See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/336732612

Comparing Player Experience in Video Games Played in Virtual Reality or on

Desktop Displays: Immersion, Flow, and Positive Emotions

Conference Paper · October 2019

DOI: 10.1145/3341215.3355736

CITATION READS

1 266

2 authors:

Federica Pallavicini Alessandro Pepe

Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca
59 PUBLICATIONS   1,263 CITATIONS    103 PUBLICATIONS   566 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

VIRTUAL REALITY VIDEO GAMES - What Distinguishes a Traditional Gaming Experience from One in Virtual Reality? View project

Measuring subjective well-being: development of the Subjective Well-being Assessment Scale in West Bank and Gaza Strip View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Federica Pallavicini on 27 October 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Comparing Player Experience in Video
Games Played in Virtual Reality or on
Desktop Displays: Immersion, Flow,
and Positive Emotions
Federica Pallavicini (PhD) Alessandro Pepe (PhD)
Università degli Studi di Università degli Studi di
Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
federica.pallavicini@unimib.it alessandro.pepe1@unimib.it
Abstract
Scientific knowledge of the differences between video
games played in virtual reality and on desktop displays
in terms of player experience is still limited. Therefore,
this study aimed to explore differences in immersion,
flow, positive emotions, and psychological needs (i.e.,
challenge, competence, and tension/annoyance)
between a video game played in virtual reality and on a
desktop display. Thirty young adults played a racing
game in virtual reality (Driveclub VR) and desktop
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that
copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights
for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored.
Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to
post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission
and/or a fee. Request permissions from Permissions@acm.org.
CHI PLAY EA '19, October 22–25, 2019, Barcelona, Spain
© 2019 Association for Computing Machinery.
ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-6871-1/19/10. $15.00
https://doi.org/10.1145/3341215.3355736
(Driveclub) conditions. The Game Experience
Questionnaire was used to assess player experience.
The results showed that (a) performance on the game
was the same in virtual reality and desktop condition;
(b) the video game played in virtual reality was able to
elicit more intense positive emotions; (c) the sense of
immersion and flow was greater in virtual reality as
opposed to the desktop condition; and (d) the
fulfillment of psychological needs was independent of
the display modality.
Author Keywords
Virtual Reality; Video Games; Virtual Reality Gaming;
Emotion; Flow, Immersion; Player Experience.
CSS Concepts
• Software and its engineering → Software
organization and properties → Contextual
software domains → Virtual worlds software →
Interactive games; Human-centered
computing → Human computer interaction
(HCI) → HCI design and evaluation
methods → Laboratory experiments
Introduction
According to the Entertainment Software Association
(ESA), in 2017, the total consumer expenditure on the
video game industry was about 36 billion in the USA
alone, representing an increase of over 12 billion since
2007 [8]. Interestingly, 63% of the most frequent
players reported that they are familiar with a new
gaming device: virtual reality systems [9]. Only in
2016, just over a year after the first commercial Head
Mounted Displays (HMDs) were released, 15% of
players declared having tried to play through virtual
reality technologies [8]. Virtual reality gaming
represents an increasing portion of the video game
industry, reflecting dramatic changes in game graphics
and mechanics that have been evolving since the early
‘80s. By mid-2018, HTC Vive, with 35.7% of revenue
market share, became the market leader compared to
Sony’s 12.6% and Oculus’ 9% [49].
Thanks to its unique features in terms of interaction
and to the ability to completely immerse the player in
the game, virtual reality gaming constitutes one of the
most interesting advancements in the contemporary
video games scene, being able to provide innovative
experiences for present and future players [16, 43].
How does virtual reality affect the player experience?
Scientific knowledge and studies on this topic are still
limited (e.g., [40, 43, 57]; therefore, several research
questions are still unexplored.
What is a good game? The concept of player experience
The goal of video game designers and producers has
always been to create better products compared to
their competitors. A game is chosen among others
because of its specific entertainment values [5, 51],
and the main feature of a successful computer game is
the enjoyment of the player [2, 17]. To be entertaining
and enjoyable, video games need to be able to
motivate the user to play and to persist in challenging
tasks. This is possible only if the game is able to offer
something more than just an exciting experience, that
is, it needs to provide a good player experience [63].
Unlike the concepts of playability and game usability
that refer to the technological level [34, 36], player
experience is related to the individual and personal
experience of playing games and describes the quality
of the player-game interactions [34]. In particular, this
term refers to an individual’s perception of the
interaction between him/her and the game [13], and it
is derived from the phenomenon of user experience
(UX), which refers to the subjective assessment of a
product [15]. Although no univocal definition of player
experience exists in literature, some elements are
considered to be fundamental, including immersion,
flow, and positive emotions felt by the players [29, 63].
Immersion is a complex term, which refers to different
concepts depending on the specific definition (e.g., [29,
31]. In general, immersion is described as “the
quantifiable description of a technology, which includes
the extent to which the computer displays are
extensive, surrounding, inclusive, vivid and matching”
[53]. Technologies can immerse their users in a virtual
environment to different degrees: from a simple non-
immersive presentation on a computer screen (i.e., or
desktop displays) to immersive systems, such as HMDs
like Oculus Rift (Oculus) or HTC Vive (HTC and Valve
Corporation) [43]. Regarding the gaming experience,
immersion refers instead to a particular player’s mental
state, and it is commonly defined as “the sense of
being lost in the game where players lose awareness of
their surroundings and their day-to-day concerns” [22].
