Lucas Mattos de Lima Sobral*
lucas.mattos@upe.br
Yves de Holanda Batista de Miranda**

yves.miranda@upe.br
Jorge Eduardo Maciel Gonçalves Silva+

jorge.maciel@upe.br

Marco Vinicius Acioli da Gama++
marco.gama@upe.br

Carlos Augusto Mulatinho de Queiroz Pedroso+++
carlos.mulatinho@upe.br

*Licenciado en Educación Física

por la Universidade de Pernambuco (UPE)

Ingeniero Civil por la UPE

Magíster en Educación Física por el Programa Asociado

de Posgrado en Educación Física UPE/UFPB (PAPGEF)

Investigador del Grupo de Investigación Envejecimiento, Ejercicio e Innovación (GPEEFI)

y del Grupo de Investigación en Deporte y Gestión (GEquip).

**Doctorando del Programa Asociado de Posgrado en Educación Física UPE/UFPB,

con estancia de doctorado sándwich

en el Department for Health de la University of Bath, Reino Unido

Actualmente es investigador del Grupo de Investigación

en Deporte y Gestión (GEquip ESEF/UPE)

Asesor de proyectos deportivos en la Secretaría de Educación

del Estado de Pernambuco

+Licenciado en Educación Física por la UPE

Magíster en Gestión Deportiva por la Universidade do Porto, Portugal

Doctorando en Educación Física en el Programa Asociado

de Posgrado en Educación Física UPE/UFPB

Miembro del Grupo de Investigación en Deporte y Gestión (GEquip ESEF/UPE)

y del GTT 6 – Marketing en el Deporte de la Asociación Brasileña

de Gestión del Deporte (ABRAGESP).

++Licenciado en Educación Física por la UPE

Magíster en Educación Física por el Programa Asociado

de Posgrado en Educación Física UPE/UFPB

Actualmente es doctorando en la UPE

+++Doctor en Educación Física por la UPE

Magíster en Gestión Deportiva por la Facultad de Deporte

de la Universidade do Porto (FADEUP),

título reconocido por la Universidade de São Paulo (USP)

Licenciado en Educación Física por la UPE

Profesor Adjunto de la UPE

Docente permanente del Programa Asociado de Posgrado en Educación Física UPE/UFPB

Líder del Grupo de Investigación en Deporte y Gestión (GEquip ESEF/UPE)

Consejero del Consejo Regional de Educación Física de la 12ª Región (CREF12/PE)

(Brasil)

Reception: 06/16/2026 - Acceptance: 10/15/2026

1st Review: 08/31/2026 - 2nd Review: 10/12/2026

Accessible document. Law N° 26.653. WCAG 2.0

Suggested reference: Sobral, L.M. de L., Miranda, Y. de H.B. de, Silva, J.E.M.G., Gama, M.V.A. da, & Pedroso, C.A.M. de Q. (2026). Motivations and Constraints for Playing Electronic Games: A Scoping Review. Lecturas: Educación Física y Deportes, 31(342), 166-184. https://doi.org/10.46642/efd.v31i342.9005

 

Abstract

    The objective of this scoping review was to map the existing scientific literature on the relationship between motivations and constraints for playing digital games and esports, characterizing study profiles, identifying dominant themes and tensions, and examining the extent to which their interaction has been theorized and empirically investigated. Following Arksey and O'Malley’s framework and PRISMA-ScR guidelines, a search across EBSCO, SCOPUS, and Web of Science identified 38 eligible studies published between 1985 and 2025. The findings reveal a profound structural and theoretical imbalance: research is heavily skewed toward motivation-driven "pull factors" (76.3 %), while constraints remain critically understudied (13.2 %). Crucially, integrative studies (10.5 %) demonstrate that while intrinsic motivations can mitigate logistical barriers, deep psychosocial and symbolic constraints rooted in identity exclusion and social stigma consistently override motivation, triggering disengagement or severe affective costs. This review exposes the theoretical limitations of isolated psychological models, arguing for integrative, socio-culturally sensitive frameworks capable of capturing motivations and constraints as interdependent dynamics of the situated gaming experience.

    Keywords: Video games. Motivation. Leisure activities. Scoping review.

 

Resumo

    O objetivo desta revisão de escopo foi mapear a literatura científica existente sobre a relação entre motivações e restrições para a prática de jogos digitais e esports, caracterizando os perfis dos estudos, identificando os temas dominantes e tensões, e examinando em que medida sua interação tem sido teorizada e investigada empiricamente. Seguindo o referencial de Arksey e O'Malley e as diretrizes PRISMA-ScR, uma busca nas bases EBSCO, SCOPUS e Web of Science identificou 38 estudos elegíveis, publicados entre 1985 e 2025. Os achados revelam um profundo desequilíbrio estrutural e teórico: a pesquisa é fortemente voltada aos fatores motivacionais de atração (76,3 %), enquanto as restrições permanecem criticamente pouco estudadas (13,2 %). Os estudos integrativos (10,5 %) demonstram que, embora motivações intrínsecas possam mitigar barreiras logísticas, restrições psicossociais e simbólicas profundas, enraizadas em exclusão identitária e estigma social, sobrepõem-se de forma consistente à motivação, desencadeando desengajamento ou custos afetivos severos. Esta revisão expõe as limitações teóricas dos modelos psicológicos isolados, defendendo estruturas integrativas e sensíveis à dimensão sociocultural, capazes de capturar motivações e restrições como dinâmicas interdependentes da experiência situada de jogar.

    Unitermos: Jogos de vídeo. Motivação. Atividades de lazer. Revisão de escopo.

 

Resumen

    El objetivo de esta revisión de alcance fue mapear la literatura científica existente sobre la relación entre motivaciones y restricciones para la práctica de juegos digitales y esports, caracterizando los perfiles de los estudios, identificando los temas y tensiones predominantes, y examinando en qué medida su interacción ha sido teorizada e investigada empíricamente. Siguiendo el marco de Arksey y O'Malley y las directrices PRISMA-ScR, una búsqueda en las bases EBSCO, SCOPUS y Web of Science identificó 38 estudios elegibles, publicados entre 1985 y 2025. Los hallazgos revelan un profundo desequilibrio estructural y teórico: la investigación se orienta mayoritariamente hacia los factores motivacionales de atracción (76,3 %), mientras que las restricciones permanecen críticamente poco estudiadas (13,2 %). Los estudios integradores (10,5 %) demuestran que, aunque las motivaciones intrínsecas pueden mitigar barreras logísticas, las restricciones psicosociales y simbólicas profundas, arraigadas en la exclusión identitaria y el estigma social, se imponen de forma consistente sobre la motivación, desencadenando la desvinculación o costos afectivos severos. Esta revisión pone de manifiesto las limitaciones teóricas de los modelos psicológicos aislados y aboga por marcos integradores y sensibles a la dimensión sociocultural, capaces de comprender las motivaciones y las restricciones como dinámicas interdependientes de la experiencia situada de jugar.

    Palabras clave: Juegos de video. Motivación. Actividades recreativas. Revisión de alcance.

