences across different population groups.

The analysis provides a descriptive picture of these associations, using cross-sectional, self-reported time-use data. Observed patterns may reflect other characteristics – such as motivation, time management or parental support – rather than a causal effect of gaming itself. Two complementary approaches explore these associations: the first links gaming intensity to achievement while controlling for standard student and school characteristics. Building on this approach, the second adds accounting for time spent in other forms of digital leisure to help better isolate patterns specific to gaming. Full methodological details and results are set out in Annex 4.A.

Beyond moderate levels, gaming is linked with lower academic outcomes

The analysis confirms a non-linear association between gaming and school performance. Beyond one to two hours of weekday gaming, predicted scores begin to decline, suggesting that intensive engagement is associated with lower achievement in mathematics, reading and science compared with no gaming (Figure 4.10, panel A). This may reflect other findings that digital play supports cognitive, social or motivational engagement (UNICEF, 2024_[8]). The pattern is similar for both weekdays and weekends, although the benefits from gaming are more pronounced and the decline is less steep on weekends (Figure 4.10, panel B), when students have more discretionary time. These results are consistent with earlier studies pointing out that students who report moderate, balanced digital leisure tend to perform at least as well as, or slightly better than, those who report no time spent on such activities, whereas students who report very high levels of use generally show lower average performance (OECD, 2024_[49]).

Figure 4.10. School performance declines with excessive gaming, while moderate use shows no or little disadvantage
Copy link to Figure 4.10. School performance declines with excessive gaming, while moderate use shows no or little disadvantage

Associations with gaming vary across socio-economic groups

The association between gaming and school performance varies systematically by students’ socio-economic background. Students from advantaged families achieve higher performance across all levels of gaming, yet the positive association between gaming and performance is stronger among disadvantaged students (Figure 4.11). For instance, one to two hours of weekday gaming is associated with slightly higher mathematics, reading and science scores compared to no gaming. This is especially the case among disadvantaged students, who show the largest positive associations. Such a pattern may reflect opportunities for autonomy, competence, and social connection that are less accessible in other contexts (UNICEF, 2024_[8]). Nevertheless, advantaged students continue to score higher overall, but their scores do not exhibit a positive association with moderate gaming.

Figure 4.11. Gaming relates differently to school performance across socio-economic status groups
Copy link to Figure 4.11. Gaming relates differently to school performance across socio-economic status groups

*Predicted scores by hours of weekday gaming among 15-year-olds, by subject and socio-economic status, 2025*

Girls face steeper learning losses from intensive gaming

The results also highlight systematic differences in the association between gaming and school performance for boys and girls. In mathematics, girls score lower on average than boys once data are controlled for student and school characteristics. Moreover, the predicted decline in performance associated with intensive weekday gaming is steeper for girls. In reading, girls achieve substantially higher scores overall, but among the most intensive gamers, boys achieve higher predicted reading scores. In science, the gaps are narrower at low and moderate levels of gaming, but become larger as gaming intensity increases (Figure 4.12, panel A).

Weekend patterns accentuate these contrasts (Figure 4.12, panel B). High levels of weekend gaming are associated with more pronounced declines in girls’ mathematics, reading and science performance, while boys’ scores are little or positively impacted by weekend gaming. These differences may reflect a combination of underlying behaviour patterns – boys generally report more frequent gaming – and unobserved contextual factors shaping both gaming and learning. These results suggest that up to one or two hours of gaming is generally compatible with stable academic performance for both boys and girls. Conversely, intensive use – beyond one to two hours on weekdays and three on weekend days – is associated with larger declines for girls.

Figure 4.12. Intensive gaming is associated with steeper declines in academic performance among girls, particularly on weekdays
Copy link to Figure 4.12. Intensive gaming is associated with steeper declines in academic performance among girls, particularly on weekdays

These findings underscore the importance of moderation and the role of contextual factors such as sex and socio-economic background. Policies and guidance should consider these nuances when addressing digital engagement.

What are the benefits of gaming for children?

Copy link to What are the benefits of gaming for children?

Gaming offers opportunities for children of all ages to relax, learn, socialise, entertain themselves and express their creativity. When designed well, video games can contribute to improving child well-being in various ways. For example, they can positively influence “children’s sense of autonomy and competence, their ability to understand and regulate emotions, and to form and manage relationships” (UNICEF, 2024_[8]). Children agree that gaming is beneficial for their development: a survey among children aged 8 to 17 in England revealed that around two-thirds viewed “video games as beneficial to (their) health and well-being” (Ofcom, 2024_[60]). This section further considers some of the main benefits gaming brings for children.

Build competencies and skills

Through video games, children can build physical competencies and skills11 (such as cognitive or motor skills), as well as softer skills like learning to overcome frustration or feeling a sense of accomplishment in completing tasks. Games featuring rewards and progress quantification such as experience points, levels or goals, enable players to receive immediate feedback on their performance. Research shows that children may demonstrate pride and more confidence when passing levels or developing expertise, such as when playing sports games (UNICEF, 2024_[8]). Research by UNICEF indicates that children can develop a sense of competence when playing by “gradually improving their skills (and therefore performance) in the game, or by persevering with and overcoming challenges” (UNICEF, 2024_[8]). Video games also allow opportunities to experience failure and frustration when meeting difficult obstacles, teaching emotional resilience and how to overcome challenges (UNICEF, 2025_[61]). Children can also improve their competences in non-competitive games, such as puzzle games, quizzes or other educational games with no scoring systems (UNICEF, 2024_[8]).

More broadly, playing video games can contribute to improving children’s cognitive skills, such as problem solving, spatial awareness, attention to detail and decision making (Better Internet for Kids, 2025_[62]), as well as co-ordination and multi-tasking (eSafety Commissioner, 2023_[6]). Evidence suggests that action video games, such as the first-person shooter and third-person shooter genres, can lead to better cognitive abilities. Playing such games “enhances attentional control and other aspects of cognition to a greater extent than other video games” (Burns and Gottschalk, 2020_[9]). A study of nearly 2 000 children found that those who reported playing video games for three hours per day or more performed better on cognitive skills tests involving faster reaction times compared to children who had never played video games (Chaarani, Ortigara and Yuan, 2022_[63]).

Make social connections

Children can build social skills by playing with others online (eSafety Commissioner, 2023_[6]). Multiplayer and co-operative games allow children to collaborate and develop teamwork, leadership and communication skills (Better Internet for Kids, 2025_[62]). For example, young Australian gamers (ages 13–17) reported positive, prosocial gaming interactions, with 68% supporting another player while gaming in the past year and slightly fewer (61%) receiving support from another player (eSafety Commissioner, 2024_[19]). Games can also provide avenues for parents to connect with their child and strengthen family relationships (eSafety Commissioner, 2023_[6]).

Different game genres facilitate social connections in different ways. RPGs such as Final Fantasy XIV and Elder Scrolls Online have “cultivated tight-knit communities where players not only quest together but also build relationships” (Bycer, 2024_[36]). These games encourage teamwork and communication, which can facilitate new encounters and connections. In the United States, about half of children aged 13 to 17 report making a friend online because of a video game they both play, although boys are much more likely to make friends online than girls (56% versus 35%) (Pew Research Centre, 2024_[11]). Party games often emphasise friendly competition and collective strategies. For example, in Among Us, players must find the imposters hidden among them on board a spaceship: social deduction is at the core of the gameplay, which relies on real-time interactions between players and the ability to build collective strategies (Zhang, 2024_[64]).

Massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs) have opened opportunities for collaboration, social interaction, peer play and development of friendship, and hold “considerable potential for children’s social participation and growth” (Shoshani and Krauskopf, 2021_[65]). Player modes may also affect children’s social skills differently: a study of more than 800 children (aged 9 to 12) suggests that playing MMORPGs in co-operative mode (i.e. playing on a team that needs to survive until the end of the game) is associated with greater prosocial behaviour (i.e. providing assistance to the experimenter or donating money to a charity), whether the game is neutral or violent, compared to playing alone (Shoshani and Krauskopf, 2021_[65]).

Many children, especially boys, value the social features offered by gaming services and use them to stay connected with friends, often communicating orally via headsets. Some children have said they prefer playing with friends via online games rather than spending time face-to-face (Ofcom, 2024_[66]).