The sense of immersion into mediated computerized
environments in general and computer games, in
particular, has previously been explained through
(spatial) presence and flow [30, 61]. Even if these
concepts share conceptual similarities, such as
immersive components and intense feelings, they refer
to different theoretical constructs [30]. In particular,
while presence relates to a sense of spatial immersion
in a mediated environment [54], flow is generally
defined as the optimal experience when nothing else
matters [6, 35]. With respect to computer games, the
flow has been defined as the sensation of influencing
the activity in the virtual world (“gaming in action”)
[62], and it is recognized as a central element of
exciting gaming experiences [5, 33, 34].
In addition to the sense of immersion and flow, positive
emotions are considered to be crucial to creating
enjoyable (and bestselling) video games [38, 29, 58].
The fundamental objective of computer games is to
entertain the player and elicit positive emotions, such
as happiness, and surprise [58], which have been
proven to have positive effects on the psychological
well-being of the player [14, 23, 41]. Positive emotions
are essentials for the sake of curiosity and ability to
learn new things and thus for using a game more
frequently [3, 10].
Another important element of player experience in
video games is linked to their ability to fulfill users’
psychological needs [47, 48, 56]. Among these, one of
the most important concerns is the concept of
competence, which refers to the intrinsic motivation of
individuals to engage in a game to feel that they are
able to meet the requirements of tasks they want to
complete [48, 63]. In addition, another element that is
fundamental in creating the motivation to stay engaged
in gaming environments is challenge [4, 27, 60]. When
the challenge is out of balance, in fact, the player can
experience negative emotions, including tension (low
skill and high task difficulty) or annoyance (high skill
and low task difficulty) [50].
Methods to assess the player experience
Given the importance of all the above described
elements in the creation of a successful video game,
understanding and attempting to measure the player
experience has become a core part of game user
research (GUR), a formal process with its own set of
techniques aimed at finding the desired experience for
a computer game [63]. Several instruments have been
developed to evaluate player experience, including
interviews, self-report questionnaires, and the
recordings of players’ psychophysiological signals [32,
33]. Surveys represent the easiest and least expensive
approach to assess player experience, as they are quick
to administer and non-invasive with respect to the
gaming experience [63]. However, many
questionnaires are limited in that they only measure
one or two aspects that contribute to player experience
[44, 45]. On the contrary, some surveys have been
developed to offer an overview of the most significant
elements of the player experience. Among these, some
of the most used by game researchers are the Game
User Experience Satisfaction Scale (GUESS) [44], the
Core Elements of the Gaming Experience Questionnaire
(CEGEQ) [3], and the Game Experience Questionnaire
(GEQ) [20].
The effect of display format on performance and player
experience
The number of studies that have investigated the effect
of virtual reality, a product that entered the gaming
market in these last years, on player experience is still
limited, and the existing studies provide inconsistent
findings. The few previous studies have focused mainly
on the effect of playing in virtual reality as opposed to
desktop displays on the game’s performance and
usability, reporting heterogeneous results. Whereas
some studies have reported greater performance and
usability in the desktop system compared to virtual
reality ones [28,57], other research has not reported
significant statistical differences [43,52].
Some of the previous studies conducted on the subject
have instead explored the effect of the display format
on players' emotional experience, providing
inconsistent results. In particular, while a higher
intensity in terms of arousal has been observed in
virtual reality games compared to desktop ones, both
at psychological and physiological levels [40, 43, 52],
in contrast, a recent study has reported no statistically
significant differences in arousal between the virtual
reality (i.e., Oculus Rift - Oculus) and the desktop (i.e.,
a set of three displays defining a field of view of
approximately 135°) experience of a commercial racing
video game (Project Cars - Bandai Namco
Entertainment) [59]
Interestingly, the few existing studies have reported a
greater increase in positive emotions after playing a
virtual reality game compared to desktop displays [40,
43, 52]. Specifically, after a virtual reality gaming
experience, a statistically greater increase in happiness
[40,43], and surprise [43] have been reported.
An even more limited number of studies have
investigated other fundamental aspects of the player
experience in virtual reality games. As for the
immersion, two previous studies reported slightly
higher, though not statistically significant, scores after
virtual reality compared to desktop game conditions
[28, 59]. In contrast, in another recent study, playing
in virtual reality has been perceived as more immersive
as well as more flow inducing compared to playing the
same game on a computer desktop [57]. Furthermore,
regarding players’ psychological needs, only one study
has been conducted so far, reporting no differences in
intrinsic motivation, play engrossment, creative
freedom, and personal gratification between a game
played in virtual reality or on a desktop display [59].
The aim of the study
Given the rapid growth and diffusion of virtual reality
video games in the gaming market during the last
years and their unique characteristics, especially in
terms of immersion and interactivity, it becomes
increasingly important to study the ways in which this
technology can change the players’ experience
compared to less immersive devices, such as desktop
displays. However, the number of studies that have
investigated the effect of virtual reality or desktop
display modalities on gaming experience using
commercial video games is still limited, offering only
inconsistent findings. In addition, most of these studies
have focused almost exclusively on usability issues.