 

Lecturas: Educación Física y Deportes, Vol. 31, Núm. 342, Nov. (2026)

---

 

Introduction 

 

    Digital games and esports have transitioned from niche pastimes into dominant global entertainment frameworks (Hamari, & Sjöblom, 2017). Digital games are understood as culturally situated practices mediated by technological substrates, integrating elements of rule-bound play and interactive media (Mäyrä, 2008). Since their emergence via rudimentary formats in the 1950s, they have expanded into a diverse ecosystem of genres and platforms (Hassan, 2023). Within this broader landscape, esports has materialized as the organized, competitive institutionalization of these digital practices, operating under structured regulations and global ranking systems (Candeo et al., 2025), attracting investment from sports organizations, media companies, and sponsors worldwide (Newzoo, 2024; PwC, 2023). It is estimated that more than 3.3 billion people now play video games, sustaining revenues exceeding US$ 184 billion. (Newzoo, 2024)

 

    Alongside this market expansion, academic production has intensified, recently converging on two interconnected dimensions of gaming behavior: the motivations that lead individuals to begin and sustain play, and the constraints that limit, interrupt, or condition their engagement. (Cheah et al., 2022; Martucci et al., 2023)

 

Source: Gemini AI Flash

 

    Despite this growth, research on motivations and constraints has developed largely in parallel, drawing on distinct theoretical traditions. Motivation studies have predominantly relied on psychological need satisfaction and symbolic gratifications, while constraint research has anchored itself in hierarchical models of leisure barriers (Crawford et al., 1991; Raymore, 2002), traditions that illuminate each dimension in isolation but leave their interaction undertheorized. Several recent reviews have mapped gaming motivations (Martucci et al., 2023; Wei, & Du, 2025) or broader esports scholarship (Pizzo et al., 2023; Baker et al., 2024), but none has systematically examined how motivations and constraints function as interdependent phenomena, how strong intrinsic motivation and significant psychosocial constraints can coexist within the same player. This integrative gap is the specific problem this review addresses.

 

    This gap carries practical consequences. As esports and digital gaming consolidate their position in the global sports economy, managers, developers, and policymakers need frameworks that account simultaneously for what attracts players and what limits them, since strategies designed around one dimension in isolation may inadvertently reinforce barriers on the other.

 

    This scoping review therefore asks: What has been investigated regarding the motivations and constraints associated with playing video games and esports, and how do these dimensions relate across different demographic, cultural, and theoretical contexts? The objective of this scoping review was to map the existing scientific literature on the relationship between motivations and constraints for playing digital games and esports, with three specific aims: (a) to characterize the demographic, methodological, and theoretical profiles of existing studies; (b) to identify the dominant themes, findings, and tensions within and across each dimension; and (c) to examine how the interaction between motivations and constraints has been, or not, theorized and empirically investigated, with a view to informing future integrative research and sport management practice.

 

Method 

 

    This scoping review systematically maps the literature on digital game and esports motivations and constraints, following Arksey, & O'Malley's (2005) five-stage framework: (a) identifying the research question; (b) identifying relevant studies; (c) study selection; (d) data charting; and (e) collating, summarizing, and reporting results. The PRISMA-ScR guidelines were followed to ensure methodological transparency. (Tricco et al., 2018)

 

Information sources and search strategy 

 

    A systematic search was conducted in January 2026 across three databases: EBSCO, SCOPUS, and Web of Science. The advanced search combined keywords and Boolean operators targeting "motivations," "constraints," "practice," "electronic games," and "e-sports" (Table I). Reference lists of included studies were manually screened using the same eligibility criteria.

 

Motivations	Motivations or motivation or determinants or reasons or motive	#1
Constraints	Constraints or barriers or challenge or challenges	#2
Practice	Practice or play or participation or playing	#3
Electronic games and e-sports	Electronic games or videogames or "video games" or gaming or "online games" or "online gaming" or esports or esport or e-sports or e-sport or "electronic sports" or “video gaming” or “online sports”	#4
Combination 1 (motivations)	#1 and #3 and #4
Combination 2 (constraints)	#2 and #3 and #4

Source: Self made

 

Study selection and eligibility criteria 

 

    Retrieved citations were exported to EndNote Web for automated and manual duplicate removal, then uploaded to Rayyan QCRI (Ouzzani et al., 2016). Eligibility criteria followed the Population, Concept, and Context (PCC) framework (Peters et al., 2020): (a) Population: individuals who play or consume games/esports, regardless of demographic profile; (b) Concept: empirical investigation of motivations, constraints, or both; and (c) Context: original peer-reviewed studies in English or Portuguese, with no geographical or year restrictions.

 

    Following a 10-article pilot screening to align reviewer judgment, two independent reviewers screened titles/abstracts and then full texts. Discrepancies were resolved through consensus meetings. The initial search yielded 16,535 records. After duplicate removal (n = 2,912) and title/abstract screening, 14,862 records were excluded. Of the 95 remaining articles, five were inaccessible and 52 were excluded at full-text stage for failing to meet the conceptual criteria. Ultimately, 38 studies were included. Figure 2 illustrates the full selection process; Table II details their characteristics.

 

Source: Self made

 