Specific technology and game features may encourage social connections by, for example, enabling direct voice chat or by providing unique virtual socialising spaces. In many social virtual reality apps, users create an avatar and customise it, enter public rooms where they can meet new people and participate in social events such as games or dance parties (Fitz-Patrick, 2025_[67]). As technology continues to advance, virtual socialising tends to become increasingly immersive with more realistic graphics, sound and even touch (haptics) (Liz Trumper, 2023_[68]).

Children do not need to be remotely situated from each other to be brought together by playing video games: indeed, they also socialise by playing video games while physically in the same room, often using the same device (eSafety Commissioner, 2023_[6]). Likewise, within the same household, playing in family settings can be beneficial to children in various ways. Research by Penn State University showed that older siblings and friends may play an important, and sometimes overlooked, role in helping parents keep their children safe on online gaming platforms like Roblox and Minecraft. This is because “these individuals can help children build knowledge of and avoid scams and other risky situations in online video games” (Tutella, 2025_[69]). Playing with parents, or “co-play”, can also help parents better understand gaming environments, while providing a common ground for parents and children to explore together (Tutella, 2025_[69]).

Encourage creativity

Some video games offer players the ability to be creative, expressive and innovative (Better Internet for Kids, 2025_[62]). Research shows that children develop their creativity when playing games that are open-ended, allow children to customise and design avatars, encourage role play, find multiple solutions to problems, or offer the freedom to try different game mechanics (UNICEF, 2024_[8]).

Games with customisation features can encourage children to exercise different forms of creativity by inventing characters, creating art or narratives, or making customisation, design and decoration choices (UNICEF, 2024_[8]). Additionally, games with non-linear, open-ended gameplay often allow greater freedom and creativity by, for example, allowing multiple paths to victory, different types of victory or optional side-quests and subplots.

Feel positive emotions and improve mental health

By providing an outlet for stress and anxiety, and by offering possibilities to improve mood and self-esteem, video games can contribute to good mental health outcomes (Better Internet for Kids, 2025_[62]). Many children emphasise that gaming brings them positive emotions. For example, in Australia, 94% of young gamers described positive feelings (e.g. feeling happy, relaxed or excited) associated with their online gaming and 41% reported that it benefitted their emotional well-being (eSafety Commissioner, 2024_[19]).

Video games can have a positive impact on children’s mental health. Research conducted among children aged 6 to 17 in the United States concludes that “some video games created as mental health interventions can be helpful – if modest – tools in improving the mental well-being of children and teens with anxiety, depression and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder” (Johns Hopkins Medicine, 2024_[70]). The study used different game genres to target children’s specific needs. For children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, some games involved racing or splitting attention, which required players to pay attention to more than one activity to be successful. For children with depression and anxiety, some interventions taught psychotherapy-oriented concepts in a game format (Johns Hopkins Medicine, 2024_[70]).

Additionally, gaming spaces can be used both as therapeutic tools to improve children’s emotional well-being and for educational purposes to raise awareness of issues related to mental health. For example, role-playing and first-person educational games can help therapists and teachers to combat school bullying by allowing participants to virtually experience different roles (e.g. victim or bystander) in problematic situations. A study conducted among fourth-grade elementary school students showed that virtual role-playing nurtured empathy and considerably enhanced pupils’ awareness of bullying (Yang and Lu, 2024_[71]).

Develop autonomy

Gaming also supports children in developing autonomy by allowing them to experience a sense of control and agency and giving them freedom of choice. When playing, children can feel in control to make decisions about in-game behaviours and actions that have consequences for their gameplay; develop their own strategies; and make choices about how, when and what they want to build and create (UNICEF, 2024_[8]). Research conducted among children in the United States and Chile suggests that feelings of autonomy acquired through digital play may be even more important for those “who lack opportunities to express autonomy, agency and choice in their everyday life” (UNICEF, 2024_[8]). In addition, gaming allows children to engage in small acts of deviance and transgression, such as through games that permit “playful sabotage and mischief” (UNICEF, 2024_[8]), enabling them to test the limits of social conventions.

Gaming can also contribute to children’s identity building processes at different developmental stages. Character customisation allows players to create a character that represents them or their desired persona, as well as to “differentiate themselves from other players, creating a sense of uniqueness and individuality” (Ascanio, 2023_[26]).

Children with disabilities and special needs can gain autonomy through video games by improving their communication, motor, organisational and social skills. For example, games that give verbal and written instructions and focus on the player’s strengths can improve reading and writing skills (Common Sense Media, 2021_[72]). Games designed for children with disabilities, as well as mainstream games, can boost their senses of independence and confidence, provide the ability to ask for help and let them challenge themselves.

What are the downsides of gaming for children?

Copy link to What are the downsides of gaming for children?

Children may face varied risks online (OECD, 2021_[4]). While the entire spectrum of risks is relevant to the online gaming landscape, gaming has unique characteristics that make it more susceptible to certain risks. This is due both to the functionalities that games offer and the organisation of gaming spaces. The risks within gaming environments can cause children physical, emotional, psychological or financial harm, and these risks can vary according to each game’s content and functionalities, as well as who children play with and who they meet online. Therefore, this section focuses on risks that are particularly relevant for gaming: misogyny and sexualised stereotypes, violence, bullying and grooming, exposure to toxic communities, mental health risks and gaming disorder, and financial and consumer risks.

Not all games carry the same risks. Depending on the type of game, the devices and platforms children use, and whether or how they are engaged in gaming cultures, risks for children vary in nature and intensity. In addition, children may be affected differently depending on their age, sex, socio-economic background, experience, maturity or level of awareness of safety issues (Better Internet for Kids, 2025_[62]). Furthermore, different risks can reinforce each other, exacerbating the negative impact on children. For instance, a game that displays hyper-sexualised female characters (content risk) may give rise to online communities promoting misogynist ideas and launch harassment campaigns against female players (conduct and contact risk).

Misogyny and sexualised stereotypes

Misogynistic narratives are common in some genres of video games. Female characters can be placed in limiting social positions and heavily sexualised (Skowronski, Busching and Krahé, 2021_[73]; Lynch et al., 2024_[74]). Sexualised representations of women are widespread in certain genres of popular games (Cade, 2024_[75]) and can be degrading (Vilaseca, 2024_[76]). This can have lasting effects on children’s development and perceptions of social norms.

Bullying and grooming

When children interact in digital environments, they can experience hateful encounters and fall victim to bullying, harassment, sexual exploitation, grooming or sex trafficking (OECD, 2021_[4]). Bullying is a particularly widespread phenomenon in gaming. In Australia, almost one-third (32%) of young gamers have experienced other players targeting them with bullying behaviours. These include name calling, being intentionally left out, receiving hurtful messages, or being intentionally embarrassed (eSafety Commissioner, 2024_[19]). Data across OECD Member countries and partner economies show that cyberbullying is becoming more prevalent and that girls are more cyberbullied than boys (OECD, 2024_[77]).

Certain features specific to gaming services, notably multiplayer modes and communication functionalities (e.g. messaging, voice chat), can facilitate dangerous encounters and inappropriate contact from strangers (OECD, 2025_[16]). Three in ten children who game online in the United Kingdom, and one in four in Australia, chat to strangers while playing (eSafety Commissioner, 2024_[19]; Ofcom, 2025_[12]). Such encounters can lead to harm. In Australia, 9% of gamers aged 13 to 17 and 3% of those aged 8 to 12 have received or were asked to send nude images or sexual information while gaming. As a result, two in three of those who had this experience reported that it had negatively affected them (eSafety Commissioner, 2024_[19]).

While similar features exist on non-gaming platforms, they “collect in gaming environments, significantly increasing a child’s overall risk of exploitation” (WeProtect Global Alliance, 2023_[78]). It is common for perpetrators of crimes of sexual violence against children to first establish contact on a gaming platform popular among children. Then they lure their victim to a more private, encrypted messaging app where they are less likely to be caught, a technique known as “off-platforming” (Suojellaan Lapsia, Protect Children, 2024_[3]). A study among child sexual offenders found that 41% of respondents who have sought contact with a child did so through an online gaming platform (Suojellaan Lapsia, Protect Children, 2024_[3]). Individuals seeking to abuse children in social gaming environments are able to “lock them into high-risk grooming conversations in as little as 19 seconds after the first message, with an average time of just 45 minutes” (WeProtect Global Alliance, 2023_[78]).

Exposure to toxic communities

The wider gaming culture can expose children to online communities that promote, or let proliferate, hateful, racist, homophobic or misogynistic content and behaviours (UNICEF, 2025_[61]). Violent extremists exploit gaming platforms by capitalising on “normalised toxicity, sense of community and high levels of engagement to spread harmful ideologies” (Wallner, White and Regeni, 2025_[79]).

