Problematic gaming exists and is an example of disordered gaming Commentary on: Scholars’ open debate paper on the World Health Organization ICD-11 Gaming Disorder proposal (Aarseth et al.) MARK D. GRIFFITHS*, DARIA J. KUSS, OLATZ LOPEZ-FERNANDEZ and HALLEY M. PONTES International Gaming Research Unit, Psychology Department, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK (Received: February 17, 2017; revised manuscript received: March 27, 2017; accepted: March 27, 2017) Background: The recent paper by Aarseth et al. (2016) questioned whether problematic gaming should be considered a new disorder particularly because “Gaming Disorder” (GD) has been identified as a disorder to be included in the next (11th) revision of the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). Methods: This study uses contemporary literature to argue why GD should be included in the ICD-11. Results: Aarseth and colleagues acknowledge that there is much literature (including papers by some of the authors themselves) that some individuals experience serious problems with video gaming. How can such an activity be seriously problematic yet not disordered? Similar to other addictions, gaming addiction is relatively rare and is in essence a syndrome (i.e., a condition or disorder characterized by a set of associated symptoms that tend to occur under specific circumstances). Consequently, not everyone will exhibit exactly the same set of symptoms and consequences, and this partly explains why those working in the problematic gaming field often disagree on symptomatology. Conclusions: Research into gaming is not about pathologizing healthy entertain- ment, but about pathologizing excessive and problematic behaviors that cause significant psychological distress and impairment in an individual’s life. These are two related, but (ultimately) very distinct phenomena. While being aware that gaming is a pastime activity which is enjoyed non-problematically by many millions of individuals worldwide, it is concluded that problematic gaming exists and that it is an example of disordered gaming. Keywords: Gaming Disorder, Internet Gaming Disorder, problematic gaming, gaming addiction, video games The recent commentary paper by Aarseth et al. (2016) questioned whether problematic gaming should be consid- ered a new disorder particularly because “Gaming Disorder” (GD) has been identified as a disorder to be included in the next (11th) revision of the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). The main concerns raised by Aarseth et al. (2016) were that (a) the current research base is of low quality, (b) the current operationalization of GD is too heavily based on the criteria for substance use and gambling disorder, and (c) at present there is a lack of consensus on the symptomatology of GD and how to assess it. The authors also claimed in their paper that the “premature inclusion” of GD in the ICD-11 “will cause significant stigma to the millions of children who play video games as a part of a normal, healthy life” (p. 1). No one in the field that has collected and published empirical data concerning problematic gaming will argue that the topic is not without controversy. Aarseth and colleagues twice cited a paper (i.e., Griffiths et al., 2016), that the first author of this study led on highlighting that there was little consensus in the field about the criteria for Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD) in the latest (fifth) version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Dis- orders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013). Other recent papers by the present authors have also argued that the text in the DSM-5 created “chaos and confusion” in the field (Kuss, Griffiths, & Pontes, 2017, p. 1), particularly because the DSM-5 asserted that IGD can also include offline video gaming and it stated that IGD and Internet Addiction Disorder are the same, even though there is a consistent body of empirical evidence suggesting that this is not the case (Griffiths & Pontes, 2014; Király et al., 2014). However, it seems that online gaming could present a higher risk for the development of problematic gaming (Lemmens & Hendriks, 2016; Tejeiro, Espada, Gonzalvez, Christiansen, & Gomez-Vallecillo, 2016) in com- parison with offline gaming, even though problematic gam- ing is associated with both types of play (Lemmens & Hendriks, 2016). Aarseth et al. (2016) do not deny that some gamers experience serious problems as a consequence of playing video games. In fact, some of these coauthors have * Corresponding author: Mark D. Griffiths; International Gaming Research Unit, Psychology Department, Nottingham Trent Uni- versity, 50 Shakespeare Street, Nottingham NG1 4FQ, UK; Phone: +44 115 8482401; E-mail: mark.griffiths@ntu.ac.uk This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium for non-commercial purposes, provided the original author and source are credited. © 2017 The Author(s) COMMENTARY Journal of Behavioral Addictions DOI: 10.1556/2006.6.2017.037