Author (Year)	Motivation	Constraint	Country(ies)	N	Sample Profile	Hours played/ week	Approach	Collection method	Basic theory	Game genre
Arslan et al. (2024)	✓	-	Türkiye	265	60 % M; 20.1 ± 2.6 years	39.1 ± 18.2	Quantitative	Questionnaire	NIF	NIF
Broom et al. (2019)	✓	✓	United Kingdom	461	42 % M; 29 ± 10 years	NIF	Mixed	Questionnaire	SDT	G_RA
Carradini et al. (2020)	✓	✓	Multinational (Several countries)	43	70 % M; 35.6 ± 11.5 years	49	Qualitative	Notes; Observations; Interviews, Survey	NIF	MMMORTS
Chen (2013)	-	✓	Taiwan	1418	59-56 % M; 27.5 ± 8.7 years	NIF	Quantitative	Questionnaire	NIF	Online Games
De Grove et al. (2014)	✓	-	NIF	1194	85-29 % M; 28-15 years old	NIF	Mixed	Interviews + Questionnaire	SCT	G_DIV2
Demetrovics et al. (2011)	✓	-	Hungary	3818	91 % M; 20.9 ± 5.8 years	NIF	Quantitative	Questionnaire	NIF	NIF
Dindar et al. (2014)	✓	-	Türkiye	307	97 % M; 19.4 ± 6.8 years	27.1 ± 21.4	Quantitative	Questionnaire	SDT	MMORPG
Dwyer et al. (2018)	✓	-	United States; Canada	418	0 % M; 43-33 years old	NIF	Mixed	Interviews + Questionnaires	U&G	Fantasy Sport
Fritz et al. (2023)	✓	-	Multinational (Several countries)	1090	83 % M; 24 ± 7.9 years	23.1 ± 16.1	Quantitative	Questionnaire	NIF	G_DIV3
Fuster et al. (2012)	✓	-	Spain	253	100 % M; 22.2 ± 4.4 years	22.7 ± 13.6	Quantitative	Questionnaire	NIF	MMORPG
Gursesli et al. (2024)	✓	-	Italy	2641	71-59 % M; 30.5 ± 8.5 years	15 ± 10.6	Quantitative	Questionnaire	NIF	NIF
Ha et al. (2024)	-	✓	Korea	400	40 % M; 45.4 ± 11.6 years	0.0	Quantitative	Questionnaire	IRT; LC	NIF
Jiang (2018)	-	✓	China	176	63 % M; 23.3 ± 3.3 years	0.0	Quantitative	Questionnaire	EVT; TAM; PPM	NIF
Kahn et al. (2015)	✓	-	United States; China	37827	96-63 % M; 27-23 years old	20-2.9	Quantitative	Questionnaire	NIF	MOBA; MMO
Kahraman et al. (2023)	✓	✓	Türkiye	25	100 % M; 23 ± 1.8 years	22.2 ± 13.2	Qualitative	Interviews	SDT; ILO; SCT	Online Games
Farzaneh Khameneh et al. (2024)	✓	-	Iran	763	78 % M; 21.7 ± 7.6 years	25.4 ± 13.2	Quantitative	Questionnaire	NIF	NIF
Khodadadian et al. (2024)	✓	✓	Iran	300	56 % M; 23.3 ± 4.9 years	3.8 ± 1.5	Quantitative	Questionnaire	PCM; LC	NIF
Kim et al. (2006)	✓	-	United States	457	80-69 % M; 25.6 ± 7.7 years	NIF	Mixed	Focus groups + Questionnaire	U&G	Sports
Lafrenière et al. (2012)	✓	-	Online	276	70 % M; 26.2 ± 8.3 years	12.4 ± 15.8	Quantitative	Questionnaire	SDT	G_DIV
Lee et al. (2011)	✓	-	United States	515	83 % M; 20 years	NIF	Quantitative	Questionnaire	NIF	NIF
Lee et al. (2013)	✓	-	Online	868	96-87 % M; 32 years old	NIF	Mixed	Open Question + Quiz	NIF	Fantasy Sport
López-Fernández et al. (2020)	✓	-	Spain	807	68-41 % M; 21-15 years old	16.9-9.2	Quantitative	Questionnaire	NIF	G_DIV4
Michelini et al. (2023)	✓	-	Multinational (Several countries)	5192	41 % M; 20.1 ± 3.6 years	7.9 ± 8.2	Quantitative	Questionnaire	NIF	NIF
Morlock et al. (1985)	✓	-	United States	101	41 % M; 19 years old	1.3	Quantitative	Questionnaire	NIF	Arcadian
Ng et al. (1985)	✓	-	Canada	218	68 % M; 18-11 years old	12.2-10.4	Quantitative	Questionnaire	NIF	Arcadian
Panwar (2025)	✓	-	India	423	68 % M; 32.3 ± 12.6 years	NIF	Quantitative	Questionnaire	NIF	E-Sports
Pizzo et al. (2023)	-	✓	Korea	402	50 % M; 26.7 ± 6.7 years	15.3 ± 3	Quantitative	Questionnaire	LC	E-Sports
Rennick et al. (2025)	-	✓	United Kingdom	1000	0 % M; 38.8 ± 12.4 years	9.4 ± 9.2	Quantitative	Questionnaire	NIF	Mobile
Ryan et al. (2006)	✓	-	United States	927	93-21 % M; 22.1 years old	19.2 ± 14.4	Quantitative	Questionnaire	SDT	G_DIV1
Sanderson et al. (2020)	✓	-	United States	22	100 % M; NIF	NIF	Qualitative	Interviews	U&G	Battle Royale
Vahlo et al. (2025)	✓	-	United Kingdom; United States	1575	55-49 % M; 32.9 ± 10.6 years	18.3 ± 18.3	Mixed	Open Question + Quiz	EC; SDT	G_DIV5
Weiner et al. (2017)	✓	-	Online	510	68 % M; 34 ± 10.2 years	NIF	Quantitative	Questionnaire	U&G	Fantasy Sport
Yang et al. (2017)	✓	-	United States	262	55 % M; 30.7 ± 7.8 years	21.7 ± 7.1	Quantitative	Questionnaire	NIF	G_RA
Yee (2006)	✓	-	Online	3200	86 % M; NIF	NIF	Quantitative	Questionnaire	NIF	MMORPG
Yildiz et al. (2020)	✓	-	Türkiye	1677	52 % M; 27.2 ± 7.7 years	24.9 ± 16.8	Quantitative	Questionnaire	NIF	NIF
Yoo et al. (2024)	✓	-	United States; Nigeria	29	86 % M; 25.9 ± 7 years	NIF	Qualitative	Interviews	SDT	Sports
Yue et al. (2025)	✓	-	China	230	78 % M; 25.7 ± 7.3 years	18.2 ± 14.8	Mixed	Interviews + Questionnaires	SDT	MMORPG

Legend: NIF = Not Informed or Not Specified. Base theory: SDT = Self-Determination Theory, IRT = Innovation Resistance Theory, LC = Leisure Constraints, PCM = Psychological Continuum Model, OIT = Organismic Integration Theory, SCT = Social Cognitive Theory, U&G = Uses and Gratifications Theory, EVT = Expectation Violations Theory, TAM = Technology Acceptance Model, PPM = Push–Pull–Mooring Theory, EC = Enactive Cognition; Game genre: G_DIV1 = Platform; Adventure; Fight; Shoot 'em up; Race; MMO; MMORPG = Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game; MOBA = Multiplayer Online Battle Arena; MMO = Massively Multiplayer Online; G_DIV = Miscellaneous; G_RA = Augmented Reality; G_DIV2 = Action adventure, Adventure, Casual, Fighting, Management, MMORPGs, Party, Platform, Racing, RPGs, Shooter, Simulator, Social network, Sports, Strategy; G_DIV3 = Shooting, Action Role-Playing, Role-Playing, Action-Adventure, Strategy, Sports & Driving, Simulation, Other Genres, Fighting; G_DIV4 = Shooter, MOBA, Strategy, MMORPG, RPG, Action-Adventure, Sports, Casual, Social Simulation, Building, Platform, Fighting; MMMORTS = Massively Multiplayer Mobile Online Real-Time Strategy; G_DIV5 = Action, Action-adventure, Adventure, Educational, Fighting, Party, Platformer, Puzzle, Racing, Role-playing (RPG), Sandbox, Simulation, Sports, Strategy, Visual novel. Source: Self made

 

Data charting and synthesis 

 

    Data extraction was piloted with five randomly selected studies to maximize reliability. A standardized spreadsheet captured: bibliographic information, participant profiles (sample size, gender, age, play hours), methodological approach and underlying theories, game characteristics (titles, genres, platforms), and core findings on motivations and constraints. Results were synthesized through descriptive statistics and thematic grouping based on study focus (motivations, constraints, or both) to facilitate cross-dimension comparison.