Certain games are known for problematic communities associated with misogyny, hateful ideas or bullying. As mentioned above, sexist and misogynist attitudes proliferate in some gaming communities, both in in-game chats and outside the games in forums and other spaces (Miller-Idriss, 2025_[80]). In a similar vein, a study of four leading online games identified hate and harassment in about half of the multiplayer game sessions analysed (ADL, 2025_[81]).

People tend to communicate and interact differently in digital environments because of anonymity, disembodiment and disinhibition (OECD, 2024_[77]). In gaming spaces, these characteristics create fertile ground for toxic behaviours to surface (Bradbury, 2025_[82]). Avatars, for instance, increase anonymity while enabling players to separate themselves from accountability for their in-game actions. Avatars are often used in popular sandbox and online RPGs, where the adoption of characters amplifies the degree of violent, often misogynistic, dialogue between players, especially if a female player is identified (Bradbury, 2025_[82]).

Mental health risks and gaming disorder

Negative gaming experiences – like other negative experiences – can adversely affect children’s mental health and well-being, as they correlate strongly with symptoms of depression, anxiety and social phobia (Jo, 2025_[83]). Research suggests that children who play video games for long periods without adequate social interaction or physical activity may experience isolation and mood disturbances (Sadaf, 2025_[84]). This is especially true for children who use gaming as an escape from real-life challenges and emotional issues (Sadaf, 2025_[84]). Newly derived insights on children and gaming are presented in Figure 4.13.

Figure 4.13. Symptoms of gaming disorder are more common among children who play frequently and for longer daily periods
Copy link to Figure 4.13. Symptoms of gaming disorder are more common among children who play frequently and for longer daily periods

*Share of children reporting each symptom of gaming disorder, by average weekly and daily gaming frequency, 2022*

Gaming disorder12 is characterised by reduced control over gaming behaviour and prioritising gaming over other activities. Young gamers are especially vulnerable to gaming disorder, as it can lead to “significant impairments in life functions including academic performance, relationships, and extracurricular activities” (Jo, 2025_[83]) and interfere with their social development as they form their identity. Additionally, different types of games may not affect children in the same way. Evidence shows children who play relatively more days per week, and who play for more hours, are more likely to report symptoms of gaming disorder (Boniel-Nissim et al., 2024_[42]).13

As indicated in Figure 4.13, among those children who played (almost) every day in 2022, around 51% reported preoccupation with gaming, about 40% reported feeling “unsatisfied” because they wanted to play more, and nearly 60% reported “playing to avoid thinking about annoying things”. An even higher share of children report “preoccupation”, from about 20% among those playing 1 to 2 hours a day up to 67% among those playing more than 8 hours a day. Feelings of unsatisfaction rose from around 16% from 1 to 2 hours per day to above 55% for those playing 8 hours or more. Other problematic behaviours – using gaming to avoid unpleasant thoughts, arguing with others, gaming in secret, losing interest in other activities, and serious conflicts – show a similar trajectory with respect to hours of video gaming per day.

The survey results further highlight that most adolescents do not show symptoms of gaming disorder, while around one in eight are at risk, with boys consistently reporting higher levels than girls (Boniel-Nissim et al., 2024_[42]).14 Younger adolescents are more likely to play digital games frequently and to show symptoms of gaming disorder, suggesting greater vulnerability at earlier ages. These findings underscore that interventions may need to be age- and sex-sensitive, focusing on children who exhibit frequent or intensive gaming behaviours and addressing the underlying causes.

Selected consumer risks

Children are particularly vulnerable consumers online. Depending on their age, maturity and digital skills, and level of parental supervision, children engaging in video games may lack the necessary judgement, self-control or awareness to recognise and manage financial risks. For instance, children can face such risks in situations where gaming services inadequately advertise or hide in-game purchases. Whether knowingly or not, children are susceptible to financial harm through gambling-style mechanics, misleading or unfair practices, and scams or frauds.

The gaming economy is increasingly based on a free-to-play model where “revenue is generated through the sale of in-game virtual items acquired through microtransactions rather than of game products” (OECD, 2023_[85]). This way, players can buy additional game content or in-game currency (e.g. virtual coins, gems or tokens) that can be used to purchase virtual items and/or improve the player’s performance (eSafety Commissioner, 2023_[6]). However, game providers do not always disclose sufficient or adequate information for children and parents to understand the costs associated with free-to-play games, particularly given that in-game currencies often cannot be converted back into real money (BEUC, 2024_[86]). Additionally, microtransactions in games may encourage excessive or ill-considered spending. For example, in the United Kingdom, of the 58% of children surveyed who had spent money online in the previous month, 32% regretted purchases made in games. Additionally, 42% were not sure what they were buying and 41% reported overspending (Ofcom, 2025_[87]). Manipulative marketing techniques include currency bundles, where players must purchase more in-game currency than they need to afford items; dual-currency systems, which create confusion and push players towards purchasing the premium option; and artificial scarcity, where players are encouraged to buy premium currency with real money to acquire artificially made rare items (Better Internet for Kids, 2026_[88]). Other monetisation features, such as battle passes, may promote excessive gaming by creating time-limited incentives for players to complete challenges and level up to unlock rewards (e.g. skins, weapons or in-game currency) (Better Internet for Kids, 2026_[89]).

Children may be especially at risk of financial harm when game developers use techniques drawn directly from gambling to make them play for longer and spend more money (Ash, Gordon and Mills, 2023_[5]). Gambling-like elements can include rewards in the form of loot boxes to incentivise children to “spend real money to unlock unknown virtual rewards” (Ofcom, 2024_[60]). Loot boxes are chance-based “treasure-chests that contain virtual rewards of varying value, such as clothing, weapons, or game advantages” (Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, 2025_[23]), which players can purchase using in-game currency or real money. However, the information available on app stores does not always clearly state that a game contains such elements: a BBC investigation, for example, concluded that most popular mobile games are advertised without disclosing that they contain loot boxes (Gerken, 2024_[90]). Other games simulate gambling activities, such as poker, slot machines, blackjack or roulette, which can contribute to normalising gambling environments for children (eSafety Commissioner, 2023_[6]).

Labour exploitation risks

Gaming can also lead to child labour concerns. While there is no internationally agreed legal definition of digital child labour, it can be understood as “work or services performed that meet internationally recognised definitions of child labour and that are enabled, organised, mediated, or amplified by the digital environment” (UNICEF, 2026_[91]). In relation to gaming, one example is the growing phenomenon of child streamers and gaming influencers, sometimes referred to as “kidfluencing”, in which enterprises are built (often by parents) around the likability of a child (Clark and Jno-Charles, 2025_[92]).

Because it allows parents to monetise the labour of their children, this phenomenon raises complex legal and ethical challenges, and can lead to the infringement of children’s rights. An analysis of four child influencers identified five rights at risk: freedom from harm, freedom from economic exploitation, privacy, freedom of expression and the right to consent. Two of these rights (privacy and expression) are disproportionately represented and costly compared to other child labour activities (Clark and Jno-Charles, 2025_[92]).

Some video games, namely those that encourage users to create or build the worlds that other players inhabit, may provide a fertile space for child labour. For instance, a gaming service itself may be encouraging young developers to create virtual worlds or items with little or no redistribution of revenue. In addition, other users may seek to recruit children to collaborate with them on projects to create spaces for these gaming platforms. There are documented cases of seasoned content creators recruiting young developers to collaborate on work projects without contracts or any age restrictions. Children are often recruited to work for free (not necessarily understanding that what they are doing is work). Alternatively, they may be paid in a premium in-game currency. They are then encouraged to reinvest this currency in the platform rather than convert it into real money (Defer, 2022_[93]) or retain it until they reach an arbitrary threshold amount.

Challenges for ensuring safe gaming spaces for children now and in the future

Copy link to Challenges for ensuring safe gaming spaces for children now and in the future

The gaming landscape is dynamic, with new games and devices being released on the market regularly. A range of stakeholders work together to support safer online gaming experiences for children.

Building safe gaming spaces

In recent years, many OECD Member countries and partner economies have passed, or are considering, online safety laws. Several focus on the protection of children in the digital environment, placing new obligations on online service providers. These can require some services to assure the age of their users before allowing them to register or access certain features (OECD, 2025_[16]). In addition to laws, other public policies can provide valuable support for children, families and educators. Such policies can help enhance children’s digital literacy skills, and promote awareness-raising campaigns to help the public better understand potential online safety issues and available remedies.