Within the context described above, this study aimed to
explore differences in key elements of player
experience (i.e., immersion, flow, positive and negative
emotions, challenge, competence, and
tension/annoyance) between a video game played in
virtual reality and on a desktop display. In particular,
the main hypotheses of this study were:
 H1. Differences between virtual reality and
desktop display in performance and usability
will be non-significant;
 H2. The video game played in virtual reality
will elicit more positive emotions compared to
the game played via the desktop display
modality;
 H3. Immersion and flow in virtual reality will be
more intense compared to the desktop
condition;
 H4. Differences between virtual reality and
desktop condition in players’ self-reported
psychological needs (i.e., challenge,
tension/annoyance, and sense of competence)
will be non-significant.
Materials and method
Participants
Thirty participants, 15 females and 15 males; age m=
23.5 (SD = 4.28; min-max=19-35); years of education
m =14.8 (SD = 1.75, min-max=13-18) were recruited
from students and personnel of the University of
Milano-Bicocca and of other universities in Milan
between March and May 2017. One third of the sample
(n=10) had previous experience with virtual reality
games. The means of hours spent in gaming per week
was 8.6 (SD=10.3) and the previous experience with
racing game was 3.1 (SD=1.7). No credits or economic
rewards were provided during the research. In order to
be included in the study, individuals had to meet the
following criteria: (1) age between 18 and 35 years old;
(2) no significant visual impairment (all with normal or
corrected-to-normal visual acuity); (3) no previous
experience with the video game adopted in the study
(i.e., Driveclub and Driveclub VR). The study received
ethical approval by the Ethical Committee of the
University of Milano-Bicocca. The research was
conducted in accordance to American Psychological
Association [1] ethical principles and code of conduct.
Participants
At the beginning of the experimental session, the
participants completed the following self-report
questionnaire:
Demographics
Participants were asked to indicate their gender
(“female” or “male”) their age, whether they had
previous experience with virtual reality (“yes” or “no”),
and the mean hours spent gaming per week.
Game Experience Questionnaire (GEQ)
The GEQ is a self-reported questionnaire developed by
IJsselsteijn and colleagues to assess core elements of
player experience [20]. Previous studies have shown
that the GEQ is a sufficiently accurate measure of
player experience [20,63]. In this study, the
participants completed the core module of the GEQ
comprising 33 items measuring seven different
subscales on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from “not
at all” to “extremely.” The subscales are sensory and
imaginative immersion (e.g. ‘I was interested in the
game’s story’, ‘I felt imaginative’), flow (e.g. ‘I was
fully occupied with the game’, ‘I lost track of time’),
negative affect (e.g. ‘It gave me a bad mood’, ‘I found
it tiresome’), positive affect (e.g. ‘I felt content’, ‘I felt
happy’), competence (e.g. ‘I felt skillful’, ‘I felt
competent’), tension/annoyance (e.g. ‘I felt annoyed’,
‘I felt irritable’), and challenge (e.g. ‘I thought it was
hard’, ‘I felt pressured’).
The Italian version of the questionnaire was created
using a back-translation procedure. A bilingual expert
translated the GEQ items into Italian while retaining
their linguistic and conceptual correspondence with the
original version. Subsequently, a second bilingual
person retranslated it into English. A research
committee that included the authors of this article
compared the wording of the Italian and English forms
of the questionnaire and created the version of the GEQ
based on the consensual agreement. The reliability of
the GEQ appeared to be generally good (.70 < α. <.
86), even if the internal consistency of specific
subscales was just acceptable (Sensory and imaginative
immersion: α = .69, challenge: α = .69, positive
emotions: α = .67). According to the indication given
by Nunnally & Bernstein [37], only one subscale was
considered as weak and not acceptable: negative
emotions (α=.44).
Video game
The video game tested in this study was Driveclub, a
racing game developed by Evolution Studios and
published by Sony Computer Entertainment Europe in
2014. A version of the game in virtual reality -
Driveclub VR – was developed in 2016 to accompany
the release of PlayStation VR (Sony Interactive
Entertainment). In this study, the participants were
asked to play a single event, select “Canada” as the
country, and complete a two-lap “Maplewood 2” race.
The players were instructed to complete the
competition as fast as possible. The level of the game’s
difficulty was set as “easy,” and the players were
assigned the standard car set by the game (Audi A1
Quattro). Every race was played against other seven
non-playable characters (NPCs) generated
automatically by the game. The dependent variables
used to evaluate the video game performance were:
(a) the time (in seconds) to complete the first lap, (b)
the time (in seconds) to complete the second lap, and
(c) the total time (in seconds) to finish the race.
Experimental design
A within-subjects design has been used to compare the
player experience of the two experimental conditions.
Specifically, the study compared the following
conditions:
 Virtual reality condition: participants were
seated at a desk and asked to wear the
PlayStation VR (Sony Interactive
Entertainment) headset and play Driveclub VR
using the standard wireless PS4 Pro controller
(Sony Interactive Entertainment).
 Desktop condition: individuals were seated at a
desk in front of a 32" TV monitor (Samsung HD
Flat Series 4 K4100) positioned at about 1
meter. Participants were asked to play
Driveclub using a standard wireless PS4
controller (Sony Interactive Entertainment).
The point of view of the player during the
gameplay was set to the classic mode.
Procedure
At the start of the experimental session, individuals
were asked to complete the self-report questionnaire
assessing their demographic and gaming habits. The
order of presentation of each (virtual reality vs. desktop display) was Hypothesis 1
experimental condition counterbalanced for each participant following a With regards to the H1, a paired-samples t-test was
previously established randomization schema. Before conducted to compare performance on the video game
Virtual
Desktop the gameplay experience, the participants were asked in the virtual reality and desktop conditions. The results
Reality
to complete a two laps trial of Driveclub VR using the supported the idea performance did not differed
Time 76 77 “Maplewood 2” track (Canada), in order to familiarize between the two conditions with respect to both lap1
Lap 1 (5.49) (5.6) themselves with the game and controls. After [t(29)= 1.55, p = .130 ] and lap2 [t(29)= 1.27, p =
Time 70 71 completing each gameplay modality, they answered the .211].