 

Results 

 

General characterization of the studies 

 

    The 38 included studies span four decades, from pioneering arcade evaluations (Morlock et al., 1985; Ng, & June, 1985) to recent analyses of emerging esports markets (Panwar, 2025) and accessible gaming (Yue et al., 2025). Publications accelerated post-2020, peaking in 2024 (n=6; 15.8 %), reflecting heightened academic interest following the COVID-19 pandemic (Yoo et al., 2024). Geographically, the United States predominated (n=14), followed by Canada (n=6) and the United Kingdom (n=6). Despite a recent broadening of geographic scope, the Global North persists as the dominant locus, leaving Latin America, Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East structurally underrepresented (Figure 3).

 

Source: Self made

 

    Sample sizes ranged from 22 (Sanderson et al., 2020) to 37,827 participants (Kahn et al., 2015). The dominant demographic cohort consisted of young adult males aged 20–30, appearing in 24 studies (63.2 %) for age and 27 (71.1 %) for gender. Quantitative methodologies predominated (70.6 %), primarily using standardized questionnaires to capture weekly play time, ranging from 1.26 to 39.07 hours, and game characteristics, notably MMORPGs, fantasy sports, and mobile gaming (Table II).

 

    Self-Determination Theory (n=6; 15.8 %), Uses and Gratifications (n=4; 10.5 %), and Leisure Constraints Theory (n=3; 7.9 %) were the most frequently invoked frameworks. Notably, 50 % of the corpus did not explicitly state a formal theoretical framework.

 

Studies on motivations (n=29) 

 

    Representing 76.3 % of the corpus, motivation-focused studies consistently identify socialization, competition/challenge, and escapism/immersion as core drivers across methodologies (Demetrovics et al., 2011; Kahraman, & Kazançoğlu, 2023; Lafrenière et al., 2012; López-Fernández et al., 2020; Sanderson et al., 2020). Socialization predominates in collective environments like MMORPGs (Dindar, & Akbulut, 2014; Fuster et al., 2012; Yee, 2006), whereas competition and challenge dominate male-skewed samples (Arslan et al., 2024; Kahn et al., 2015; Lee, & Schoenstedt, 2011). Escapism emerges across diverse contexts, from recreational play (Yıldız et al., 2020) and esports (Bányai et al., 2020) to stress mitigation during the COVID-19 pandemic. (Ha, & Kim, 2024; Lewinson et al., 2024; Yoo et al., 2024)

 

    Gender and game-type variations are widely documented. Men primarily associate play with performance and competition, whereas women favor socialization, narratives, and cooperation (Dwyer et al., 2018; Morlock et al., 1985). Fantasy sports research shows cross-gender alignment regarding competition (Lee et al., 2013; Weiner, & Dwyer, 2017), though challenge and social bonding emerge as distinct drivers for female players (Dwyer et al., 2018). AR games produced a further distinct profile, physical activity, nostalgia, and relationship initiation (Broom et al., 2019; Yang, & Liu, 2017; Zsila et al., 2017), as did sport video games, centered on knowledge application and sport identification. (Kim, & Ross, 2006)

 

    Cross-cultural and demographic heterogeneity indicates that motivational salience depends on player identities and socio-cultural conditions. Nigerian VR players exhibit external control factors absent in American samples (Yoo et al., 2024), and North American students score higher across motivational dimensions than cohorts from Europe, Latin America, and South Africa (Michelini et al., 2023). Long-term relationship building and customization are statistically non-significant for Indian esports players (Panwar, 2025). Temporally, play trajectories are non-linear across lifecycles (De Grove et al., 2014; Kahraman, & Kazançoğlu, 2023), shifting from external triggers to relational anchoring over time (Carradini, & Lu, 2020). Yue et al. (2025) further identified "emotional venting" as a motivator unique to blind and visually impaired (BVI) players in China, absent in sighted cohorts.

 

    Methodologically, several studies developed new scales to address limitations in genre-specific instruments (Fritz, & Stöckl, 2023; Gursesli et al., 2024; Zsila et al., 2017). Most theoretically significant, Vahlo, & Tuuri (2025) inductively derived a nine-factor inventory from 1,648 open-ended descriptions, arguing that traditional scales conflate motivational disposition with game-specific enjoyment, a distinction with direct implications for how motivation and constraint interact. Yue et al. (2025) similarly constructed a specialized instrument to map the accessibility and emotional needs of underserved populations.

 

Studies on constraints (n=5) 

 

    Representing only 13.2 % of the corpus, constraint-focused studies identify two primary axes: logistical/instrumental (time, cost, equipment access) and psychosocial/symbolic (social stigma, family pressure, cultural delegitimization of gaming identities) (Chen, 2013; Ha, & Kim, 2024; Pizzo et al., 2023; Rennick, & Roberts, 2025). Methodologically, these studies deployed qualitative approaches, Leisure Constraints Theory, or Innovation Resistance Theory, though none utilized validated instruments designed specifically for digital leisure.

Across this corpus, psychosocial and symbolic barriers, perceived incompetence, peer disapproval, and family pressure, converged as stronger predictors of non-engagement than logistical factors, with effects varying across gender, experience, and cultural context. (Ha, & Kim, 2024; Jiang, 2018; Pizzo et al., 2023)

 

    Rennick, & Roberts (2025) surveyed 1,000 British female mobile gamers: 28.8 % reported guilt about playing, and 16.7 % concealed their gaming from social circles. Using random forest analysis, guilt was primarily predicted by perceiving gaming as a male pastime, feeling embarrassed to identify as a gamer, and not knowing which games to try. Counterintuitively, women who most anticipated playing reported higher guilt, and those proud of their achievements were more likely to conceal their play.

 

Studies on motivations and constraints (n=4) 

 

    Representing 10.5 % of the corpus, four studies simultaneously modeled both dimensions using the Psychological Continuum Model (PCM), Leisure Constraints Theory, or mixed-methods designs. (Broom et al., 2019; Carradini, & Lu, 2020; Khodadadian et al., 2024; Tan et al., 2017)

 

    These integrative studies indicate that intrinsic motivations (socialization, fun, and immersion) can mitigate logistical constraints, supporting hierarchical negotiation models (Crawford et al., 1991; Raymore, 2002). Khodadadian et al. (2024) demonstrated that as players advance through PCM stages (awareness to attachment), motivations progressively outweigh structural barriers. Similarly, Tan et al. (2017) found that MMORPG social interaction features function as active negotiation mechanisms against interpersonal barriers.

 

    Conversely, intense psychosocial constraints consistently override intrinsic motivations, causing withdrawal rather than negotiation. Broom et al. (2019) showed that while fun and socialization drove active users, safety concerns and social disapproval prevented non-users from engaging, regardless of their interest. Carradini, & Lu (2020) documented that players who sustained engagement through relational motivations eventually disengaged when offline obligations became irreconcilable with play.

 

    The scarcity of integrative studies leaves the field without the empirical base to account for why strongly motivated players sometimes withdraw, or why players facing significant barriers sometimes persist.