Most online safety laws and policies do not target video games, but the scope of their provisions may encompass them (OECD, 2025_[94]). Such provisions may concern, for example, companies’ policies and practices regarding the detection and removal of illegal content, the use of algorithms, advertising practices or commercial transactions. A challenge for policymaking is to ensure that online gaming services are captured within the scope of online safety laws and policies when relevant. However, gaming services have individual traits that may call for a tailored approach. Video games vary dramatically in nature and offer a range of in-game features, as well as numerous opportunities and risks linked to the characteristics of each game. Laws and other public policies should take those specificities into account.

The gaming industry also plays a prominent role in keeping children safe on their services. Commonly, gaming services set rules and policies in their governing documents (e.g. terms of service, community guidelines, privacy policies), outlining prohibited content and behaviours. Certain rules and practices, such as minimum age policies, age assurance mechanisms, age-tiered safeguards, report and appeal mechanisms, and transparency reporting, often apply specifically to children. In practice, children may benefit from varying levels of protection, depending on their age and the country where they are based (OECD, 2025_[16]).

Moreover, app stores and age rating agencies usually provide an age recommendation indicating the age group for which a game is suitable. However, age ratings sometimes conflict with each other, or with the age requirement set by the service itself. As a result, parents and children face multiple age recommendations from multiple sources (OECD, 2025_[16]). In the European Union, where games are rated according to the Pan-European Game Information (PEGI) framework, 79% of parents with children who play video games are aware of the PEGI age rating labels, against 67% of all parents. Despite that, 27% of parents who are aware of the PEGI rating labels report using them but not always following the advice (Video Games Europe, 2023_[39]).

Lastly, policymakers and digital service providers could promote digital safety by design for children, which aims at integrating safety considerations at the outset of product or service development. Such initiatives can contribute to a safer digital environment for children while allowing them to seize opportunities to enjoy its benefits (OECD, 2024_[95]). The OECD identifies eight components of digital safety by design: employing age assurance mechanisms, implementing child-centred design, detecting and preventing harm, protecting children’s privacy and personal data, ensuring child-friendly information provision, facilitating complaints and redress, encouraging child participation and putting children at the centre of decision making and promoting a culture of safety and well-being (OECD, 2024_[95]).

Promoting balanced gaming to support learning

Evidence from PISA 2025 shows that moderate gaming – generally one to two hours on weekdays and up to three hours on weekend days – is associated with higher academic performance. Intensive engagement, in contrast, is consistently linked to lower performance across mathematics, reading and science, highlighting the need for guidance that encourages balanced digital leisure.

Policy responses should consider the uneven effects of gaming across socio-economic groups. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds have lower predicted scores at all levels of gaming, with gaps largest at moderate levels of engagement – up to around two hours on weekdays and three hours on weekend days – where moderate gaming appears relatively more beneficial. At high levels of gaming, predicted scores decline most sharply for advantaged students.

Differences between boys and girls also warrant attention. Moderate gaming is associated with slightly better performance for both boys and girls, but the association drops more rapidly for girls as gaming time increases. Policies should recognise these subject- and sex-specific patterns, providing guidance that supports moderate gaming while mitigating excessive use.

By combining guidance on safe and moderate gaming with targeted support for students, policymakers can help ensure that digital leisure is a positive part of adolescents’ learning experiences.

The future of gaming

What does the future of gaming look like? What will gaming mean for younger and future generations? The global gaming industry may have a promising future. It generated USD 183.9 billion in 2023 (Newzoo, 2024_[96]). Playing video games is an activity that many people integrate into their leisure time in one form or another. Gaming spaces increasingly attract players of all age groups around the world, building strong links with other platforms and growing communities that directly influence gaming cultures (Entertainment Software Association, 2024_[97]) (Video Games Europe, 2024_[98]).

Emerging technologies and innovation are shaping the future of video games. Some trends are already transforming what is possible in gaming, including:

Immersive gaming: immersive technologies (e.g. augmented, mixed and virtual reality) increasingly feature sound, haptics (touch feedback) or the incorporation of other senses (OECD, 2024_[77]). The global virtual reality and augmented reality market size is projected to grow from USD 11.5 billion in 2024 to USD 370 billion by 2034 (Gartner, 2024_[99]). The rising demand for immersive gaming experiences and advancements in virtual reality and augmented reality hardware, such as improved headsets and controllers, are driving significant growth in the global virtual reality gaming market (Grand View Research, 2024_[100]).
Generative AI: game developers are using generative AI to create new content faster and build “living games” (Buser, 2025_[101]) that adapt to each player. These can create unique characters and storylines, adjusting game controls to make them more intuitive for the player (Hyzy and Greene, 2024_[102]), or dynamically adjusting the difficulty setting according to the player’s performance (Carson, 2024_[103]). Additionally, AI-powered conversational agents can participate in games’ scenarios and adapt their behaviour to the user’s choices, reaching a new level of realism and customisation (Hyzy and Greene, 2024_[102]).

Other technologies, while still at an early stage of development, could transform game features profoundly:

Neurotech gaming: neurotech gaming allows players to control games using their brainwaves (e.g. using an electroencephalography headset), merging neuroscience and interactive entertainment. Brain-computer interfaces are opening the possibility to move virtual objects or control avatars with just a thought. The intersection of neurotech with other technology, such as virtual reality, opens new dimensions of interactivity and immersion in gaming (Pedersen, 2024_[104]).
Quantum computing: while quantum computing is still at a nascent stage, recent developments suggest it is moving towards commercialisation (OECD, 2025_[105]). The aim is to create game levels in real time, using quantum machine-learning algorithms. This technology could be used to build dynamic, unique and endlessly playable gaming experiences (Senior, 2025_[106]).

It is crucial for policymakers, regulators and other stakeholders to keep pace with technological developments so that they understand and anticipate gaming trends and capitalise on what these spaces can offer children while keeping them safe. In doing so, more evidence is necessary to analyse technological advances in gaming environments, assess their impact on child well-being, and mitigate potential adverse effects on children from different ages, countries or backgrounds. As gaming is likely to remain a key part of children’s play and leisure in the coming years, societies should ensure that children are well-equipped to thrive and stay safe in gaming environments.

Annex 4.A. Methodology and results: Gaming and school performance

Copy link to Annex 4.A. Methodology and results: Gaming and school performance

This annex presents the technical details underlying the analysis of video gaming and student performance in PISA 2025. The analysis uses microdata covering over 110 000 students across OECD Member countries. Student outcomes are measured using plausible values in mathematics, reading and science and, video gaming is self-reported separately for weekdays and weekends. The aim is to examine the association between gaming and school performance, considering potential non-linear effects and heterogeneity by sex and socio-economic status.

Modelling approach

Copy link to Modelling approach

To capture potential non-linear effects, all models include both a linear and a squared term for gaming hours, allowing for curvilinear relationships between gaming and academic outcomes consistent with prior findings (OECD, 2024_[49]). All regressions control for students’ socio-economic status, measured using the Index of Economic, Social and Cultural Status (ESCS) (Avvisati and Wuyts, 2024_[46]), sex, immigrant background, availability of information and communication technologies (ICTs) at home and at school and country fixed effects.

Heterogeneity is examined through interaction terms between gaming and socio-economic status, and between gaming and sex. Standard errors are robust and clustered at the school level, and results are pooled across the ten plausible values for each subject using Rubin’s rules (Rubin, 1987_[107]). While the models provide insights into associations, they do not establish causal effects. Predicted scores illustrate average trends across groups, but individual outcomes may vary depending on unobserved factors.

Baseline specification: time spent on other digital leisure uncontrolled

Copy link to Baseline specification: time spent on other digital leisure uncontrolled

The baseline specification captures the association between gaming and student outcomes in the context of broader student and school characteristics. It includes linear and quadratic terms for gaming, socio-economic status, sex and their interactions, alongside standard controls:

Where is student ’s score in subject at school , is a vector of additional controls (immigrant status and ICT availability at home and school), and are country fixed effects.