Lap 2 (4.7) (5.2) GEQ. The complete experience took about 40 minutes.
Hypothesis 2
Total 146
149 (5.4) Strategy of data analysis When H2 was considered, the comparison between
Time (5.1)
The process of statistical analyses consisted of two conditions revealed that the virtual reality condition
Table 1: Descriptive statistics on successive stages. An initial phase of data pre- elicited more positive emotions than the desktop
performance at the video game processing phase was set in order to evaluate if scores condition [t(29)= 4.78, p = 4.6*10-5; d = .71].
were normally distributed (skewness and kurtosis
Virtual
Desktop values) and to compute multi-variate outliers Hypothesis 3
Reality
(Mahalanobis’ distance was set to be equal .001). No When measures of immersion and flow were taken into
3.2 2.3 multivariate outliers were skipped. All variables under consideration, the paired t-test supported H3. This
Immersion
(0.81) (0.63) study were normally distributed with skewness values mean that participants in the virtual reality condition
3.6 2.7 ranging within the [-2; +2] range [12]. No missing tended to report higher scores on both immersive
Flow values were found. Next, paired t-test analysis were [t(29)= 8.01, p = 7.7*10-9; d = 1.15] and flow
(0.88) (0.66)
applied in order to test the different hypothesis of the [t(29)= 6.75, p = 2.1*10-7; d = 1.24] scores.
Positive 4.1 3.5
study. This kind of analysis is usually used to compare
emotions (0.78) (0.73)
two set of scores means where two different Hypothesis 4
2.1 2.1 measurements are applied to the same subjects [19]. Finally, the analysis provided support to H4, meaning
Challenge
(0.65) (0.65) Bonferroni’s correction [55] of statistical significance that the scores for the two conditions did not reported
was applied (p < .025). Cohen’s d was computed for statistically significant differences in levels of challenge
1.2 1.1
Tension statistically significant differences in order to provide a [t(29)= 0.25, p = .446], tension/annoyance [t(29)=
(0.42) (0.38)
benchmark for effect sizes [46]. All analysis were 0.77, p = .801] and competence [t(29)= 1.81, p =
2.9 2.6 performed by using the Statistical Package for Social .081]. Analysis of effect sizes (d) suggested that the
Competence
(0.88) (0.92) Science (SPSS), version 25.0. stronger differences between the two conditions were
found with respects to immersion and flow reporting a
Table 2: Descriptive statistics on
Results large effect size. Positive emotion reported a medium
Game Experience Questionnaire
(GEQ) in the two experimental Descriptive statistics effect size. On the contrary, other differences were not
conditions Descriptive statistics were reported in Table 1 and statistical significant.
Table 2.
Discussion
Video game performance
Starting from the first main hypothesis of this study, as
hypothesized, the results showed no differences
between virtual reality and desktop display in video
game’s performance. In particular, the participants in
the two experimental conditions (i.e., virtual reality
versus desktop display modality) showed no differences
with respect to the time taken to complete the race,
considering both the single laps (i.e., lap 1 and lap 2)
and the total time played. This result is consistent with
previous studies that reported no differences between
commercial video games played in virtual reality or on
the desktop in performance and usability (e.g., [43,52].
It is interesting to note that these results were obtained
by testing games of different genres: FPS (Smash Hit -
Mediocre AB) [40, 43], strategy (i.e., Defense Grid 2 -
Hidden Path Entertainment) [52], survival horror
(Resident Evil 7: Biohazard – Capcom) [40], and in this
study, a racing game.
Nonetheless, some previous studies that tested other
FPS games (i.e., Team Fortress 2 – Valve Software;
Half-Life 2 – Valve Software) have found a better
performance on desktop displays compared to virtual
reality [28, 57]. Various reasons could explain such
non-homogenous results. One possible explanation
could be related to the different type of HMDs adopted.
In particular, this as well as other studies that reported
no performance differences between games played in
virtual reality or on desktop displays have used recently
released commercial HMDs: Oculus Rift (Oculus) [52],
Samsung Gear VR (Oculus) [42, 43], and PlayStation
VR (Sony Interactive Entertainment) [40]. In contrast,
studies that observed a better performance and
usability in desktop display modalities compared to
virtual reality [28, 57] have adopted a much less
technologically advanced HMD (i.e., the Oculus Rift
Developer Kit 1 - Oculus). Consequently, it is possible
that thanks to the rapid and significant technical
improvements observed in the commercial HMDs
released in recent years, the differences between
virtual reality and desktop systems have strongly
decreased.
The inconsistent findings could be further explained by
the different tasks used to evaluate video game
performance. While the players in our study were asked
to perform a simple driving action, the research that
observed a better performance on desktop systems
compared to virtual reality ones required the
participants to perform more complex actions, such as
targeting (i.e., aiming and shooting enemies, picking up
weapons), and jumping [28, 57]. Future studies are
needed to verify the findings. It would be also
interesting to test other commercial virtual reality
systems, like HTC Vive (Vive and Valve Corporation),
which offers a gaming experience at the highest levels
of interaction and which has not yet been the subject of
specific evaluation in term of performance and player
experience.
Positive emotions after the gameplay experience
Regarding the second main hypothesis of this study
(i.e., the video game played in virtual reality will elicit
more positive emotions compared to the desktop
display modality), the results have shown that playing
in virtual reality is able to elicit more intense positive
emotions compared to a video game experienced on a
desktop display. In particular, the results regarding
GEQ’s positive emotions subscale were statistically
higher in the virtual reality condition compared to the
desktop display modality. With a few exceptions [59],
recent studies have shown similar results, showing that
virtual reality games are more effective in inducing
positive emotions compared to desktop video games
(e.g., [52, 57] for several reasons. First, it is possible
that, given that virtual reality only recently became
known to the public, this technology elicits the so-called
“wow effect” in people, defined as a temporary state of
awe triggering in the individual when surprised by
something wonderful [45]. However, it is important to
note that in this study, as in the previous ones that
reported similar results regarding the player's
emotional response, the participants had an
heterogeneous knowledge of virtual reality: medium-
low in two studies [40, 42], medium-high in another
study [43] as well in this one (i.e., one third of the
sample had previous experience of virtual reality before
the experiment).
Another possible explanation for the findings that
playing in virtual reality generates more intense
positive emotions compared to playing on desktop
display devices is connected to the general ability of
virtual reality technology to induce positive emotional
states. Virtual reality is in fact often referred to as an
"affective medium," since numerous studies have
shown that it is generally capable of eliciting more
intense emotions compared to less immersive display
devices, such as desktop displays (e.g., [11, 18].
Based on the findings of our study as well as those of
previous research (e.g., [43, 52], virtual reality video
games appear to be more effective compared to
desktop games in inducing positive emotions in the
player. This fact could be relevant for several reasons.
On the one hand, in the field of entertainment and
gaming, the results emphasize the unique possibilities
of virtual reality to amuse and positively involve the
player, creating memorable experiences from an
emotional point of view. On the other hand, thanks to
the ability to induce positive emotions, commercial
virtual reality video games could become tools to
promote the player's psychological well-being. These
tools can potentially be even more effective compared
to more traditional desktop video games.
Immersion and flow
Regarding the third main hypothesis of this study (i.e.,
immersion and flow in virtual reality will be more
intense compared to the desktop condition), the
analyses of the subscales of the GEQ sensory and
imaginative immersion as well as flow showed
statistically higher values after the video game
experience in virtual reality compared to that on the
desktop display. This result appears to be in line with
what has been observed in some recent studies in
which larger values (even if statistically not significant)
of immersion [28, 59] as well as of flow [57] were
shown after a virtual reality gaming experience
compared to a desktop one, and it could be explained
through different hypotheses. First, as reported by the
participants in the study of Tan and colleagues [57], it
is possible that using virtual reality displays decreased
the number of distractions compared to playing on the
desktop. Consequently, the player can develop more
easily the sense of immersion in the game rather than
flow. Furthermore, as reported in the literature, the
sense of control of the player in the game is
fundamental for the development of both sense of
immersion and flow [24, 64]. In this regard, it is
important to underline that in our study, no
performance differences emerged between the virtual
reality and the display condition.
Competence, tension/annoyance, challenge
Finally, the results confirmed the fourth main
hypothesis of this study (i.e., no difference in players’
psychological needs between virtual reality compared
to the desktop condition). The analyses of the
subscales of the GEQ competence, tension/annoyance,
and challenge have in fact shown no statistically
significant differences in the values after the experience
of playing in virtual reality compared to that on the
desktop display. This result can be interpreted in
diverse ways. It is possible that the fulfillment of
psychological needs is independent of the technical
features of the game, such as the display device, and is
instead linked to other more intrinsic features of the
game, such as narrative and game mechanics. In
support of this hypothesis, a previous study reported
no differences with respect to other characteristics
related to the psychological needs of the players,
particularly, personal gratification and social connection
[52]. Future studies will need to further investigate this
aspect of the player experience.
Limitations of this study
This study has used a specific tool, the self-report
questionnaire GEQ, to evaluate the player experience
[20], that, even if is one of the most adopted
questionnaire in video games research, has been
recently criticized [25]. Future research could adopt
different methodologies, for example, specific
questionnaires to assess different aspects of the player
experience, like the Immersion Experience
Questionnaire (IEQ) [22] to evaluate the sense of
immersion or the Flow State Scale (FSS) [21] to
evaluate flow. In addition, it is important to underline
the specificity of the included sample (i.e., young adults
who had a medium-high knowledge of virtual reality
systems).
Discussion
To summarize, the present study found that (a) playing
in virtual reality was no more complex than playing the
same video game on a desktop display; (b) the video
game played in virtual reality was able to elicit more
intense positive emotions in the players compared to
video game played on desktop; (c) the perceived sense
of immersion and flow was greater in virtual reality as
opposed to the desktop condition; (d) the fulfillment of
psychological needs (i.e., competence,
tension/annoyance, challenge) was independent of the
technical features of the game, such as the display
device. The results of this study offer insight into the
fact that virtual reality may be more engaging
compared to desktop displays in video games with
simple control scheme (i.e., driving). Furthermore, it’s
important to underline that this research adopted one
of the most widespread virtual reality systems on the
market (i.e., PlayStation VR -Sony Interactive
Entertainment), offering evidence that the differences
between virtual reality and desktop display systems
have strongly decreased, probably thanks to the rapid
and significant technical improvements observed in the
commercial HMDs released in recent years.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank all volunteers and
Ambra Ferrari, Eleonora Maria Minissi, Erica Ilari,
Andrea Zanacchi, Giacomo Garcea and Gabriele Barone
for helping with data acquisition.
References
1. American Psychological Association. 2010. 2010
amendments to the 2002 “Ethical Principles of
Psychologists and Code of Conduct.” American
Psychologist 65, 5: 493.
DOI: 10.1037/a0020168
2. Francesco Bellotti, Riccardo Berta, Alessandro
De Gloria, and Ludovica Primavera. 2009. Player
Experience Evaluation: An Approach Based on
the Personal Construct Theory. In Lecture Notes
in Computer Science, vol 5709, S. Natkin, and
J. Dupire J. (eds.). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg,
120–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-
04052-8_11
3. Eduardo H Calvillo-Gámez, Paul Cairns, and
Anna L Cox. 2010. Assessing the Core Elements
of the Gaming Experience. In Evaluating User
Experience in Games, R. Bernhaup (ed.).
Springer-Verlag London, 47–71.
DOI 10.1007/978-1-84882-963-3_4
4. Diana I. Cordova and Mark R. Lepper. 1996.
Intrinsic Motivation and the Process of Learning:
Beneficial Effects of Contextualization,
Personalization, and Choice. Journal of
Educational Psychology 88, 4: 715–730.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.4.715
5. Joe Cox. 2014. What Makes a Blockbuster Video
Game? An Empirical Analysis of US Sales Data.
Managerial and Decision Economics 35, 3: 189–
198.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.2608
6. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. 1990. Flow: The
Psychology of Optimal Experience. Journal of
Leisure Research, 24, 1: 93–94.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1992.11969
876
7. Jesse Damiani. 2018. The Top 25 VR Games Of
2018. Forbes. Retrieved March 3, 2019 from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jessedamiani/201
8/12/30/the-top-25-vr-games-of-
2018/#93795a86597f.
8. Entertainment Software Assotiation. 2017.
Essential Facts About the Computer and Video
Game Industry. Retrieved March 3, 2019 from
https://www.theesa.com/esa-research/2017-
essential-facts-about-the-computer-and-video-
game-industry/
9. Entertainment Software Assotiation. 2018.
Essential Facts About the Computer and Video
Game Industry. Retrieved March 3, 2019 from
https://www.theesa.com/esa-research/2018-
essential-facts-about-the-computer-and-video-
game-industry/
10. Laura Ermi, Frans Mäyrä. 2005. Fundamental
Components of the Gameplay Experience:
Analysing Immersion. In Changing Views:
Worlds in Play. Selected Papers of the 2005
Digital Games Research Association’s Second
International Conference, Suzanne de Castell
and Jennifer Jenson (eds.), 15–27.
11. Sergio Estupiñán, Francisco Rebelo, Paulo
Noriega, Carlos Ferreira, and Emillia Duarte.
2014. Can virtual reality increase emotional
responses (Arousal and Valence)? a pilot study.
In Design, User Experience, and Usability. User
Experience Design for Diverse Interaction
Platforms and Environments. DUXU 2014.
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8518.
 Springer, Cham, 541–549.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07626-3_51
12. Darren George and Paul Mallery. 2010. SPSS for
Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and
Reference, 17.0 update. Pearson, Boston.
13. Kathrin M. Gerling, Matthias Klauser, and Joerg
Niesenhaus. 2011. Measuring the impact of
game controllers on player experience in FPS
games. In Proceedings of the 15th International
Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning
Future Media Environments. ACM Press, 83-86.
DOI 10.1145/2181037.2181052
14. Isabela Granic, Adam Lobel, and Rutger C M E
Engels. 2014. The benefits of playing video
games. American Psychologist 69, 1: 66–78.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0034857
15. Marc Hassenzahl and Noam Tractinsky. 2006.
User experience - a research agenda. Behaviour
& Information Technology 25, 2: 91–97.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290500330331
16. David S. Heineman. 2016. Porting game studies
research to virtual reality. New Media & Society
18, 11: 2793–2799.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816661711
17. Scott H. Hemenover and Nicholas D. Bowman.
2018. Video games, emotion, and emotion
regulation: expanding the scope. Annals of the
International Communication Association 42, 2:
125–143.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2018.14422
39
18. Juan Luis Higuera-Trujillo, Juan López-Tarruella
Maldonado, and Carmen Llinares Millán. 2017.
Psychological and physiological human
responses to simulated and real environments:
A comparison between Photographs, 360°
Panoramas, and Virtual Reality. Applied
Ergonomics 65: 398–409.
DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2017.05.006
19. Henry Hsu and Peter A. Lachenbruch. 2008.
Paired t Test. In Wiley Encyclopedia of Clinical
Trials. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ,
USA, 1–3.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780471462422.eoct96
9
20. Wijnand IJsselsteijn, Yvonne De Kort, and
Karolien Poels. 2013. The Game Experience
Questionnaire.Technische Universiteit
Eindhoven.
21. Susan A. Jackson and Herbert W. Marsh. 1996.
Development and Validation of a Scale to
Measure Optimal Experience: The Flow State
Scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,
18, 1, 17-35.
https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.18.1.17
22. Charlene Jennett, Anna L. Cox, Paul Cairns, et
al. 2008. Measuring and defining the experience
of immersion in games. International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies 66, 9: 641–661.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.04.004
23. Christian M. Jones, Laura Scholes, Daniel
Johnson, Mary Katsikitis, and Michelle C. Carras.