 

Discussion 

 

    This scoping review mapped 38 studies to examine how digital game and esports motivations and constraints interact as interdependent phenomena. The corpus demonstrates substantial progress in documenting why people play, but reveals a critical theoretical deficit regarding the barriers that restrict play and a near-absence of integrative frameworks capable of accounting for both dimensions simultaneously.

 

The predominance of motivations and its theoretical limits 

 

    The disproportionate focus on motivations reflects commercial and academic incentives centered on player acquisition and retention. More significant, however, is the theoretical narrowness characterizing this domain. The dominance of Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Ryan et al., 2006) and Uses and Gratifications Theory (U&G; Kim, & Ross, 2006) frames gaming primarily through individual need fulfillment and media gratifications, leaving digital play undertheorized as a cultural practice embedded in socio-historical and identity contexts, a limitation that game studies scholars have long noted. (Mäyrä, 2008; Shaw, 2014)

 

    Consequently, when motivation is operationalized as universal need satisfaction, derived instruments overemphasize cross-population commonalities (achievement, socialization, escapism) while systematically underweighting context-specific drivers: the nostalgia of AR gamers (Zsila et al., 2017), emotional venting among visually impaired players (Yue et al., 2025), and utility or boredom relief (Vahlo, & Tuuri, 2025). While these dimensions surface regularly in inductive designs, they are typically flattened during scale standardization, producing a literature far more convergent than the phenomenon warrants.

 

    This reinforces critiques across leisure and media studies. Przybylski et al. (2010) showed that the relationship between gaming motivation and well-being is contingent on whether play satisfies or frustrates psychological needs, a nuance that content-focused instruments miss. Martucci et al. (2023) found that scale proliferation has generated fragmented, non-comparable findings (see also Sherry et al., 2006). Vahlo, & Tuuri (2025) formalized this critique by demonstrating that the field consistently conflates general motivational dispositions (why people play) with game-specific enjoyment factors (what makes a particular game gratifying).

 

    Moving beyond these limitations requires frameworks capable of integrating the psychological, symbolic, and sociocultural dimensions of gaming motivation (Mäyrä, 2008; Shaw, 2014). Practice theory, which treats leisure as a socially structured field of meaning-making shaped by class, gender, and cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1984; Warde, 2005; Schatzki et al., 2001), offers a particularly promising foundation, as it is inherently sensitive to what players find meaningful, legitimate, and worth pursuing.

 

Cultural and demographic specificity as a theoretical problem 

 

    A recurrent finding across the corpus is that motivational dimensions vary significantly in weight, expression, and consequence depending on socio-cultural context, yet this variation has typically been treated as a methodological limitation rather than a structural challenge to the universalist assumptions underlying dominant models.

 

    The findings that Indian esports players show no significant motivation toward long-term in-game relationship building (Panwar, 2025), Turkish players follow motivational trajectories bound to local achievement norms (Kahraman, & Kazançoğlu, 2023), and North American cohorts score higher across most motivational dimensions than European or Latin American peers (Michelini et al., 2023) highlight substantive heterogeneity rather than statistical noise. Similarly, that BVI players utilize gaming primarily for emotional venting, yielding well-being outcomes disparate from sighted populations (Yue et al., 2025), illustrates that demographic factors do not merely moderate universal processes but fundamentally alter their nature.

 

    These findings resonate with broader leisure research. Floyd et al. (2008) and Stodolska (2018) argued that reliance on dominant demographic groups produces theories that implicitly encode Western, privileged values and opportunity structures as universal standards. In digital culture, this mismatch exposes the historical construction of the "universal gamer" as white, Western, and male (Cote, 2020; Gray, 2020). This politics of representation marginalizes emerging markets and diverse bodies, constraining whose practices are deemed worthy of theoretical formulation.

 

    Consequently, the overrepresentation of Global North young adult males represents a deficit of theoretical scope. While market data demonstrate an increasingly diverse global audience, with rising average ages, expanding female participation, and rapid growth across South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Africa (Newzoo, 2024; PGB, 2024), the field's dominant models remain anchored to a narrow population slice. Bridging this gap is not merely a matter of demographic representation, but a prerequisite for robust theoretical advancement.

 

Constraints as a constitutive dimension of gaming experience 

 

    The scarcity of constraint research reflects a broader leisure-studies bias privileging engagement over disengagement, a deficit identified decades ago (Crawford et al., 1991) but only partially corrected in digital gaming literature. Historically, the field has successfully catalogued distinct barriers but struggled to explain how they interact with motivations to shape participation. (Jackson, 2005)

Collectively, the reviewed studies suggest that gaming barriers are not merely external obstacles that highly motivated players eventually negotiate. Psychosocial and symbolic constraints, the internalization of gendered norms, fear of social judgment, and the perception that gaming is culturally incongruent with one's identity, operate fundamentally by undermining the player's sense of belonging, rather than just the logistical conditions of play. Empirically, perceived incompetence and negative social stigma outweigh structural barriers among non-players (Ha, & Kim, 2024), female esports participants experience heightened intrapersonal and interpersonal friction (Pizzo et al., 2023), and social judgment predicts gaming withdrawal more strongly than time or financial constraints. (Jiang, 2018)

 

    This pattern aligns with foundational arguments that women's primary leisure barriers are ideological, rooted in cultural expectations regarding femininity, caregiving, and the perceived illegitimacy of personal time (Henderson, & Bialeschki, 1991). Within digital spaces, this is compounded by toxic meritocracies that actively police gaming masculinity, systematically marginalizing diverse bodies (Chess, 2017; Meriläinen et al., 2026). Intersectional analyses further demonstrate that gender and race generate compounding constraints that single-axis models fail to capture. (Adefope, & Bayraktar, 2025)

    

    Rennick, & Roberts (2025) empirically detailed these psychosocial dynamics: among 1,000 British female mobile gamers, 28.8 % reported guilt about playing and 16.7 % concealed their gaming. Crucially, women who most anticipated play or felt proud of in-game achievements exhibited higher guilt and concealment. This paradox reflects both Wearing's (1998) "leisure ethic", wherein genuine pleasure intensifies rather than reduces the sense that leisure is illegitimate, and Hermes's (1995) "guilty pleasures" framework, where culturally devalued engagement produces ambivalence combining enjoyment with shame.

 

    Consequently, psychosocial constraints do not merely discourage play; they impose an affective toll borne within the gaming experience itself. The psychosocial and symbolic axis of constraints remains structurally and analytically underestimated: its mechanisms, identity threat, affective burden, and cultural exclusion, cannot be captured by instruments designed for logistical barriers, requiring theoretical frameworks that constraint research has yet to fully develop.

 

The interdependence of motivation and constraint: toward an integrative model 

 

    The four studies simultaneously addressing motivations and constraints represent the most theoretically generative segment of the corpus, revealing dynamics that neither tradition can account for independently. Their convergent finding, that intrinsic motivations mitigate logistical constraints, but intense psychosocial barriers entirely override motivation, points toward a vital theoretical distinction: between constraints operating on the conditions of play versus those operating on the identity of the player.