	Weekday gaming	Weekend gaming
Gaming	6.364*** (0.641)	8.713*** (0.630)	7.558*** (0.605)	11.215*** (0.611)	12.919*** (0.599)	12.141*** (0.625)
Gaming squared	-1.697*** (0.084)	-1.964*** (0.080)	-1.812*** (0.082)	-1.739*** (0.075)	-1.814*** (0.076)	-1.741*** (0.078)
ESCS	36.311*** (0.544)	33.791*** (0.759)	36.886*** (0.823)	36.609*** (0.540)	34.155*** (0.739)	37.353*** (0.785)
Gaming x ESCS	-2.345*** (0.191)	-2.757*** (0.193)	-2.592*** (0.193)	-1.794*** (0.166)	-2.160*** (0.172)	-2.061*** (0.171)
Girl	-14.232*** (0.922)	31.733*** (0.966)	2.482** (0.936)	-5.077*** (1.004)	42.119*** (0.964)	12.628*** (0.964)
Gaming x Girl	-5.397*** (0.385)	-6.168*** (0.435)	-6.133*** (0.399)	-6.461*** (0.344)	-7.386*** (0.365)	-7.387*** (0.348)
Observations	117,534	117,534	117,534	107,009	107,009	107,009
R-squared	0.1900	0.1573	0.1642	0.1866	0.1614	0.1634

Weekday gaming

Weekend gaming

Mathematics score

Reading score

Science score

Mathematics score

Reading score

Science score

Gaming

6.364***

(0.641)

8.713***

(0.630)

7.558***

(0.605)

11.215***

(0.611)

12.919***

(0.599)

12.141***

(0.625)

Gaming squared

-1.697***

(0.084)

-1.964***

(0.080)

-1.812***

(0.082)

-1.739***

(0.075)

-1.814***

(0.076)

-1.741***

(0.078)

ESCS

36.311***

(0.544)

33.791***

(0.759)

36.886***

(0.823)

36.609***

(0.540)

34.155***

(0.739)

37.353***

(0.785)

Gaming x ESCS

-2.345***

(0.191)

-2.757***

(0.193)

-2.592***

(0.193)

-1.794***

(0.166)

-2.160***

(0.172)

-2.061***

(0.171)

Girl

-14.232***

(0.922)

31.733***

(0.966)

2.482**

(0.936)

-5.077***

(1.004)

42.119***

(0.964)

12.628***

(0.964)

Gaming x Girl

-5.397***

(0.385)

-6.168***

(0.435)

-6.133***

(0.399)

-6.461***

(0.344)

-7.386***

(0.365)

-7.387***

(0.348)

Observations

117,534

107,009

R-squared

0.1900

0.1573

0.1642

0.1866

0.1614

0.1634

Notes: Coefficients are from pooled regression analyses of OECD Member countries across ten plausible values according to Rubin’s rules (1987_[107]). Controls include sex, immigrant status, ICT availability at home and school and, country fixed effects. Standard errors are robust and clustered at the school level. *** indicates significance at the 1% level. See also endnote 9.

Source: OECD calculations based on OECD (2026_[41]), PISA Database, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/pisa.html.

Adjusted specification: controlling for other digital leisure

Copy link to Adjusted specification: controlling for other digital leisure

The adjusted specification builds on the baseline by additionally controlling for time spent on other digital leisure activities, including browsing social media, online browsing for fun and sharing content digitally. Both linear and quadratic terms for these activities are included. This specification isolates the contribution of gaming itself from broader patterns of digital engagement, helping to clarify whether observed associations are unique to gaming or reflect general digital activity.

Where includes time spent browsing for fun, using social media and, sharing content online, separately for weekdays and weekends.

	Weekday gaming	Weekend gaming
Gaming	3.908*** (0.841)	5.396*** (0.783)	5.369*** (0.786)	7.995*** (0.803)	9.441*** (0.797)	9.214*** (0.796)
Gaming squared	-0.651*** (0.120)	-0.829*** (0.121)	-0.745*** (0.117)	-0.776*** (0.107)	-0.891*** (0.108)	-0.799*** (0.107)
ESCS	36.668*** (0.617)	34.357*** (0.784)	37.226*** (0.831)	37.387*** (0.619)	34.973*** (0.775)	38.072*** (0.818)
Gaming x ESCS	-2.429*** (0.241)	-2.964*** (0.248)	-2.714*** (0.239)	-2.116*** (0.205)	-2.448*** (0.216)	-2.390*** (0.203)
Girl	-12.544*** (1.111)	31.197*** (1.110)	4.295*** (1.065)	-6.986*** (1.166)	37.723*** (1.162)	10.725*** (1.140)
Gaming x Girl	-4.774*** (0.522)	-5.350*** (0.544)	-5.575*** (0.523)	-4.768*** (0.449)	-5.306*** (0.483)	-5.599*** (0.465)
Observations	73,903	73,903	73,903	64,791	64,791	64,791
R-squared	0.2258	0.1955	0.2039	0.2258	0.1951	0.2031

Weekday gaming

Weekend gaming

Mathematics score

Reading score

Science score

Mathematics score

Reading score

Science score

Gaming

3.908***

(0.841)

5.396***

(0.783)

5.369***

(0.786)

7.995***

(0.803)

9.441***

(0.797)

9.214***

(0.796)

Gaming squared

-0.651***

(0.120)

-0.829***

(0.121)

-0.745***

(0.117)

-0.776***

(0.107)

-0.891***

(0.108)

-0.799***

(0.107)

ESCS

36.668***

(0.617)

34.357***

(0.784)

37.226***

(0.831)

37.387***

(0.619)

34.973***

(0.775)

38.072***

(0.818)

Gaming x ESCS

-2.429***

(0.241)

-2.964***

(0.248)

-2.714***

(0.239)

-2.116***

(0.205)

-2.448***

(0.216)

-2.390***

(0.203)

Girl

-12.544***

(1.111)

31.197***

(1.110)

4.295***

(1.065)

-6.986***

(1.166)

37.723***

(1.162)

10.725***

(1.140)

Gaming x Girl

-4.774***

(0.522)

-5.350***

(0.544)

-5.575***

(0.523)

-4.768***

(0.449)

-5.306***

(0.483)

-5.599***

(0.465)

Observations

73,903

64,791

R-squared

0.2258

0.1955

0.2039

0.2258

0.1951

0.2031

Notes: Coefficients are from pooled regression analyses of OECD Member countries across ten plausible values according to Rubin’s rules (1987_[107]). Controls include sex, immigrant status, ICT availability at home and school, and country fixed effects. Additional controls include browsing social media, browsing for fun and sharing content online, each entered with both linear and quadratic terms. Standard errors are robust and clustered at the school level. *** indicates significance at the 1% level. See also endnote 9.

Source: OECD calculations based on OECD (2026_[41]), PISA Database, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/pisa.html.

Analysis of the results

Copy link to Analysis of the results

Accounting for students’ engagement in other digital leisure slightly reduces the strength of the association between gaming and school performance but does not fundamentally change its general pattern. Light-to-moderate gaming appears largely compatible with average outcomes, while heavier gaming tends to coincide with lower performance. Controlling for broader digital activity may shift the point at which declines are observed to somewhat higher levels, particularly on weekends, although the overall pattern remains broadly similar – roughly two to three hours on weekdays and three to four hours on weekends.

Differences persist between the sexes: boys show little change at moderate levels of gaming (i.e. three hours per weekday and four hours per weekend day), while girls appear to exhibit somewhat steeper declines at higher levels of engagement. These patterns indicate that associations between gaming and school performance are not fully explained by broader digital leisure. Therefore, they should be interpreted as indicative of trends rather than causal effects.

References

[81] ADL (2025), Playing with Hate: How Online Gamers with Diverse Identity Usernames are Treated, Anti-Defamation League, New York, https://www.adl.org/resources/report/playing-hate-how-online-gamers-diverse-identity-usernames-are-treated.

[111] APA (2013), Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DC, https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596.

[20] App Figures (2025), “Top ranked iOS app store apps”, https://appfigures.com/top-apps/ios-app-store/united-states/iphone/games (accessed on 24 March 2026).

[15] Apple (2025), “Top apps for kids”, https://apps.apple.com/us/story/id1543998945 (accessed on 24 March 2026).

[26] Ascanio, P. (2023), “Character creation UX”, https://uxdesign.cc/character-creation-ux-58891061d087 (accessed on 22 April 2026).

[5] Ash, D., D. Gordon and D. Mills (2023), Between Gaming and Gambling - Children, Young People, and Paid Reward Systems in Digital Games, Loughborough University, UK, https://hdl.handle.net/2134/21640190.