2014. Gaming well: links between videogames
and flourishing mental health. Frontiers in
Psychology, 5: 260.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00260
24. Martin Klasen, René Weber, Tilo T. J. Kircher,
Krystyna A. Mathiak, and Klaus Mathiak. 2012.
 Neural contributions to flow experience during
video game playing. Social Cognitive and
Affective Neuroscience 7, 4: 485–495.
DOI: 10.1093/scan/nsr021
25. Effie L.C. Law, Florian Brühlmann, and Elisa D.
Mekler. 2018. Systematic Review and Validation
of the Game Experience Questionnaire (GEQ) -
Implications for Citation and Reporting Practice.
In The Annual Symposium on Computer-Human
Interaction in Play Extended Abstracts - CHI
PLAY ’18. ACM Press, 257–270.
DOI 10.1145/3242671.3242683
26. Anthony Limperos, T. Franklin Waddell,
Adrienne Holz Ivory, and James D. Ivory. 2014.
Psychological and Physiological Responses to
Stereoscopic 3D Presentation in Handheld
Digital Gaming: Comparing the Experiences of
Frequent and Infrequent Game Players.
Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual
Environments 23, 4: 341–353.
https://doi.org/10.1162/PRES_a_00204
27. Thomas W. Malone and Mark R Lepper. 1987.
Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic
motivations for learning. In Aptitude learning
and instruction, R. Plass, J. Moreno, and R.
Brunken (eds.), Cambridge University Press,
New York, NY, Vol. 3, 223–253.
28. Erin Martel, Feng Su, Jesse Gerroir, Ahmed
Hassan, Audrey Girouard, and Kasia Muldner.
2015. Diving headfirst into virtual reality:
Evaluating HMD control schemes for VR games.
In Proceedings of the 10th International
Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games
(FDG 2015), June 22-25, 2015, Pacific Grove,
CA, USA.
ISBN 978-0-9913982-4-9
29. Alison Mcmahan. 2003. Immersion,
Engagement, and Presence A method for
analyzing 3-D Video Games. In The video game;
Theory reader, Mark J.P. Wolf and Bernard
Perron (eds.), Routledge, Taylor & Francis
Group, 89-108.
30. Lazaros Michailidis, Emili Balaguer-Ballester,
and Xun He. 2018. Flow and Immersion in Video
Games: The Aftermath of a Conceptual
Challenge. Frontiers in Psychology 9: 1682.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01682
31. Janet H. Murray. 1997. Hamlet on the
holodeck : the future of narrative in cyberspace.
MIT Press.
32. Lennart E. Nacke. 2009. Affective ludology :
scientific measurement of user experience in
interactive entertainment. PhD Dissertation,
Blekinge Institute of Technology Doctoral
Dissertation Series No 2009:04.
33. Lennart E. Nacke, Anders Drachen, and Stefan
Göbel. 2010. Methods for evaluating gameplay
experience in a serious gaming context.
International Journal of Computer Science in
Sport 9, 2: 40–51.
34. Lennart E. Nacke, Anders Drachen, Kai
Kuikkaniemi, et al. 2009. Breaking New Ground:
Innovation in Games, Play, Practice and Theory.
In DIGRA '09 - Proceedings of the 2009 DIGRA
International conference: breaking new ground:
innovation in games, play, practice and theory,
Code 95301.
35. Jeanne Nakamura and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi.
2002. The concept of flow. In Handbook of
 positive psychology, C.R. Snyder and S. J.
Lopez (eds.), Oxford University Press, New
York, 89–105.
36. David Novick, Juan Vicario, Baltazar Santaella,
and Iván Gris. 2014. Empirical Analysis of
Playability vs. Usability in a Computer Game. In
Springer, Cham, 720–731.
37. J. C. Nunnally and I. H Bernstein. 1994.
Psychometric theory. Mc Graw Hill, New York.
38. Cheryl K. Olson. 2010. Children’s motivations
for video game play in the context of normal
development. Review of General Psychology 14,
2: 180–187.
39. Cheryl K. Olson. 2015. Are Electronic Games
Health Hazards or Health Promoters? In The
Video Game Debate. Routledge, 39–53.
40. Federica Pallavicini, Ambra Ferrari, Giacomo
Garcea, Andrea Zanacchi, and Fabrizia
Mantovani. 2018. Effectiveness of virtual reality
survival horror games for the emotional
elicitation: Preliminary insights using Resident
Evil 7: Biohazard. In Universal Access in
Human-Computer Interaction. Virtual,
Augmented, and Intelligent Environments.
UAHCI 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer
Science, vol 10908, M., Antona, C. Stephanidis
(eds), Springer, Cham, 87-101.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92052-8_8
41. Federica Pallavicini, Ambra Ferrari, and Fabrizia
Mantovani. 2018. Video Games for Well-Being:
A Systematic Review on the Application of
Computer Games for Cognitive and Emotional
Training in the Adult Population. Frontiers in
Psychology 9: 2127.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02127
42. Federica Pallavicini, Ambra Ferrari, Andrea Zini,
et al. 2018. What Distinguishes a Traditional
Gaming Experience from One in Virtual Reality?
An Exploratory Study. In Advances in Human
Factors in Wearable Technologies and Game
Design. AHFE 2017. Advances in Intelligent
Systems and Computing, vol 608. Springer,
Cham, 225–231.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60639-2_23
43. Federica Pallavicini, Alessandro Pepe, and Maria
Eleonora Minissi. 2019. Gaming in Virtual
Reality: What Changes in Terms of Usability,
Emotional Response and Sense of Presence
Compared to Non-Immersive Video Games?
Simulation & Gaming, 50, 2, 136-159.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878119831420
44. Mikki H. Phan, Joseph R. Keebler, and Barbara
S. Chaparro. 2016. The Development and
Validation of the Game User Experience
Satisfaction Scale (GUESS). Human Factors:
The Journal of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society 58, 8: 1217–1247.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816669646
45. Tero Reunanen, Marcus Penttinen, and Arndt
Borgmeier. 2017. “Wow-Factors” for Boosting
Business. In Advances in Human Factors,
Business Management, Training and Education.
Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing,
vol 498, J. Cantola.,T. Barath, and Nazir S.,
Andre T. (eds.). Springer, Cham, 589–600.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42070-7_5
46. Marnie E. Rice and Grant T. Harris. 2005.
Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies:
 ROC Area, Cohen’s d, and r. Law and Human
Behavior 29, 5: 615–620.
DOI: 10.1007/s10979-005-6832-7
47. Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci. 2000.
Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and
well-being. The American psychologist 55, 1:
68–78.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
48. Richard M. Ryan, C. Scott Rigby, and Andrew
Przybylski. 2006. The Motivational Pull of Video
Games: A Self-Determination Theory Approach.
Motivation and Emotion 30, 4: 344–360.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9051-8
49. Arif Shabana. 2018. HTC Vive responds to “VR
is dying” claim, says sales are low because they
sold out. VG24. Retrieved March 3, 2019 from
https://www.vg247.com/2018/07/27/htc-vive-
responds-vr-dying-claim-says-sales-low-sold/
50. David Sharek and Eric Wiebe. 2014. Measuring
Video Game Engagement Through the Cognitive
and Affective Dimensions. Simulation & Gaming
45, 4–5: 569–592.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878114554176
51. Bruce Shelley. 2001. Guidelines for developing
successful games. Gamasutra. Retrieved March
3, 2019 from
https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131
52. William J. Shelstad, Dustin C. Smith, and
Barbara S. Chaparro. 2017. Gaming on the Rift:
How Virtual Reality Affects Game User
Satisfaction. Proceedings of the Human Factors
and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 61, 1:
2072–2076.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213602001
53. Mel Slater, Vasilis Linakis, Martin Usoh, and Rob
Kooper. 1996. Immersion, presence, and
performance in virtual environments: an
experiment with tri-dimensional chess.
Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Symposium on
Virtual Reality Software and Technology (VRST
1996), Hong Kong, China JUNE: 163–172.
doi>10.1145/3304181.3304216
54. Jonathan Steuer. 1992. Defining Virtual Reality:
Dimensions Determining Telepresence. Journal
of communication, 42, 4, 73-93.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-
2466.1992.tb00812.x
55. David L. Streiner and Geoffrey R. Norman.
2011. Correction for Multiple Testing. Chest
140, 1: 16–18.
DOI:10.1378/chest.11-0523
56. Ron Tamborini and Nicholas D. Bowman. 2010.
Presence in Video Games. In Immersed in
Media, C. Bracken and P. Skalski (eds.), New
York: Routledge, 87–110.
57. Chek Tien Tan, Tuck Wah Leong, Songjia Shen,
Christopher Dubravs, and Chen Si. 2015.
Exploring Gameplay Experiences on the Oculus
Rift. Proceedings of the 2015 Annual
Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in
Play - CHI PLAY ’15, ACM Press, 253–263.
doi>10.1145/2793107.2793117
58. Eduard Sioe-Hao Tan. 2008. Entertainment is
Emotion: The Functional Architecture of the
Entertainment Experience. Media Psychology
11, 1: 28–51.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260701853161
 59. Marcel Walch, Julian Frommel, Katja Rogers, et
al. 2017. Evaluating VR Driving Simulation from
a Player Experience Perspective. Proceedings of
the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on
Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI EA
’17, ACM Press, 2982–2989.
doi>10.1145/3027063.3053202
60. Jane Webster, Linda Klebe Trevino, and Lisa
Ryan. 1993. The dimensionality and correlates
of flow in human-computer interactions.
Computers in Human Behavior 9, 4: 411–426.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0747-5632(93)90032-
N Publishing, Cham, 243–271.
61. David Weibel and Bartholomäus Wissmath.
2011. Immersion in Computer Games: The Role
of Spatial Presence and Flow. International
Journal of Computer Games Technology 2011:
1–14.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/282345
View publication stats
62. David Weibel, Bartholomäus Wissmath, Stephan
Habegger, Yves Steiner, and Rudolf Groner.
2008. Playing online games against computer-
vs. human-controlled opponents: Effects on
presence, flow, and enjoyment. Computers in
Human Behavior 24, 5: 2274–2291.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.11.002
63. Josef Wiemeyer, Lennart Nacke, Christiane
Moser, and Florian ‘Floyd’ Mueller. 2016. Player
Experience. In Serious Games, Ralf Dörner,
Stefan Göbel, Wolfgang Effelsberg, and Josef
Wiemeyer (eds.). Springer International
64. Bob G. Witmer and Michael J. Singer. 1998.
Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A
Presence Questionnaire. Presence:
Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 7, 3:
225–240.
https://doi.org/10.1162/105474698565686