 

    This distinction resonates with adjacent fields. In sport participation and minority leisure research, identity-based exclusion and a restricted sense of cultural entitlement operate independently of, and more powerfully than, structural constraints (Lange et al., 2024). Translated to gaming, whether an individual views themselves as a legitimate "gamer", a perception heavily policed by industry norms and community representations, is far more consequential for their long-term trajectory than any logistical barrier they encounter.

 

    By demonstrating that identity threats cannot be mitigated by motivational intensity alone, these findings expose a structural blind spot in Jackson et al.'s (1993) constraint negotiation thesis. The model's "balance proposition", that participation depends on the relative weight of motivations and constraints, falters when the actor's cultural legitimacy is under threat. While stronger motivation may balance a lack of time, it cannot resolve a socially delegitimized identity; instead, accelerating motivation under structural stigma paradoxically deepens the affective cost of engagement. This challenges the foundational assumption that constraints and motivations operate on the same plane and can be additively weighed against each other.

 

    The temporal dimension introduces further complexity. That motivations and constraints increase concurrently as players deepen their engagement underscores that this relationship is a dynamic, evolving negotiation across the player lifecycle rather than a static equilibrium (Carradini, & Lu, 2020; Khodadadian et al., 2024). This aligns with longitudinal evidence showing that constraint weights shift across life stages in ways that cross-sectional surveys systematically fail to capture. (Alexandris et al., 2011)

 

    Advancing the field requires integrative models treating motivations and constraints as dialectically related dimensions of a single phenomenon: the situated practice of play under specific social conditions. Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, & Turner, 1979) clarifies how group categorization and belonging shape gaming experiences. Intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989; Collins, 2000) unpacks how gender, race, class, and disability compound to produce unique constraint experiences (Pizzo et al., 2023; Hossain, & Al Fahad, 2024). Practice Theory (Bourdieu, 1990; Schatzki et al., 2001) reframes gaming from an individual behavioral choice to a socially structured practice shaped by habitus and cultural capital.

 

Implications for sport and esports management 

 

    As digital gaming and esports consolidate within the global sports economy (Newzoo, 2024; PwC, 2023), these findings offer actionable insights for industry stakeholders.

    

    Player acquisition and retention. Current strategies target motivational pull factors while treating barriers as siloed concerns, a separation that is strategically misguided. Psychosocial constraints impose ongoing affective costs on active players, not only on non-players. Managers who overlook identity-based barriers will misattribute dropout to motivational deficits rather than structural exclusion.

 

    Diversity, inclusion, and market development. In esports governance, sustainable inclusion demands dismantling the toxic meritocracies that stigmatize female, older, and disabled players, surface-level representation initiatives are insufficient (Ha, & Kim, 2024; Pizzo et al., 2023; Rennick, & Roberts, 2025). Expanding into the Global South requires hyper-localized research, as Western-calibrated motivational models fail to transfer across diverse cultural norms. (Panwar, 2025; PwC, 2024)

 

    Responsible gaming. Play motivations are not uniform constructs. Specific drivers, emotional venting, compulsive social escapism, can trigger problematic engagement and undermine well-being (Sanderson et al., 2020; Yue et al., 2025). Industry and regulatory bodies must distinguish between motivational profiles that support well-being and those that threaten it.

 

    Sport management theory. The conceptual tools developed for traditional sports require substantial adaptation for digital gaming contexts, where identity dynamics are more volatile and psychosocial constraints operate through mechanisms existing frameworks have not yet fully addressed.

 

Limitations, gaps, and future directions 

 

    Several limitations condition this review. First, following Arksey, & O'Malley (2005), the literature was mapped without formal quality appraisal. Second, restricting eligibility to English and Portuguese across three databases likely underrepresented research published in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese, a particularly consequential gap given that this review identifies non-Western underrepresentation as a structural problem in the field. Third, the stakeholder consultation stage was omitted (Levac et al., 2010). Finally, the synthesis reflects the corpus's structural fragmentation: cross-sectional quantitative designs and a severe demographic bias toward Global North young adult males.

 

    Future research must prioritize four interconnected agendas. Theoretically, the field requires integrative frameworks, drawing on social identity theory, intersectionality, and practice theory, capable of modeling motivations and constraints as dialectically interdependent rather than additive variables (Bourdieu, 1990; Crenshaw, 1989; Crawford et al., 1991). Methodologically, scholars must transition toward longitudinal and qualitative designs, digital ethnographies, in-depth interviews, capable of tracking constraint negotiation across the player lifecycle (Alexandris et al., 2011). Geographically, deliberate investment must expand coverage to Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia to test the limits of Western-centric models. Finally, the field urgently needs psychometric instruments validated specifically for digital leisure constraints, enabling researchers to track how barriers moderate the relationship between motivation, organizational practice, and psychological well-being.

 

Conclusion 

 

    This scoping review mapped 38 studies across four decades, exposing a profound structural and theoretical imbalance in digital game and esports literature. Research remains heavily skewed toward motivational pull factors while the constraining dimensions of gaming remain critically understudied. Most significantly, this synthesis confirms that the relationship between motivations and constraints is dialectical rather than additive: while intrinsic motivations can mitigate logistical barriers, deep psychosocial and symbolic constraints, rooted in identity exclusion and cultural stigma, consistently override motivation, imposing affective costs on players who already value and enjoy gaming. The distinction between constraints that operate on the conditions of play and those that operate on the identity of the player represents the field's most theoretically underexplored frontier.

 

    For sport management and esports governance, this imbalance has direct practical consequences: strategies anchored in pull factors alone will misattribute dropout, underestimate structural friction, and fail to address the cultural mechanisms through which gaming continues to be marked as belonging to some players more than others.

 

    Understanding digital gaming requires moving beyond functionalist views of entertainment toward recognizing play as a socially structured space for expression, resistance, and belonging. An integrated vision of motivations and constraints is not an academic abstraction but a practical necessity, the foundation for industry frameworks and policies that are commercially sustainable, socially inclusive, identity-legitimizing, and psychologically responsible.

 

References 

 

Adefope, O.A., & Bayraktar, F. (2025). Social identity framework and gender-based harassment in digital gaming spaces: A scoping review. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 1811677. https://doi.org/10.1155/hbe2/1811677

 

Alexandris, K., Funk, D.C., & Pritchard, M. (2011). The impact of constraints on motivation, activity attachment, and skier intentions to continue. Journal of Leisure Research, 43(1), 56–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2011.11950226

 

Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616

 

Arslan, Y., Suveren, C., & Durhan, T.A. (2024). E-Sports participation motivation from the perspective of sports sciences students. Annals of Applied Sport Science, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.61186/aassjournal.1329

 

Baker, B.J., Sharpe, T.M., & Jenny, S.E. (2024). Current status and key topics in esports research. In S.E. Jenny, N. Besombes, T. Brock, A.C. Cote, & T.M. Scholz (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Esports (pp. 111-123). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003410591-11

 

Bányai, F., Griffiths, M.D., Király, O., & Demetrovics, Z. (2020). Career as a professional gamer: Gaming motives as predictors of career plans to become a professional esport player. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01866

 

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press.

 

Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford University Press.

 

Broom, D.R., Lee, K.Y., Lam, M.H., & Flint, S.W. (2019). Gotta catch 'em all or not enough time: Users motivations for playing Pokémon Go and non-users' reasons for not installing. Health Psychology Research, 7. https://doi.org/10.4081/hpr.2019.7714

 

Candeo, ALS, Reyes, SJ, Haller, N., Richardson, A., Preuss, H., Souvignet, T., Könecke, T., & Schubert, M. (2025). Governance and integrity challenges in esports: A scoping review. Performance Enhancement & Health, 13(4), 100352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peh.2025.100352

 

Carradini, S., & Lu, A. H. (2020). New motivations: Change over time in motivations for mobile gaming. Journal of Gaming & Virtual Worlds, 12, 259–285. https://doi.org/10.1386/jgvw_00019_1

 

Cheah, I., Shimul, A., & Phau, I. (2022). Motivations of playing digital games: A review and research agenda. Psychology & Marketing, 39(5), 937–950. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21631

 

Chen, L. L. S. (2013). Consumer-based leisure constraint for online gaming. The Service Industries Journal, 33, 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2011.600443

 

Chess, S. (2017). Ready player two: Women gamers and designed identity. University of Minnesota Press.

 

Collins, P.H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.). Routledge.

 

Cote, A.C. (2020). Gaming sexism: Gender and identity in the era of casual video games. New York University Press.

 

Crawford, D.W., Jackson, E.L., & Godbey, G. (1991). A hierarchical model of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences, 13(4), 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490409109513147

 

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, (1), 139–167. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8

 

De Grove, F., Cauberghe, V., & Van Looy, J. (2014). Development and validation of an instrument for measuring individual motives for playing digital games. Media Psychology, 19(1), 101–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2014.902318

 

Demetrovics, Z., Urbán, R., Nagygyörgy, K., Farkas, J., Zilahy, D., Mervó, B., Reindl, A., Ágoston, C., Kertész, A., & Harmath, E. (2011). Why do you play? The development of the motives for online gaming questionnaire (MOGQ). Behavior Research Methods, 43(3), 814–825. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0091-y

 

Dindar, M., & Akbulut, Y. (2014). Motivational characteristics of Turkish MMORPG players. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 119–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.016

 

Dwyer, B., Lupinek, J.M., & Achen, R.M. (2018). Challenge accepted: Why women play fantasy football. Journal of Sport Management, 32, 376–388. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2017-0313

 

Farzaneh Khameneh, M.E., Norouzi Seyed Hossini, R., & Farahani, H. (2024). E-Sports Nexus: Gender Dynamics in Iranian Players' Personality Traits and Motivations. Journal of New Studies in Sport Management, 5(3), 1158–1171. https://doi.org/10.22103/jnssm.2024.22670.1247

 

Floyd, M.F., Bocarro, J.N., & Thompson, T.D. (2008). Research on race and ethnicity in leisure studies: A review of five major journals. Journal of Leisure Research, 40(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2008.11950130

 

Fritz, B., & Stöckl, S. (2023). Why do we play? Towards a comprehensive player typology. Games and Culture, 18, 300–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/15554120221094844

 

Fuster, H., Oberst, U., Griffiths, M.D., Carbonell, X., Chamarro, A., & Talarn, A. (2012). Psychological motivation in online role-playing games: A study of Spanish World of Warcraft players. Anales de Psicología, 28(1), 274–280. https://revistas.um.es/analesps/article/view/140752

 

Gray, K. L. (2020). Intersectional tech: Black users in digital gaming. Louisiana State University Press.

 

Gursesli, M.C., Lozza, E., Albiero, P., & De Luca, A. (2024). Development and validation of the Psychological Motivations for Playing Video Games scale (PMPVGs). Simulation and Gaming, 55(5). https://doi.org/10.1177/10468781241260861

 

Ha, S., & Kim, S. (2024). Barriers to playing digital games: Why do some people choose not to play digital games? Telematics and Informatics, 93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2024.102161

 

Hamari, J., & Sjöblom, M. (2017). What is eSports and why do people watch it? Internet Research, 27(2), 211–232. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-04-2016-0085

 

Hassan, L. (2023). Accessibility of games and game-based applications: A systematic literature review and mapping of future directions. New Media & Society, 26(4), 2336–2384. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231204020

 

Henderson, K. A., & Bialeschki, M. D. (1991). A sense of entitlement to leisure as constraint and empowerment for women. Leisure Sciences, 13(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490409109513125

 

Hermes, J. (1995). Reading women's magazines: An analysis of everyday media use. Polity Press.

 

Hossain, S.A., & Al Fahad, A. (2024). Beyond the screen: Socialization, community building, and interpersonal connectivity in Bangladesh through video games. CyberOrient, 18(2), 44–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/cyo2.48

 

Jackson, E.L. (2005). Leisure constraints research: Overview of a developing theme in leisure studies. In E.L. Jackson (Ed.), Constraints to leisure (pp. 3–19). Venture Publishing.

 

Jackson, E.L., Crawford, D.W., & Godbey, G. (1993). Negotiation of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences, 15(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490409309513182

 

Jiang, Q. (2018). Off the hook: Exploring reasons for quitting playing online games in China. Social Behavior and Personality, 46(12), 2097–2112. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.7103

 

Kahn, AS, Shen, C., Lu, L., Ratan, R. A., Coary, S., Hou, J., Meng, J., Osborn, J., & Williams, D. (2015). The Trojan player typology: A cross-genre, cross-cultural, behaviorally validated scale of video game play motivations. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 354–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.018

 

Kahraman, A., & Kazançoğlu, İ. (2023). A qualitative research of young people's motivation to start, continue, reduce and quit playing online multiplayer games on computer. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 39, 3289–3311. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2096041

 

Khodadadian, M., Hossini, R.N., & Saffari, M. (2024). Examining leisure constraints and motivations within the psychological continuum model: A study among recreational video gamers. Leisure Studies 44(4), 653-673. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2024.2343305

 

Kim, Y., & Ross, S.D. (2006). An exploration of motives in sport video gaming. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 8(1), 28–40. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijsms-08-01-2006-b006

 

Lafrenière, M.A., Verner-Filion, J., & Vallerand, R.J. (2012). Development and validation of the Gaming Motivation Scale (GAMS). Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 827–831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.06.013

 

Lange, S., Bolt, G., Vos, S., & Völker, B. (2024). Inclusion of the marginalized: The case of sport participation: A scoping review. Journal of Global Sport Management, 10(3), 431–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/24704067.2024.2317121

 

Lee, D., & Schoenstedt, L.J. (2011). Comparison of eSports and traditional sports consumption motives. The ICHPER-SD Journal of Research in Health, Physical Education, Recreation, Sport & Dance, 6(2), 39–44. https://papers.esportsresearch.net/items/show/324

 

Lee, S., Seo, W.J., & Green, B.C. (2013). Understanding why people play fantasy sport: Development of the Fantasy Sport Motivation Inventory (FanSMI). European Sport Management Quarterly, 13, 166–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2012.752855

 

Lewinson, R., Gomes, M., Yousaf, O., & Greville, W. J. (2024). Internalizing personality traits and coping motivations for gaming during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-lagged panel mediation analysis. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 18(3). https://doi.org/10.5817/cp2024-3-5

 

López-Fernández, F. J., Mezquita, L., Griffiths, M. D., Ortet, G., & Ibáñez, M. I. (2020). The development and validation of the Videogaming Motives Questionnaire (VMQ). PLoS ONE, 15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240726

 

Martucci, A., Gursesli, M. C., Duradoni, M., & Guazzini, A. (2023). Overviewing gaming motivation and its associated psychological and sociodemographic variables: A PRISMA systematic review. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2023, Article 5640258. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/5640258

 

Mäyrä, F. (2008). An introduction to game studies: Games in culture. Sage Publications.

 

Meriläinen, M., Jørgensen, K., Ruotsalainen, M., & Bjørkelo, K.A. (2026). Men and masculinities in gaming: A scoping review. The Journal of Men's Studies, 0(0) publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10608265261442197

 

Michelini, Y., Acuña, I., Godoy, J.C., & Etcheverry, C. (2023). Motives to play videogames across seven countries: Measurement invariance of the Videogaming Motives Questionnaire. Addictive Behaviors, 140, 107624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2023.107624

 

Morlock, H., Yando, T., & Nigolean, K. (1985). Motivation of video game players. Psychological Reports, 57(1), 247–250. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1985.57.1.247

 

Newzoo (2024). Newzoo's global gamer study 2024. https://newzoo.com/resources/trend-reports/global-gamer-study-free-report-2024

 

Ng, D., & June, L. (1985). Electronic leisure and youth: Kitchener arcade video game players. Loisir et Société, 8, 537–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/07053436.1985.10715226

 

Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016). Rayyan—A web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5(1), 210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4

 

Panwar, T. (2025). What does it take? A CB-SEM study on game motivation for e-sports players in India. Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/SBM-02-2025-0028

 

Pesquisa Game Brasil (2024). Pesquisa Game Brasil 2024. https://www.pesquisagamebrasil.com.br/

 

Peters, M., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Trico, A., & Khalil, H. (2020). Chapter 11: Scoping reviews. In: E. Aromataris, & Z. Munn (Editors). JBI Reviewer's Manual. JBI. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-12

 

Pizzo, A.D., Jones, G.J., Baker, B.J., & Funk, D.C. (2023). Esports gender diversity: A leisure constraints perspective. Journal of Leisure Research, 54, 602–623. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2023.2193186

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers (2023). Global Entertainment & Media Outlook 2023–2027. https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/industries/entertainment-media/outlook/global-entertainment-media-outlook-2023-2027.pdf

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers (2024). Global Entertainment & Media Outlook 2024–2028. https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/news-room/press-releases/2024/pwc-global-entertainment-and-media-outlook-2024-28.html

 

Przybylski, A.K., Rigby, C.S., & Ryan, R.M. (2010). A motivational model of video game engagement. Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019440

 

Raymore, L.A. (2002). Facilitators to leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 34(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2002.11949959

 

Rennick, S., & Roberts, S.G. (2025). Not gamers, just women who play video games: A survey of women's attitudes to mobile games in the UK. Sex Roles, 91, 60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-025-01612-3

 

Ryan, R.M., Rigby, C.S., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory approach. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 347–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9051-8

 

Sanderson, J., Browning, B., & DeHay, H. (2020). “It’s the universal language:” Investigating student-athletes’ use of and motivations for playing Fortnite. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 13(1), Article 2. https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/jiia/vol13/iss1/2

 

Schatzki, T.R., Knorr-Cetina, K., & Von Savigny, E. (Eds.). (2001). The practice turn in contemporary theory. Routledge.

 

Shaw, A. (2014). Gaming at the edge: Sexuality and gender at the margins of gamer culture. University of Minnesota Press.

 

Sherry, J.L., Lucas, K., Greenberg, B.S., & Lachlan, K. (2006). Video game uses and gratifications as predictors of use and game preference. In P. Vorderer, & J. Bryant (Eds.), Playing video games: Motives, responses, and consequences (pp. 213–224). Lawrence Erlbaum.

 

Stodolska, M. (2018). Research on race, ethnicity, immigration, and leisure: Have we missed the boat? Leisure Sciences, 40(1–2), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2017.1376013

 

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W.G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.

 

Tan, W.K., Yeh, Y.D., & Chen, S.H. (2017). The role of social interaction element on intention to play MMORPG in the future: From the perspective of leisure constraint negotiation process. Games and Culture, 12(1), 28–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412015574942

 

Tricco, AC, Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, KK, Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, MDJ, Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, EA, Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, MG, Garritty, C., … Straus, SE (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850

 

Vahlo, J., & Tuuri, K. (2025). Validating Motives of Autonomous Players (MAP) inventory: A bottom-up model of general motivational factors to videogame play. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 35, Article 10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-025-09431-7

 

Warde, A. (2005). Consumption and theories of practice. Journal of Consumer Culture, 5(2), 131–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540505053090

 

Wearing, B. (1998). Leisure and feminist theory. Sage.

 

Wei, L., & Du, Z. (2025). Consumer behavior in eSports: A systematic review. In Y.P. Tu, & M. Chi (Eds.), E-Business. Generative Artificial Intelligence and Management Transformation (WHICEB 2025, pp. 306–317). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-94190-0_26

 

Weiner, J., & Dwyer, B. (2017). A new player in the game: Examining differences in motives and consumption between traditional, hybrid, and daily fantasy sport users. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 26, 140–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/106169341702600303

 

Yang, C.C., & Liu, D. (2017). Motives matter: Motives for playing Pokémon Go and implications for well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 20, 52–57. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0562

 

Yee, N. (2006). Motivations for play in online games. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 9(6), 772–775. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2006.9.772

 

Yıldız, K., Güzel, P., & Esentaş, M. (2020). Factors directing individuals to computer games in the process of evaluating recreational activities. Physical Culture and Sport, Studies and Research, 88, 31–40. https://doi.org/10.2478/pcssr-2020-0023

 

Yoo, J., Lee, S., & Ohu, E.A. (2024). A cross-cultural analysis of VR gaming psychological needs and motivations: A self-determination theory approach. Managing Sport and Leisure, 29, 392–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/23750472.2022.2046490

 

Yue, Y., Jiang, Q., Liu, D., Cui, P., & Yi, J. (2025). Playing to connect: Development of a gaming motivation scale and exploration of social benefits among the blind and visually impaired. Games for Health Journal, 15(2), 122–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/2161783X251393532

 

Zsila, Á., Orosz, G., Bányai, F., Tóth-Király, I., Király, O., Griffiths, MD, & Demetrovics, Z. (2017). An empirical study on the motivations underlying augmented reality games: The case of Pokémon Go during and after Pokémon fever. Personality and Individual Differences, 133, 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.06.024

Lecturas: Educación Física y Deportes, Vol. 31, Núm. 342, Nov. (2026)