[46] Avvisati, F. and C. Wuyts (2024), “The Measurement of Socio-economic Status in PISA”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 321, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0c5b793c-en.

[89] Better Internet for Kids (2026), “Battle pass”, https://better-internet-for-kids.europa.eu/en/adwiseonline/battle-pass (accessed on 12 March 2026).

[88] Better Internet for Kids (2026), “In-game currency”, https://better-internet-for-kids.europa.eu/en/adwiseonline/game-currency (accessed on 12 March 2026).

[62] Better Internet for Kids (2025), “Online gaming”, https://better-internet-for-kids.europa.eu/en/learning-corner/parents-and-caregivers/online-gaming (accessed on 24 February 2026).

[10] Better Internet for Kids (2024), “What parents should know about VR gaming”, https://better-internet-for-kids.europa.eu/en/news/what-parents-should-know-about-vr-gaming (accessed on 8 April 2026).

[86] BEUC (2024), Monetising Play: Regulating in-game and in-app premium currencies, European Consumer Organisation, Brussels, https://www.beuc.eu/position-papers/monetising-play-regulating-game-and-app-premium-currencies.

[32] Biddle, S. (2025), “Roblox, explained: The metaverse’s dangerous grip on kids”, https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/what-is-roblox-video-game-app-metaverse-safe-children-ban.html (accessed on 22 April 2026).

[28] Bitrián, P., I. Buil and S. Catalán (2021), “Enhancing user engagement: The role of gamification in mobile apps”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 132, pp. 170-185, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.028.

[31] Bloom, D. (2019), “Is fortnite the new social-media home for teens?”, https://www.forbes.com/sites/dbloom/2019/06/04/is-fortnite-the-new-social-media-home-for-teens (accessed on 24 April 2026).

[38] Blue, R. (2024), “Gaming terminology glossary: 160 video gaming terms, words and slang”, https://www.uswitch.com/broadband/guides/gaming-terms-glossary (accessed on 23 April 2026).

[42] Boniel-Nissim, M. et al. (2024), A Focus on Adolescent Social Media Use and Gaming in Europe, Central Asia and Canada: Health Behaviour in School-aged Children International Report from the 2021/2022 Survey, Volume 6, https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/378982.

[58] Boot, W. et al. (2008), “The effects of video game playing on attention, memory, and executive control”, Acta Psychologica, Vol. 129/3, pp. 387-398, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.09.005.

[82] Bradbury, D. (2025), “‘It’s just a game’: Misogyny, violence and suicide and self-harm risks in online gaming narratives”, Resolver, https://www.resolver.com/blog/online-gaming-misogyny-violence-suicide-and-self-harm (accessed on 16 April 2026).

[9] Burns, T. and F. Gottschalk (eds.) (2020), Education in the Digital Age: Healthy and Happy Children, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1209166a-en.

[101] Buser, J. (2025), “Living games are here: How gen AI is leveling up the games industry”, Google, https://blog.google/products/google-cloud/generative-ai-video-games/ (accessed on 16 April 2026).

[36] Bycer, J. (2024), “How social features are revolutionizing modern video games”, https://game-wisdom.com/general/social-features-revolutionizing-modern-video-games (accessed on 15 April 2026).

[75] Cade, M. (2024), “Hyper-sexualization of female characters in video games: ’Fan-service’ and character design”, https://tfnuiuc.substack.com/p/hyper-sexualization-of-female-characters (accessed on 22 April 2026).

[112] Cambridge Dictionary (2025), “Definition of ’emoji’”, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/fr/dictionnaire/anglais/emoji (accessed on 12 March 2026).

[103] Carson, O. (2024), “Generative AI potential in game development”, pubnub, https://www.pubnub.com/blog/generative-ai-potential-in-game-development (accessed on 15 April 2026).

[63] Chaarani, B., J. Ortigara and D. Yuan (2022), “Association of video gaming with cognitive performance among children”, Jama Network, Vol. 5/10, p. e2235721, https://doi.org/doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.35721.

[92] Clark, D. and A. Jno-Charles (2025), “The child labor in social media: Kidfluencers, ethics of care, and exploitation”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 201, pp. 35-62, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-025-05953-7.

[72] Common Sense Media (2021), 5 ways video games can help kids with disabilities, https://www.commonsensemedia.org/articles/5-ways-video-games-can-help-kids-with-disabilities (accessed on 30 January 2026).

[93] Defer, A. (2022), “On Roblox, children are both grunt labor and target consumers of a video game giant”, https://www.lemonde.fr/en/pixels/article/2022/06/18/on-roblox-children-are-both-grunt-labor-and-target-consumers-of-a-video-game-giant_5987226_13.html (accessed on 12 May 2026).

[17] DeGraide, A. (2024), “Understanding digital distribution: The new era of gaming”, https://bambamtastic.com/digital-distribution-games/ (accessed on 13 May 2026).

[50] Drummond, A. et al. (2020), “The relationship between problem gambling, excessive gaming, psychological distress and spending on loot boxes in Aotearoa New Zealand, Australia, and the United States—A cross-national survey”, PLoS ONE, Vol. 15/3, p. e0230378, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230378.

[35] ECPAT UK (2022), Summary of the Expert Roundtable on Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, Gender, and Online Gaming, ECPAT UK, London, https://ecpat.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Outcome-report_London-online-gaming-roundtable_2022.pdf.

[97] Entertainment Software Association (2024), “2024 essential facts about the U.S. video game industry”, https://www.theesa.com/resources/essential-facts-about-the-us-video-game-industry/2024-data/ (accessed on 30 January 2026).

[37] eSafety Commissioner (2025), “What is Twitch?”, https://www.esafety.gov.au/key-topics/esafety-guide/twitch (accessed on 7 April 2026).

[19] eSafety Commissioner (2024), Levelling Up to Stay Safe: Young People’s Experiences Navigating the Joys and Risks of Online Gaming, eSafety Commissioner, Belconnen, Australia, https://www.esafety.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-02/Leveling%20up%20to%20stay%20safe%20-%20gaming%20report.pdf.

[6] eSafety Commissioner (2023), “Gaming”, https://www.esafety.gov.au/parents/issues-and-advice/gaming (accessed on 12 March 2026).

[51] Ferguson, C. (2017), “Everything in moderation: Moderate use of screens unassociated with child behavior problems”, Psychiatric quarterly, Vol. 88/4, pp. 797-805, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11126-016-9486-3.

[24] Fillari, A. (2019), “Battle royale games explained: Fortnite, PUBG, and what could be the next big hit”, https://www.gamespot.com/articles/battle-royale-games-explained-fortnite-pubg-and-wh/1100-6459225/ (accessed on 15 June 2026).

[67] Fitz-Patrick, M. (2025), “Enter the world of social VR”, https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/enter-the-world-of-social-vr?srsltid=AfmBOor8USQlJUC3YU3Epm2il_DzKKQjOhdikrk5eBVLwVmYiGFub6fR (accessed on 15 May 2026).

[99] Gartner (2024), “Emerging tech: Revenue opportunity projection for AR and VR head-mounted displays”, https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/5179263 (accessed on 12 March 2026).

[54] Gentile, D. et al. (2011), “Pathological video game use among youths: A two-year longitudinal study”, Pediatrics, Vol. 127/2, pp. 319-329, https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-1353.

[90] Gerken, T. (2024), “Top-selling mobile games break rules on loot boxes”, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c748ww9y9nno (accessed on 6 May 2026).

[14] Google (2025), “Teacher Approved apps & games”, https://play.google.com/store/apps/category/FAMILY?hl=en (accessed on 23 March 2026).

[100] Grand View Research (2024), Virtual Reality In Gaming Market Size, Grand View Research, San Francisco, https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/virtual-reality-in-gaming-market.

[48] Granic, I., A. Lobel and E. Rutger (2014), “The benefits of playing video games”, American Psychologist, Vol. 69/1, pp. 66-78, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034857.

[57] Green, C. and D. Bavelier (2003), “Action video game modifies visual selective attention”, Nature, Vol. 423, pp. 534-537, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01647.

[25] Halai, M. (2024), “Demystifying tower defense game architecture – a practical guide”, Cubix, https://www.cubix.co/blog/demystifying-tower-defense-game-architecture-practical-guide (accessed on 6 May 2026).

[102] Hyzy, M. and S. Greene (2024), “How Generative AI Takes Gamification to the Next Level”, https://builtin.com/articles/generative-ai-gamification (accessed on 5 May 2026).

[43] Inchley, J., D. Currie, O. Samdal, A. Jåstad, A. Cosma and S. Nic Gabhainn (eds.) (2023), Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) Study Protocol: background, methodology and mandatory items for the 2021/22 survey, Glasgow: MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, https://www.hbsc.org/publications/survey-protocols.

[83] Jo, H. (2025), “How do different game genres impact adolescent players’ problematic game use?”, Entertainment Computing, Vol. 52/100897, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2024.100897.

[70] Johns Hopkins Medicine (2024), “Specially designed video games may benefit mental health of children and teenagers”, https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/newsroom/news-releases/2024/09/specially-designed-video-games-may-benefit-mental-health-of-children-and-teenagers (accessed on 11 March 2026).

[34] Kowert, R. (2025), “Online hate to offline behavior: Games edition”, https://rachelkowert.substack.com/p/online-hate-to-offline-behavior-games?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1017389&post_id=167594097&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=2ckwko&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email (accessed on 20 May 2026).

[53] Kühn, S. et al. (2014), “Positive association of video game playing with left frontal cortical thickness in adolescents”, PLoS ONE, Vol. 9/3, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091506.

[7] Lee, S. (2025), “The cultural significance of gaming communities: Understanding the social dynamics of online gaming cultures”, Number Analytics, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/cultural-significance-gaming-communities (accessed on 5 May 2026).

[68] Liz Trumper (2023), “Virtual games and socialising”, https://circus360.uk/thinking/virtual-games-and-socialising (accessed on 8 April 2026).

[74] Lynch, T. et al. (2024), “Evidence of ambivalent sexism in female video game character designs”, Mass Communication and Society, Vol. 27/6, pp. 1529-1554, https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2024.2311229.

[33] Meta (2025), “Meta Horizon: Share content”, https://developers.meta.com/horizon/documentation/unity/ps-sharing (accessed on 24 February 2026).

[80] Miller-Idriss, C. (2025), “Misogyny incubators: How gaming helps channel everyday sexism into violent extremism”, Frontiers of Psychology: Media Psychology, Vol. 16, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1537477/full.

[96] Newzoo (2024), Global Games Market Report, Newzoo, Amsterdam, https://resources.newzoo.com/hubfs/Reports/Games/2023_Newzoo_Free_Global_Games_Market_Report.pdf.

[45] OECD (2026), “Growing up in the social media age”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 385, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a1132839-en.

[114] OECD (2026), “Share of 15-year-old students who are intensive social media users”, OECD Going Digital Toolkit, https://goingdigital.oecd.org/indicator/85 (accessed on 19 September 2026)

[110] OECD (2026), PISA 2025 Results (Volume I): Future-Ready Students, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/73451bc5-en.

[41] OECD (2026), PISA Database, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/pisa.html (accessed on 10 September 2026).

[16] OECD (2025), Age assurance practices of 50 online services used by children, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a19853ab-en.

[40] OECD (2025), ICT Questionnaire for PISA 2025, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/data/datasets/pisa/pisa-2025-datasets/questionnaires/ICT%20QUESTIONNAIRE%20PISA%202025.pdf (accessed on 18 September 2026).

[105] OECD (2025), Quantum Technologies as a New Paradigm for Digital Economies and Societies, OECD Publishing Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e6664d58-en.

[94] OECD (2025), The legal and policy landscape of age assurance online for child safety and well-being, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4a1878aa-en.

[49] OECD (2024), “Managing screen time: How to protect and equip students against distraction”, PISA in Focus, No. 124, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7c225af4-en.

[77] OECD (2024), OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2024 (Volume 1): Embracing the Technology Frontier, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a1689dc5-en.

[47] OECD (2024), Students, digital devices and success, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9e4c0624-en.

[95] OECD (2024), Towards digital safety by design for children, OECD Digital Economy Papers, https://doi.org/10.1787/c167b650-en.

[85] OECD (2023), “Consumer vulnerability in the digital age”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 355, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4d013cc5-en.

[109] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en.

[4] OECD (2021), “Children in the digital environment: Revised typology of risks”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 302, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9b8f222e-en.

[12] Ofcom (2025), Children and Parents: Media Use and Attitudes Report, Ofcom, London, https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/research-and-data/media-literacy-research/children/childrens-media-use-and-attitudes-report-2025/childrens-media-literacy-report-2025.pdf?v=396621.

[87] Ofcom (2025), Children’s Online Spending and Potential Financial Harm: Quantitative Research, Ofcom, London, https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/online-safety/research-statistics-and-data/online-services-research/childrens-online-spending-and-potential-financial-harm-quantitative-research.pdf?v=400633.

[66] Ofcom (2024), Children’s Media Lives 2024, Ofcom, London, https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/research-and-data/media-literacy-research/children/children-media-use-and-attitudes-2024/childrens-media-lives-2024-summary-report.pdf?v=367549.

[60] Ofcom (2024), Digital Playgrounds: Children’s Views on Video Gaming, Ofcom, London, https://assets.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/wpuploads/2024/01/Report-Digital-playgrounds-Childrens-views-on-gaming.pdf.

[29] Pass, J. (2023), “The psychology of in-game rewards: How video games keep us hooked”, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/psychology-in-game-rewards-how-video-games-keep-us-hooked-pass (accessed on 5 May 2026).

[104] Pedersen, M. (2024), “Neurogaming: Bridging the mind and machine in the gaming universe”, https://imotions.com/blog/insights/trend/neurogaming-bridging-the-mind-and-machine-in-the-gaming-universe/?srsltid=AfmBOoodfe7_5QkU4pArJJHJq3cN2u-In47rkU3cOzfbBInRghbJiEoT (accessed on 6 May 2026).

[11] Pew Research Centre (2024), “Teens and video games today”, https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2024/05/09/teens-and-video-games-today (accessed on 24 March 2026).

[55] Przybylski, A. (2014), “Electronic gaming and psychosocial adjustment”, Pediatrics, Vol. 134/3, pp. 716-722, https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-4021.

[52] Przybylski, A. and N. Weinstein (2019), “Digital screen time limits and young children’s psychological well-being: Evidence from a population-based study”, Child development, Vol. 90/1, pp. 56-65, https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13007.

[30] Revealing Reality (2025), “A digital playground: The real guide to Roblox”, https://think.revealingreality.co.uk/roblox-real-guide (accessed on 11 March 2026).

[107] Rubin, D. (1987), Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470316696.

[84] Sadaf, D. (2025), “Effects of video gaming on children’s mental health: Are video games good or bad for kids?”, https://faithbehavioralhealth.com/video-games-effects-children-mental-health/#:~:text=Negative%20Psychological%20Impacts,life%20challenges%20or%20emotional%20issues (accessed on 21 May 2026).

[106] Senior, J. (2025), “Endless game levels with quantum algorithms: VTT’s quantum computer in Space Moths multiplayer online game”, https://www.vttresearch.com/en/news-and-ideas/endless-game-levels-quantum-algorithms-vtts-quantum-computer-space-moths-multiplayer?utm_content=346127765&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin&hss_channel=lcp-166849 (accessed on 19 May 2026).

[65] Shoshani, A. and M. Krauskopf (2021), “The Fortnite social paradox: The effects of violent-cooperative multi-player video games on children’s basic psychological needs and prosocial behavior”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 116, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106641.

[73] Skowronski, M., R. Busching and B. Krahé (2021), “The effects of sexualized video game characters and character personalization on women’s self-objectification and body satisfaction”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 92/104051, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104051.

[44] Statistisches Bundesamt (2025), Kinder und Jugendliche verbringen im Schnitt 1 Stunde und 7 Minuten täglich mit Video- und Computerspielen, [On average, children and young people spend 1 hour and 7 minutes a day playing video and computer games], https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/Zahl-der-Woche/2024/PD24_34_p002.html (accessed on 23 February 2026).

[108] Stevens, M. et al. (2021), “Global prevalence of gaming disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis.”, Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 55/6, pp. 553-568, https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867420962851.

[21] Stream Hatchet (2025), Most Watched Games on YouTube Gaming (dataset), https://streamhatchet.com/rankings/youtube/games/?period=last-30-days (accessed on 25 February 2026).

[3] Suojellaan Lapsia, Protect Children (2024), Tech Platforms Used by Online Child Sexual Abuse Offenders, Suojellaan Lapsia, Protect Children, Helsinki, https://bd9606b6-40f8-4128-b03a-9282bdcfff0f.usrfiles.com/ugd/bd9606_0d8ae7365a8f4bfc977d8e7aeb2a1e1a.pdf.

[69] Tutella, F. (2025), “Sibling and friend game time key to keeping children safe in online video games”, https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/sibling-and-friend-game-time-key-keeping-children-safe-online-video-games (accessed on 11 May 2026).

[56] Twenge, J. and W. Campbell (2018), “Associations between screen time and lower psychological well-being among children and adolescents: Evidence from a population-based study”, Preventive Medicine Reports, Vol. 12, pp. 271-283, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2018.10.003.

[22] Twitch Tracker (2025), Twitch Games Statistics (dataset), https://twitchtracker.com/statistics/games (accessed on 23 March 2026).

[113] Uke, J. (2024), “What Is “VC” In gaming?”, https://gametree.me/gaming-terms/vc (accessed on 5 May 2026).

[91] UNICEF (2026), New Frontiers in Child Labour: Why Digital Risks Demand Urgent Attention, UNICEF, Paris, https://www.unicef.org/reports/new-frontiers-child-labour.

[61] UNICEF (2025), “Video games and children: A guide for parents”, https://www.unicef.org/parenting/child-care/video-games-explainer (accessed on 23 March 2026).

[8] UNICEF (2024), Digital Technology, Play and Child Well-Being: Responsible Innovation in Technology for Children, UNICEF, Paris, https://www.unicef.org/innocenti/media/8056/file/UNICEF-Innocenti-RITEC-P2-report-2024.pdf.

[2] United Nations (2021), “General comment No. 25 (2021) on children’s rights in relation to the digital environment”, https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/general-comments-and-recommendations/general-comment-no-25-2021-childrens-rights-relation (accessed on 3 November 2025).

[1] United Nations (1989), Convention on the Rights of the Child, https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child.

[18] Van Der Zwan, R. (2024), “Cloud gaming: The future of global gaming infrastructure?”, https://www.worldstream.com/en/cloud-gaming-the-future-of-global-gaming-infrastructure (accessed on 14 May 2026).

[23] Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation (2025), “A guide to gaming terminology”, https://responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au/documents/1372/Factsheet_A_guide_to_gaming_terminology.pdf (accessed on 11 March 2026).

[98] Video Games Europe (2024), All about Video Games: European Key Facts 2024, Video Games Europe, Brussels, https://www.videogameseurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/VGE-2024-KF-2024.pdf.

[39] Video Games Europe (2023), All About Video Games: European Key Facts 2023, Video Games Europe, Brussels, https://www.videogameseurope.eu/publication/2023-video-games-european-key-facts.

[76] Vilaseca, J. (2024), “Pixelated sexism: GTA V’s dangerous influence on gender roles”, SSRN, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5006787.

[79] Wallner, C., D. White and P. Regeni (2025), Extremism in gaming spaces: Policy for prevention and moderation, RUSI, London, https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/policy-briefs/extremism-gaming-spaces-policy-prevention-and-moderation.

[27] Warner, R. (2019), “How video games keep us invested: The reward cycle”, https://medium.com/@rjwarner98/how-video-games-keep-us-invested-the-reward-cycle-672b485f3ff4 (accessed on 18 May 2026).

[78] WeProtect Global Alliance (2023), Global Threat Assessment 2023, WeProtect Global Alliance, London, https://www.weprotect.org/global-threat-assessment-23.

[13] X Reality Safety Intelligence (2025), “The metaverse”, https://xrsi.org/definition/the-metaverse (accessed on 25 March 2026).

[71] Yang, K. and Y. Lu (2024), “Combating school bullying through multi-role experience-based virtual scenario learning model: Assessing empathy, problem-solving, and self-efficacy from a multi-stakeholder perspective”, Heliyon, Vol. 10/10, p. e31044, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31044.

[59] Yao, Y. et al. (2017), “Functional and structural neural alterations in Internet gaming disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis”, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, Vol. 83, pp. 313-324, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.10.029.

[64] Zhang, B. (2024), “Among Us: Critical play of social deduction”, https://mechanicsofmagic.com/2024/04/06/among-us-critical-play-of-social-deduction (accessed on 11 May 2026).

Notes

Copy link to Notes

← 1. A virtual currency is a type of in-game money or credits that players can earn, purchase with real money, or win, and use to buy virtual goods, upgrades, or services within a video game (Uke, 2024_[113]).

← 2. Age-tiered safeguards refer to protective settings used by online services for specific age groups, such as those related to functionalities, content or privacy. They can be applied by default or require users to set them up manually, and can be mandatorily applied or customisable (OECD, 2025_[16]).

← 3. An emoji is a digital image that is added to a message in electronic communication to express a particular idea or feeling (Cambridge Dictionary, 2025_[112]).

← 4. France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

← 5. The indicators of time spent gaming are based on students’ self-reported answers to the questions: “On a typical weekday, how much time do you spend playing video games (using your smartphone, a gaming console or an online platform or apps)?” and “On a typical weekend day, how much time do you spend playing video games (using your smartphone, a gaming console or an online platform or apps)?” (OECD, 2025_[40]).

← 6. OECD average for 2025 includes data for Chile, Costa Rica, Czechia, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, the Slovak Republic and Sweden from 2022.

← 7. The 2025 assessment surveyed more than 760 000 students in 91 countries and economies, representing about 33 million 15-year-olds. Some caution is required when interpreting estimates in this chapter for Denmark, Latvia, the Netherlands, New Zealand and the United States because one or more PISA sampling standards were not met (OECD, 2026_[110]; OECD, 2023_[109]).

← 8. The 2021/2022 HBSC survey covers the following countries and regions: Albania, Armenia, Austria, Belgium (Flemish speaking), Belgium (French speaking), Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Denmark (Greenland), Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Serbia, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, the United Kingdom (England), the United Kingdom (Scotland) and the United Kingdom (Wales). Although the 2021/2022 HBSC survey encompasses 44 countries and regions, gaming data were collected in Cyprus, Czechia, Germany, Estonia, Iceland, Malta, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Serbia, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom (England and Scotland). Results are pooled across individual respondents, with each observation contributing equally. The problematic gaming questions were not administered in Germany and to 11-year-olds in the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom (Scotland). Questions on gaming frequency were not administered in North Macedonia. See Inchley et al. (2023_[43]) and Boniel-Nissim et al. (2024_[42]) for details.

← 9. In Australia, Belgium, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Spain, the “girls” breakdown comprises students responding “girls” and “other”, the latter of which represents less than 0.5% of students except in Ireland and New Zealand (around 1%) and Iceland (around 2%).

← 10. PISA does not collect information on household income. Instead, socio-economic background is measured using the OECD Index of Economic, Social and Cultural Status (ESCS). PISA’s ESCS combines information on students’ family background to provide a composite measure of socio-economic status. It includes: (i) parental educational attainment (highest level completed by each parent); (ii) parental occupational status, based on the International Socio-Economic Index of occupational status (ISEI); and (iii) household possessions, which capture material resources and access to educational and cultural capital. Students are grouped into low, medium, and high socio-economic categories for analysis, reflecting differences in access to opportunities and resources that may influence learning outcomes. For full details, see Avvisati and Wuyts (2024_[46]).

← 11. As this chapter looks at gaming from a leisure perspective, gamified learning and other forms of gaming in formal educational settings are not included in its scope.

← 12. See (Stevens et al., 2021_[108]).

← 13. Adolescents reported on their symptoms of problematic (addictive-like) gaming by answering the dichotomous nine-item Internet Gaming Disorder Scale, based on the nine criteria for Internet gaming disorder described in section III of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5®) (APA, 2013_[111]). For more details, please refer to (Boniel-Nissim et al., 2024_[42]).

← 14. In Boniel-Nissim et al. (2024_[42]), problematic gaming was assessed using the nine-item Internet Gaming Disorder Scale, based on the nine DSM-5 criteria for Internet Gaming Disorder (APA, 2013_[111]). Children responded to each item dichotomously (yes/no). Those reporting five or more symptoms were classified as “at risk of problematic gaming,” while those with fewer than five symptoms were classified as “non-problematic gamers”. Non-gamers were identified as adolescents reporting that they never or almost never play digital games.

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Countries

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Publications

Publications

Featured publications

Data

Data

Featured data

News & events

News & events

Featured events

About OECD

About

Engage with us

Work with us

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment