research paper game development

What Empirically Based Research Tells Us About Game Development

• Open access
• Published: 24 September 2019
• Volume 8 , pages 179–198, ( 2019 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Björn Berg Marklund   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1458-8557 1 ,
• Henrik Engström 1 ,
• Marcus Hellkvist 1 &
• Per Backlund 1  

13k Accesses

14 Citations

Explore all metrics

This paper reviews empirically grounded research on practices in game development with the intent to give a comprehensive overview of contemporary development practices used in the video game industry. While there are many intangible elements that inform game development processes, this review specifically covers the more immediate practical challenges. The review covers a total of 48 papers published between 2006 and 2016, which were all subjected to thematic analysis by three reviewers. The results of the review show that an almost universal characteristic of game development is that it is almost impossible to accurately plan a development project in detail, largely due to the soft requirements inherent in game production which emerge mid-process during development projects, during when testing is coupled with continuous ideation and refinement. Practicing game developers have created their own frameworks that accommodate for this lack of planning. They include flat hierarchies, democratic decision-making, creative autonomy, and informal communication, which are designed to create an environment that maintains creativity and openness to product changes long into the production process. These frameworks vary significantly between studios and often between individual projects. This review also shows that the term ‘Agile’, while often used by both researchers and developers to characterize the process of game development, is not an apt descriptor of how game developers actually work. Agile is used as shorthand for unstructured and flexible development, rather than serving as a descriptor of a definable or unified work method. Finally, as companies develop more complicated hierarchies of stakeholders and staff, the desired flexibility and autonomy of game development becomes increasingly complicated to maintain, and often necessitates more formalized management processes and company structures. In these cases, inherent tensions of game development become more pronounced, and continuous creativity is hard to maintain due to a growing need to formalize processes.

Similar content being viewed by others

Benefits of Game Analytics: Stakeholders, Contexts and Domains

Software Development Processes for Games: A Systematic Literature Review

Critical Success Factors to Improve the Game Development Process from a Developer’s Perspective

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Research related to games has been steadily growing in popularity since the turn of the millennium. Between 2006 and 2016, for example, the annual publication of game documents (i.e. books, journal articles, conference papers, or chapters) rose from ~ 900 to ~ 3200 (Martin 2018 ). However, even though the academic output regarding games has been steadily increasing in volume, the processes through which games are actually produced are still relatively obscure (Martin 2018 ; Petrillo et al. 2008 ). In a recent literature review published in Game Studies , Paul Martin states that games are subject to scrutiny by experts from a myriad of different fields, but that scholars all primarily focus on understanding games’ potential ‘effects’, which is strongly linked to understanding their design (Martin 2018 ). In one of his paper’s concluding paragraphs, Martin posits that there are:

… potential gaps in game research. […] While other authors may occasionally discuss the game industries, no other authors have this as their main research topic. Furthermore, none of the non-game authors cited are experts on business or industry. (Martin 2018 )

In this paper, we present a literature review which addresses that particular potential gap, and surveys the development and production processes that underpin the games industry. Game development is often described in general terms with vague definitions, such as being subjective, flexible, and agile (Kortmann and Harteveld 2009 ; O’Hagan et al. 2014 ; Petrillo and Pimenta 2010 ). While these descriptors are not necessarily incorrect—in fact, as they are so often used they are likely to be fairly accurate—they are not particularly beneficial in helping the reader understanding what is actually happening during game development projects. As games are a complicated intermingling of various crafts and disciplines (e.g. audiovisual arts, design and user experience, genre conventions and tradition, software and hardware engineering, management, business and marketing, etc.) each game, and each studio developing it, is bound to have some unique quirks. Even though a universal answer is unlikely to exist, this review is an attempt to identify and highlight some of the patterns and commonalities that unify development practices.

An important distinction made in this review is that it is not concerned with hypothetical best practice prescriptions. There are many examples of research studies that describe how games should be developed: correlations between game design and models from UX and heuristics are made (e.g. Bernhaupt 2015 ; Koeffel et al. 2010 ); the viability of software development and standardizations on game development are discussed (e.g. Dormans 2012 ; Srisuriyasavad and Prompoon 2013 ); and project management and planning research are argued to be suitable approaches for solving challenges inherent in game development (e.g. McGregor 2013 ; Trantow et al. 2013 ; Vallance 2014 ; Vanhala and Kasurinen 2014 ). A persistent issue within this research field, however, is that such studies are rarely carried out by, or with input from, practitioners and experts from the games industry, and a large portion of literature on game development thus rarely takes everyday realities of practices into account (Martin 2018 ). With this in mind, this literature review specifically aims to examine how game development is described by individuals involved in game development, and thus this review exclusively focuses on empirically grounded research conducted on game developers and game development studios in order to present a picture of how games are developed.

The review presented in this article is part of a comprehensive literature study aiming to explore game development from a broad perspective, covering a wide set of disciplines. The details of the fundamental method of the study are described in Engström et al. ( 2018 ). To briefly summarize the literature selection process, a series of keywords related to game development, software engineering, and creative industries were used in several wide-reaching databases (Scopus, Springer, ACM, and DiGRA’s digital archives) to generate an initial set of 2278 publications. Through title and abstract analysis, this set was reduced to a set of 488 papers that were reviewed and coded. Two particular outcomes of this process are a research quality evaluation, and a case description that identifies whether a paper’s outcomes were based on empirical data from the games industry. The study presented in this article addresses one of four research questions identified in Engström et al. ( 2018 ), namely, “What are the current development practices used in the video games industry?” (p. 12).

It should be noted that the selection process was not limited to a pre-defined set of geographic regions. However, European and North American research studies dominate this area, so papers by authors from these regions are prominent in this review. The selection process involved identifying only papers written in English. It should also be noted that the vast majority of articles relating to game development have taken little or no consideration of regional aspects in their research approaches, and regional aspects that might affect game development are seldom discussed.

From the larger set of 488 articles, by applying the aforementioned method classifications, quality evaluations, and case descriptions, we have filtered out papers to produce a subset of 48 papers that fulfil the criteria that provide the foundation for this review: they contain empirical data from industry practitioners (i.e. not development conducted under academic auspices); they display a high quality of research (in terms of clearly stated research question, method description, and results); and, they are relevant to our understanding to the practices of game development.

The selected papers were subjected to a thematic analysis of the papers’ contents by the three reviewers. Thematic analysis is, as described by Braun and Clarke ( 2006 , p. 6), “a method for identifying, analysing, and reporting patterns (themes) within data. It minimally organises and describes your data set in (rich) detail. However, it also often goes further than this, and interprets various aspects of the research topic…” As this review aims to identify patterns and themes which can describe game development, the qualitative-oriented nature of thematic analysis is suitable for doing in-depth content analysis of the sizeable amount of data which this review entails. The process was conducted using the MAXQDA qualitative analysis software program (VERBI GmbH 1995 ) which allowed the three reviewers to analyse and keep personal notes on the papers independently of one another, and to later merge their work to see if there were obvious points of disagreements or agreements regarding the papers’ content.

The entire process can be divided into three distinct phases: a preparation phase, a content processing phase, and an analysis phase. These phases entailed a total of 6 steps.

Phase 1: Preparation

Familiarization and initial coding the full set of papers was quickly and manually surveyed by the three reviewers. Not only did this serve to familiarize the reviewers with the material under review, but each reviewer also wrote down suggestions of code categories, which were then discussed in a reviewer meeting. In this initial coding step, all reviewers devised their own set of codes independently from one another, which ultimately resulted in an amount of codes that would be unfeasible to process in a reasonable timeframe. Many of these codes were also overlapping or semantically identical, even though the reviewers phrased them slightly differently, compounding the codes’ unsuitability for a continued reviewing process.

Establishing a unified code vocabulary in order to establish a more unified code vocabulary between the reviewers, two papers (Musil et al. 2010 ; Vallance 2014 ) were subjected to a round of test-coding. After using the initial code set on the first paper (Musil et al. 2010 ) the reviewers met to discuss the definitions, usefulness, accuracy, and potential interpretations of the different codes. After refining the code set based on these discussions, the process was repeated once more with the second paper (Vallance 2014 ). These trial runs served the purpose of ensuring that reviewers agreed upon code phrasings that risked having multiple interpretations, as having reviewers interpret codes in their own different ways would complicate later analysis stages significantly. The established code set was imported into the MAXQDA program, providing each reviewer with the same baseline template for the content analysis and coding that was to follow.

Phase 2: Processing the Full Set of 48 Papers

Secondary content processing and coding each of the three reviewers analysed the complete set of 48 papers by reading through them and marking text segments with codes from the established code categories. Every reviewer was given a different starting point in the data set, in order to minimize the potential impact of reviewers’ fatigue affecting the coding of a few particular papers too heavily. This process resulted in a total of 5190 coded segments.

Reviewer code synthesis with all the material coded, the three reviewers’ coding projects in MAXQDA were merged to create a unified team version of the coded material. This version, which included all 48 papers with all reviewers’ codes, provided the primary foundation for the next phase of the thematic analysis, in which the material was analysed to see which themes and patterns praxis emerged from the coded material.

Phase 3: Code Analysis, Theme Creation, and Report Compilation

Searching for themes the compiled and coded materials were analysed by the three reviewers to search for themes. While some themes emerged from the material rather quickly, the reviewers did not discriminate between themes of varied weight. The result from the initial analysis was a highlighting of various themes and the codes associated with them, which was discussed during reviewer meetings and subsequently used as the foundation for the final step of the process.

Defining and naming themes after establishing an initial set of themes, the review group took them into consideration in preparation for another set of meetings to better define the roots of the themes in coded material, and to name the themes appropriately to make them easier to present and describe in this paper. The various connections between coded segments and the themes were mapped out more clearly, and the reviewers ensured that the various nuances of positives and negatives surrounding each theme (as stated by developers in the empirical data) were properly represented.

3 Review Results

As previously mentioned, the coding process resulted in 5190 coded segments. After the subsequent reviewing and further analysis of the compiled coded material, several clear themes emerged from the coded material. In essence, a theme constitutes an empirically supported pattern of experiences, observations, or statements made in the reviewed papers. If many coded segments from the studied cases had expressed similar challenges or solutions to various aspects of their development practices, the reviewers would cluster these code segments together to create a more unifying theme that described these similarities. The process resulted in eight themes clustered under the two main theme categories: creating an experience , and creating a product . Table  1 presents the themes and the papers from which they are derived.

4 Research Overview

As per the criteria of the paper sampling process, all papers included empirical findings from game developers. This naturally meant that the reviewed papers were highly reliant on case studies (e.g. Amanatiadou and Van De Weerd 2009 ; Cohendet and Simon 2007 ; McAllister and White 2015 ; Myllärniemi et al. 2006 ; O’Hagan and O’Connor 2015 ; Vanhala and Kasurinen 2014 ). There were, however, some examples of research conducted on individual developers independently of any ongoing projects or studio work that dealt with experiences and attitudes towards their craft in a more general sense (e.g. Murphy-Hill et al. 2014 ; Wang and Nordmark 2015 ). As for data gathering methods, most of the reviewed papers relied primarily on qualitative methods, and semi-structured interviews were particularly common (Kasurinen et al. 2013 , 2014 ; Kultima 2010 ). Some papers also used surveys, often to supplement or support the material gathered through interviews (Koutonen and Leppänen 2013 ; Murphy-Hill et al. 2014 ; Wang and Nordmark 2015 ). There were also a couple of examples of ethnographic research, in which the authors either recounted their own experiences working in development teams in the past (Walfisz et al. 2006 ) or kept journaled accounts of on-going development processes (Bryant et al. 2010 ; Cohendet and Simon 2007 ; Nelson and Palumbo 2014 ).

The vast majority of studied cases focused on what could be classified as more “straight forward” entertainment products for various platforms. There were a few exceptions, however, that focused on development of serious games (Ruggiero and Watson 2014 ; Tran and Biddle 2008 ). In this review, we do not make a particular distinction between the genres of games being developed, and we consider serious game developers to also be part of the broader games industry.

The investigated game companies in these papers have a varied international spread. Research studies in northern Europe and Canada constitute the largest portion of the reviewed set, while other regions are more sparsely represented. For example, no papers mention anything about Australian or African game development, making them the only excluded continents. Several papers investigate several game studios from different countries simultaneously (Chung and Fung 2013 ; Musial et al. 2015 ; Stacey and Nandhakumar 2008 ), while the most common approach seems to be to focus on one particular region; this is likely due to the researchers’ chosen methods (interviews) making it preferable to confine their study to one region (Hotho and Champion 2011 ; Zackariasson et al. 2006 ). Some of the papers do not include any descriptions of where the study was conducted (Drachen et al. 2013 ; O’Hagan et al. 2014 ; Tran and Biddle 2008 ).

The game studios studied in the reviewed papers differ from one another both in terms of size and organizational structure, ranging from small startup companies with a few people working on a single project (e.g. Llerena et al. 2009 ; O’Hagan and O’Connor 2015 ; Tran and Biddle 2008 ) to large established AAA studios with hundreds of employees working on multiple projects, sometimes across international borders (Cohendet and Simon 2007 ; Drachen et al. 2013 ; Walfisz et al. 2006 ); a number of studios fell somewhere in-between the two extremes (Hotho and Champion 2011 ; Myllärniemi et al. 2006 ; Nelson and Palumbo 2014 ). The studied game studios also worked with different platforms, such as PC (Kasurinen et al. 2013 ; Walfisz et al. 2006 ) mobile (Kultima 2010 ; Llerena et al. 2009 ; Myllärniemi et al. 2006 ) console (McAllister and White 2015 ) and web-browsers (Tran and Biddle 2008 ). It is difficult to determine whether there is a significant weighting towards any particular platform as many papers did not clearly state the examined studio’s target platform, and many studios also worked across many different platforms simultaneously. Thus, the set of reviewed papers seem to represent many different types of game development situations.

4.1 Creating an Experience

The first main theme in the studied material relates to how the game experience is created. This includes questions such as: how game ideas are born; when and how is the game design made; and what is the role of game testing. Testing, design, and ideation may not be exclusively relevant to game development as they, for example, happen in software and information system development as well. They are, however, uniquely approached in game development in that they are considerations that extend beyond functionality and effectivity. Many of the reviewed papers aimed to understand this distinctive characteristic of game development, making it a frequently recurring and nuanced theme in this analysis.

4.1.1 Creativity and Ideation

Creativity is an aspect of game development that is addressed in a majority of the papers. In many of them, there is an explicit focus on creativity and innovation in game development (Hagen 2012 ; Hodgson and Briand 2013 ; Hotho and Champion 2011 ; Kultima 2010 ; Lê et al. 2013 ; Llerena et al. 2009 ; Musial et al. 2015 ; Tschang and Szczypula 2006 ).

One theme that is present in most articles relates to knowledge architecture and the flow of ideas in game production. This includes the inspiration of original game ideas (Hagen 2012 ; Kultima 2010 ), how ideas transform during the process (Kultima 2010 ; Tschang and Szczypula 2006 ), and how ideas are formed in the interplay between different development groups and testers (Cohendet and Simon 2007 ; Lê et al. 2013 ; Simon 2006 ; Stacey et al. 2007 ; Wang and Nordmark 2015 ). There are strong indications that the creative endeavours in the game industry involve many individuals, and that collaboration is important:

The sources of creativity as well as efficiency at [Company] rely on a subtle alchemy among communities of scriptwriters, game-designers, graphic artists, sound designers, software programmers and even testers. The team is important for the creative process. (Cohendet and Simon 2007 , p. 591)

Not only are interpersonal relationships important for this type of creative ideation, but several studies (Lê et al. 2013 ; Stacey and Nandhakumar 2008 , 2009 ; Tschang and Szczypula 2006 ; Wang and Nordmark 2015 ) also report how the interplay between ideas and the technology used to realize them affect the process. New technological possibilities, as well as limitations in the technology and even bugs, can give rise to new game concepts. The creative game development process is non-linear, whereby ideas evolve during the development and test process: “Game ideas are prone to be altered in one way or another during the design process. This was emphasized by virtually all of the interviewees” (Kultima 2010 , p. 36).

A related issue observed in a large number of papers (Cohendet and Simon 2007 ; Hotho and Champion 2011 ; Kultima 2010 ; Musial et al. 2015 ; Simon 2006 ) is how creativity affects management of the game development process. These studies give a uniform message that creativity implies the need for more flexible processes, room for collaboration, and openness to change. As stated in one paper, “Management of creativity at work is merely seen as the art of setting the material, social and symbolic limits of the workspace collectively experienced as a creative play-ground” (Simon 2006 , p. 121).

The auteur tradition, which is strong in the movie industry, has very limited support in the game industry. Only one study (Hotho and Champion 2011 ) reports on a case where one person tried to control the whole creative process. This study reports on how this effort had several negative consequences. In summary, the empirical studies on game development give a relatively uniform picture: that creativity is achieved through a collaborative, test-driven process where structure, documentation and control are de-emphasized.

4.1.2 Testing and Player Experience

Despite the lack of standard development methods and loose requirement specifications, game features, feature changes, and development goals still have to originate from somewhere. Play testing is an activity that is highlighted in many studies as one of these origins, and is often described as tightly connected to the “player experience” goal that many game developers pursue. As summarized by one interviewee in Kasurinen and Smolander ( 2014 ), “You can plan for a large number of things, but ultimately the final decision is made when actual people try out the idea.” Overall, developers are highly aware of, and accepting towards, change, and it is treated as an inevitable part of the process and crucial for honing the experience: “The game experience rules. Change is imperative” (Walfisz et al. 2006 , p. 492).

This has implications on the conception of a product, and in particular how developers discuss the scope of a prototyping process. In game development companies the term ‘prototype’ is used in broad sense to refer to a game under development and its large number of different incarnations throughout the development process:

Further, the first prototypes produced by the R&D team are replaced by others (including the one working with the SDK), which will subsequently be replaced by game prototypes. In a sense, there are only prototypes in videogame development. (Lê et al. 2013 , p. 55)

The role of testing and player experience strongly influences the way game development is organised. Many studies report that companies adopt some kind of staged process. A common structure is to have the following four stages: ideation, pre-production, production, and post-production. A stage-gate methodology is discussed in some cases (Cohendet and Simon 2007 ; Hodgson and Briand 2013 ; Zackariasson et al. 2006 ), but it appears that the nature of game production makes it hard for developers to adhere to it even at its most general formulation. Play testing is conducted in all stages of the development process, and the result of these tests can have an impact on the product, irrespective of phase. As stated by an interviewee: “If a tester comes to say that this does not work, there is not fun in it, you really cannot leave that in the game, you have to fix it” (Kasurinen et al. 2013 , p. 14).

The testing of the game may also lead to the identification of new ideas (see Creativity), which were not possible to foresee at an early ideation stage. Ideas can appear in all stages of game production, and they can originate from any of the involved actors, including testers: “You never know where the next great idea is coming from—as we saw at Goo, some even came from secretaries” (Stacey and Nandhakumar 2008 , p. 145).

Interestingly, only a few studies (Koutonen and Leppänen 2013 ; Petrillo et al. 2009 ; Walfisz et al. 2006 ) discuss the concept of ‘feature creep’, which is a risk that arises when changes are allowed during all stages of production. Since it is difficult to clearly identify which features (e.g. themes, game mechanics, aesthetics, technologies, etc.) will ultimately result in the desired player experience, game developers often remain open to new ideas late in the production process (Petrillo et al. 2009 ). The main downside of this open-ended ideation is the high risk of feature creep, which is present in game development to a larger degree than in, for example, software development (Wang and Nordmark 2015 ). Developers try to minimize this risk by emphasizing a flexible and comprehensive early stage of game production (Cohendet and Simon 2007 ; Schmalz et al. 2014 ). Companies can have several potential products in the ideation and pre-production phases, and early and frequent playtesting of these prototypes will determine which should go into production. One of the papers conclude that the open-ended nature of game development is inherently risky, but that “the project structure itself often mitigated risk by emphasizing prototyping, pre-production and the early jettison of troubled projects” (Schmalz et al. 2014 , p. 4332).

4.1.3 Requirements, Subjectivity and Flexibility

The vast majority of papers that discuss requirements as an aspect of game development characterize them as being highly subjective (Alves et al. 2007 ; Kasurinen et al. 2014 ; Murphy-Hill et al. 2014 ; O’Hagan and O’Connor 2015 ), unpredictable (Kasurinen et al. 2014 ; Tran and Biddle 2008 ), and flexible (Daneva 2014 ; Schmalz et al. 2014 ). The subjectivity is often tied to the artefact itself, as gameplay goals (e.g. aesthetic goals, or gameplay goals such as being fun or thrilling) are mentioned as something that is difficult to approach in a formalized and well-defined way (Kasurinen et al. 2014 ; Murphy-Hill et al. 2014 ). While the subjective concept of “fun” has often been described as something defined by the developers themselves in smaller studios (Zackariasson et al. 2006 ), larger studios have used identified subjective preferences and usability concerns of their target audiences as a guiding requirement (Alves et al. 2007 ; Bryant et al. 2010 ; Murphy-Hill et al. 2014 ). The unpredictability and changing nature of requirements are mostly discussed in terms of how they necessitate iterative working processes (Schmalz et al. 2014 ). Constant team communication (Land and Wilson 2006 ; Tran and Biddle 2008 ) and testing (Cohendet and Simon 2007 ; Kasurinen et al. 2014 ; Tran and Biddle 2008 ; Walfisz et al. 2006 ) are often mentioned as efficient means in scoping out and identifying requirements as production progresses. In essence, the nature of requirements in game development is often seen as one of the primary causes for why game development processes turn out the way they do.

This subjectivity is what distinguishes game requirements from other software development practices. For example (Murphy-Hill et al. 2014 ) highlight this stark difference through interviews with game developers who have also had non-game software development experience. According to their work, game requirements differ from those of regular software development, and requirements also vary from game to game, meaning that there are few, if any, constant transferable requirements between games (Murphy-Hill et al. 2014 ; Wang and Nordmark 2015 ). A developer interviewed in (Murphy-Hill et al. 2014 ) for example, stated that:

… in an e-commerce application, a user has a task to complete that typically takes only a few minutes. … the requirement for games is that the user should be able to stay engaged on multiple timescales, and the mechanism to achieve that will vary from game to game. (Murphy-Hill et al. 2014 , p. 4)

When requirements are mentioned, they are often seen as a necessity due to their prevalence in traditional software development (Kasurinen et al. 2014 ; Land and Wilson 2006 ; Murphy-Hill et al. 2014 ); however, their merits and actual practical application in game development is debatable. In one of the reviewed papers, for example, developers were asked to evaluate how applicable ISO standardized software development processes were to their own working processes, to which they responded: “The first thing I see here is that requirement analysis is completely done before construction. So design is finished before anything is implemented… that’s just not the way it happens” (Kasurinen et al. 2014 , p. 13). For most game developers, requirements are rarely seen as an identified goal that must be fulfilled, but rather something that is to be discovered during the development process (Daneva 2014 ; Tran and Biddle 2008 ).

4.1.4 The Technology and Creativity Schism

The general ebb and flow of control and unrestricted creativity constitute a common thread in the material, and has often been described as a source of ambivalence and conflict:

We also found that conflicts may occur between designers and developers. This happens because game designers, who are especially creative individuals, generally try to include features that are very hard to implement. They argue that such features may improve the gameplay and the overall look and feel of the game. However, there is no formal process to assess that; just common-sense is used. Normally, the final game is the result of trade-offs among creative design, technical constraints and platforms constraints. (Alves et al. 2007 , p. 279)

A constant thread is the strong emphasis on the importance of a communal, democratic, and flexible production pipeline (e.g. role overlap, informal communication, team-based decisions, and shared knowledge architecture). Creativity was also equally emphasized as the driving force, and ultimate outcome, of game production (Kasurinen and Smolander 2014 ). There were, however, a few notable exceptions to this openness and flexibility: developers working with the software and technology aspects of game production had a comparatively protective approach to their work and contributions. Programmers in game studios could, for example, regard management with various levels of distrust if they were perceived to lack the necessary technological know-how to make realistic decisions (Murphy-Hill et al. 2014 ; Wang and Nordmark 2015 ).

In some cases, this concern was proven to be well founded, as managers sometimes professed to lacking the necessary understanding of implementation for making sound evaluations and management decisions regarding software aspects of game development; this could sometimes jeopardize a project’s success (Schmalz et al. 2014 ). Programmers sometimes held a similar level of distrust towards their peers working in different disciplines of production—perhaps more so towards graphics artists and designers—whose creativity could seem detached from realistic implementation (Alves et al. 2007 ; Kasurinen and Smolander 2014 ; Stacey and Nandhakumar 2009 ):

When a game-designer asks a programmer to design an animated “rope” as a decorative object in a virtual setting, he thinks its a very simple task and does not understand the rebuttal from the programmer, rather promoting a stick. (Simon 2006 , p. 120)

In essence, programming and technological knowledge seem to be under-appreciated and misunderstood in terms of their contribution to creativity (Kasurinen and Smolander 2014 ; Musial et al. 2015 ; Simon 2006 ; Wang and Nordmark 2015 ). In a study by Kasurinen and Smolander ( 2014 ), this was coupled with a sentiment that programming was the linchpin making the creation of games fundamentally possible: “…In their perspective the software development work was the actual requirement to create a game; without programming skills there would be no game product, but even without a competent artist you could create at least something.”

While input and ideas from designers and artists are of course seen as an important part of the production process, they could be regarded with increased skepticism if they came from colleagues with little programming knowledge.

4.2 Creating a Product

The second main theme in the studied material concerns the industrialization of game production. This theme is focused on how production aspects, applicable in most production processes, are approached in the games industry. This includes project management, documentation, planning and the role of tools used during production.

4.2.1 Methods in Theory and Execution

One theme that emerges clearly from the studied papers is that there is no standard for game development, and that developments methods are applied differently from how they are prescribed (Kasurinen et al. 2014 ; Kasurinen and Smolander 2014 ; Koutonen and Leppänen, 2013 ; Lê et al. 2013 ; Murphy-Hill et al. 2014 ; O’Hagan and O’Connor 2015 ; Schmalz et al. 2014 ; Stacey and Nandhakumar 2008 ; Walfisz et al. 2006 ; Zackariasson et al. 2006 ). Developers’ reasons for deviating from established project management and software engineering methods mainly stem from the focus on player experience (Kultima 2010 ; Murphy-Hill et al. 2014 ; Walfisz et al. 2006 ; Wang and Nordmark 2015 ). As stated by Hodgson and Briand ( 2013 ): “Our results suggest that game developers focus on soft values such as game content or user experience, instead of more traditional objectives such as reliability or efficiency.”

Many companies’ working methods are based on concepts from Agile development philosophy (Kasurinen and Smolander 2014 ; Murphy-Hill et al. 2014 ; Nelson and Palumbo 2014 ; Schmalz et al. 2014 ; Stacey and Nandhakumar 2008 ; Walfisz et al. 2006 ), but there are indications of challenges and problems when Agile is put into a game development context. One reason identified for this is the mix of professions involved in game production:

We’ve got so many specialists on the team, so the kind of planning that you usually do in Agile doesn’t work quite so well… You know [specialists] are more concerned about the creative process than an engineering process. (Murphy-Hill et al. 2014 , p. 7)

The Agile methods are thus applied unorthodoxly, compared to the “regular” software industry, which regards Agile, and associated processes such as Scrum and eXtreme Programming, as being flexible but relying on an underlying structure and framework of planning, iterations, and backlogs (Hodgson and Briand 2013 ). This is, again, exemplified by studies which have analysed the applicability of ISO development standards in game development, and which conclude that the standard is difficult to implement in game companies (Kasurinen et al. 2013 , 2014 ). Interviewed developers in other studies state, in clear terms, that Agile is unsuitable for their working processes: “We have a problem because the artists aren’t Agile. They detest it! … That’s a problem. There’s a dual system happening here.” (Hodgson and Briand 2013 , p. 320).

The challenge of controlling and standardizing the process of creating a product that is largely unpredictable and open to creative input until a very late stage of development is an issue that has been discussed in many papers (Cohendet and Simon 2007 ; Murphy-Hill et al. 2014 ; O’Hagan et al. 2014 ; Tschang and Szczypula 2006 ; Wang and Nordmark 2015 ), and these discussions are anchored in many different parts of the development ecosystem. It has been described as an issue with requirements, creative autonomy, technical constraints, or as a management issue, which might suggest that game development does not easily adhere to one particular methodological framework.

4.2.2 Documentation and Shared Objects for Collaborations

A strong trend in the game development literature is a very low focus on documentation and a strong focus on playable prototypes. The most frequently mentioned documentation (Alves et al. 2007 ; Kasurinen et al. 2014 ; Stacey and Nandhakumar 2009 ; Wimmer and Sitnikova 2011 ) is the game design document. It is worth noting that several of these studies more often identify shortcomings than benefits with the documental approach to game design. For example: “Even an apparently complete [game design document] is likely to change during the development process” (Alves et al. 2007 , p. 278). Or, as stated by an interviewee: “When the production started, the specifications went out of the window… There simply is not enough knowledge to make a full design at the early stage.” (Kasurinen et al. 2013 , p. 14).

In place of an agreed-upon design document, one important element of the development process that is addressed in several studies comprises the softer aspects of team cohesion and interdisciplinary collaboration (Cohendet and Simon 2007 ; Murphy-Hill et al. 2014 ; Tran and Biddle 2008 ; Wang and Nordmark 2015 ). Frequent and open knowledge-sharing (Cohendet and Simon 2007 ; Dezso et al. 2010 ; Llerena et al. 2009 ) and continuous informal dialogue (Tran and Biddle 2008 ) emerged in the papers as more widely used methods of keeping a team’s collaborative creative vision intact during development. For example:

It’s very much a dialogue, we try not to have too formal split between tech and creative team when thinking about this, but prioritize what the user experience should be and when we can ship at target quality. (Wang and Nordmark 2015 , p. 279) Learning about experiences from others exposes each member to the different aspects of the game development process. As a result, the team is more empathetic to different disciplinary perspectives and approaches. (Tran and Biddle 2008 , p. 51)

It is also important to note that the producer is sometimes highlighted as having an important role in facilitating these processes; however, almost none of the reviewed papers focused on describing the role of the producer in game development, with only Schmalz et al. ( 2014 ) being a notable exception.

4.2.3 The Tools Used in Game Development

Software tools within game development are sparingly discussed in the reviewed literature. The papers that discuss software tools to a larger degree (Kasurinen et al. 2013 , 2014 ; Kasurinen and Smolander 2014 ; Llerena et al. 2009 ; O’Donnell 2011 ; Wang and Nordmark 2015 ; Vanhala and Kasurinen 2014 ) clearly highlight the differences between game studios and how they use them. Some game studios create their own development tools from scratch, some modify existing ones, and some use third-party tools to create games. There is a difference between how these tools are selected and used, depending on company structure and size (Kasurinen et al. 2013 , 2014 ; Stacey and Nandhakumar 2009 ). Small-to-medium sized game studios in particular outsource their game engine development (Kasurinen et al. 2013 , 2014 ; Kasurinen and Smolander 2014 ; Wang and Nordmark 2015 ; Vanhala and Kasurinen 2014 ). The tools used in larger organizations reflect a more structured and formalized development process. Development support tools such as version control and file-sharing services, however, are commonly used in game development organizations, irrespective of size.

The articles that do discuss software tools often focus on the importance of an effective tool pipeline, tool selection and usage, and game developers’ experience. The use of software tools is very dependent on organization and surrounding circumstances. Therefore, they are often used differently.

4.2.4 Requirements, Structure and Formalization

There are a few specific areas in game development in which requirements are described in a more “traditional” manner as a list of fixed, objective, necessary goals that developers need to achieve. In papers dealing with large development projects, for example, AAA studios working with external stakeholders such as publishers, platform holders or investors, technical requirements seem to become significantly more explicit and static (Cohendet and Simon 2007 ; Hodgson and Briand 2013 ; Walfisz et al. 2006 ). For example, games released on major hardware-specific platforms (e.g. Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo consoles, or different brands of phones) need to adhere to rigorous lists of requirements on performance, compatibility, and usability; in essence, software architecture seems to be one of the main areas of games that have rigorous requirements (Alves et al. 2007 ; McAllister and White 2015 ; Myllärniemi et al. 2006 ; Stacey et al. 2007 ; Wang and Nordmark 2015 ).

In situations where spontaneous communication is difficult, there is a need for formalized documentation and requirements (Alves et al. 2007 ; Schmalz et al. 2014 ; Stacey et al. 2007 ). In companies that did extensive outsourcing, or engaged in other forms of cross-company collaborations, requirements are often described as a crucial tool to ensure that the—normally quite messy and informal—act of game development could be channelled towards a clear goal (Hodgson and Briand 2013 ; Stacey and Nandhakumar 2008 ). In these cases, requirements seem to be used as a form of risk management, as it gives stakeholders an opportunity to present their expectations on developers’ performances, which developers then become beholden to (Hodgson and Briand 2013 ; Stacey et al. 2007 ; Walfisz et al. 2006 ).

In summary, there is no real consensus on the exact requirements for game development. The use of formalized requirements in development seems to be closely tied to a game studio’s size and “maturity”.

5 Discussion and Conclusion

The picture that the 48 reviewed papers paints of game development is a complex and ambivalent one: games are created in an entangled web of content development intertwined with production processes, in which technological and creative requirements may clash but also give rise to new opportunities.

There are some themes that emerged from this review that are prevalent enough across cases that they can be considered general truisms of game development. There is a conspicuous avoidance of firm methods and explicitly unified language among developers, and ad-hoc development driven by subjective experience requirements is the most prevalent praxis across the industry. The outcome of this review puts into question whether ‘Agile’ is actually an apt description of the development model that game projects employ. Several of the reviewed papers stated that while Agile is a term often used to describe game development due to its association with flexibility, game developers rarely use actual Agile methods (Hodgson and Briand 2013 ; Koutonen and Leppänen 2013 ; Murphy-Hill et al. 2014 ; Schmalz et al. 2014 ; Stacey and Nandhakumar 2008 ). As phrased in one of the papers, “Interviewees [implied] that Agile is sometimes a euphemism for a lack of process.” (Murphy-Hill et al. 2014 , p. 6) Some developers also more or less explicitly stated that Agile is not a good fit for their working processes (Hodgson and Briand 2013 ; Koutonen and Leppänen 2013 ).

Practicing game developers have created frameworks that accommodate for this lack of planning, including flat hierarchies, democratic decision-making, creative autonomy, and informal communication, which create an environment that maintains creativity and openness to product changes long into the production process (Cohendet and Simon 2007 ; Llerena et al. 2009 ; Tran and Biddle 2008 ). A prevalent theme in the reviewed studies is that play-testing has a central role in all phases of game development (Kasurinen and Smolander 2014 ).

Some of the reviewed papers seem to be focused on making game development more “mature” by arguing for ways of standardizing (e.g. employing ISO standards) game development practices (e.g. Kasurinen et al. 2013 ; McAllister and White 2015 ; O’Hagan and O’Connor 2015 ; Seung et al. 2006 ). While the findings of these types of papers were often that standardization is unfeasible due to the unpredictable requirements inherent in game production, the conclusions were often that formalization needed to be pursued with different semantics so that developers understood their values better (Kasurinen et al. 2013 ; O’Hagan and O’Connor 2015 ), rather than acknowledging that the fluid practices that game developers use might be deliberate and carefully honed in spite of their sometimes chaotic appearance. In short, researchers’ ways of considering a practice as being “mature” might be at odds with game developers’ ways of working.

That being said, however, one interesting outcome from this research is that there is an uncertainty regarding whether even developers’ stated impression of what game development is, matches what they actually do. The general axiom of games being subjective, and game development thriving under flexibility and autonomous work, might be so strong as to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. One paper in particular featured an interesting case where an increase in studio autonomy in relation to creative direction (i.e. dropping external stakeholders to focus on the development team’s own intellectual properties) led to a more complicated and unhealthy working climate due to increasing economic uncertainty and changed power dynamics (Hotho and Champion 2011 ). Another paper raised the issue that, despite the conviction that Agile work processes facilitate autonomy and prevent the emergence of stifling power structures, empirical studies of developers’ day-to-day work have “highlighted the persistence of power hierarchies within and around the project team” (Hodgson and Briand 2013 ). Yet another paper brought up the issue of developers’ perceptions and expectations of their colleagues’ and their own passion for development leading to a form of peer pressure, which subsequently worked to maintain and exacerbate unhealthy working climates (Marie-Josée and Kathleen 2012 ). These types of findings suggest that the processes that developers pursue and value might not always be positive. While this review does not intend to provide prescriptions for how the craft of game development should evolve in the future, the outcomes do hint at a need to examine whether or not these universally agreed-upon practices exist because of the inherent values they bring to development projects, or if they primarily persist due to tradition.

Alves, C., Ramalho, G., & Damasceno, A. (2007). Challenges in requirements engineering for mobile games development: The meantime case study. In Proceedings - 15th IEEE international requirements engineering conference, RE 2007 (pp. 275–280).

Amanatiadou, A., & Van De Weerd, I. (2009). Extending the reference method for game production: A situational approach. In Proceedings of the 2009 conference in games and virtual worlds for serious applications, VS - GAMES 2009 (pp. 20–27).

Bernhaupt, R. (2015). User experience evaluation methods in the games development life cycle. In R. Bernhaupt (Ed.), Game user experience evaluation (pp. 1–8). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77–101.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bryant, J. A., Akerman, A., & Drell, J. (2010). Diminutive subjects, design strategy, and driving sales: Preschoolers and the nintendo DS. The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 10 (1).

Chung, P., & Fung, A. (2013). Internet development and the commercialization of online gaming in China. In N. B. Huntemann & B. Aslinger (Eds.), Gaming globally: Production, play, and place (pp. 233–250). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cohendet, P., & Simon, L. (2007). Playing across the playground: Paradoxes of knowledge creation in the videogame firm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28 (5), 587–605.

Daneva, M. (2014). How practitioners approach gameplay requirements? An exploration into the context of massive multiplayer online role-playing games. In 2014 IEEE 22nd international requirements engineering conference, RE 2014 - Proceedings (pp. 3–12).

Dezso, C. L., Grohsjean, T., & Kretschmer, T. (2010). The what, the who, and the how: Coordination experience and team performance in the electronic game industry. In Academy of management 2010 annual meeting - dare to care: Passion and compassion in management practice and research, AOM 2010 .

Dormans, J. (2012). The effectiveness and efficiency of model driven game design. In M. Herrlich, R. Malaka, & M. Masuch (Eds.), Entertainment computing - ICEC 2012: 11th international conference, ICEC 2012 , Proceedings, Bremen, Germany, September 26–29, 2012 (pp. 542–548). Berlin: Springer.

Drachen, A., Canossa, A., & Sørensen, J. R. M. (2013). Gameplay metrics in game user research: Examples from the trenches. In M. S. El-Nasr, A. Drachen, & A. Canossa (Eds.), Game analytics: Maximizing the value of player data (pp. 285–319). London: Springer.

Engström, H., Berg Marklund, B., Backlund, P., & Toftedahl, M. (2018). Game development from a software and creative product perspective: A quantitative literature review approach. Entertainment Computing , 27 , 10–22.

Hagen, U. (2012). Lodestars for player experience: Ideation in videogame design . Stockholm: Stockholm University.

Google Scholar  

Hodgson, D., & Briand, L. (2013). Controlling the uncontrollable: ‘Agile’ teams and illusions of autonomy in creative work. Work, Employment & Society, 27 (2), 308–325.

Hotho, S., & Champion, K. (2011). Small businesses in the new creative industries: Innovation as a people management challenge. Management Decision, 49 (1), 29–54.

Kasurinen, J., Laine, R., & Smolander, K. (2013). How applicable is ISO/IEC 29110 in game software development? In J. Heidrich, M. Oivo, A. Jedlitschka & M. T. Baldassarre (Eds.), Product - focused software process improvement: 14th international conference, PROFES 2013, Paphos, Cyprus, June 12 – 14, 2013. Proceedings (pp. 5–19). Berlin: Springer.

Kasurinen, J., Maglyas, A., & Smolander, K. (2014) Is requirements engineering useless in game development? In Paper presented to the lecture notes in computer science (including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics) .

Kasurinen, J., & Smolander, K. (2014). What do game developers test in their products? In International symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement .

Kasurinen, J., Strandén, J. P., & Smolander, K. (2013). What do game developers expect from development and design tools? In ACM International conference proceeding series (pp. 36–41).

Koeffel, C., Hochleitner, W., Leitner, J., Haller, M., Geven, A., & Tscheligi, M. (2010). Using heuristics to evaluate the overall user experience of video games and advanced interaction games. In R. Bernhaupt (Ed.), Evaluating user experience in games: Concepts and methods (pp. 233–256). London: Springer.

Kortmann, L. J., & Harteveld, C. (2009). Agile game development: Lessons learned from software engineering. In Learn to game, game to learn; The 40th conference ISAGA .

Koutonen, J., & Leppänen, M. (2013). How are agile methods and practices deployed in video game development? A survey into finnish game studios. In H. Baumeister, & B. Weber (Eds.), Agile processes in software engineering and extreme programming: 14th international conference, XP 2013, Vienna, Austria, June 3 – 7, 2013. Proceedings (pp. 135–149). Berlin: Springer.

Kultima, A. (2010). The organic nature of game ideation: Game ideas arise from solitude and mature by bouncing. In Paper presented to the proceedings of the international academic conference on the future of game design and technology, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada .

Land, S. K., & Wilson, B. (2006). Using IEEE standards to support America’s Army gaming development. Computer, 39 (11), 105–107.

Lê, P. L., Massé, D., & Paris, T. (2013). Technological change at the heart of the creative process: Insights from the videogame industry. International Journal of Arts Management, 15 (2), 45–59.

Llerena, P., Burger-Helmchen, T., & Cohendet, P. (2009). Division of labor and division of knowledge: A case study of innovation in the video game industry. In U. Cantner, J.-L. Gaffard, & L. Nesta (Eds.), Schumpeterian perspectives on innovation, competition and growth (pp. 315–333). Berlin: Springer.

Marie-Josée, L., & Kathleen, O. (2012). So into it they forget what time it is? Video game designers and unpaid overtime. In J. Dariusz & M. Abigail (Eds.), Managing dynamic technology-oriented businesses: High-tech organizations and workplaces (pp. 82–102). Hershey: IGI Global.

Martin, P. (2018). The intellectual structure of game research. Game Studies , 18 (1).

McAllister, G., & White, G. R. (2015). Video game development and user experience. In R. Bernhaupt (Ed.), Game user experience evaluation (pp. 11–35). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

McGregor, N. (2013). Business growth, the internet and risk management in the computer games industry. In S. Hotho & N. McGregor (Eds.), Changing the rules of the game: Economic, management and emerging issues in the computer games industry (pp. 65–81). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Murphy-Hill, E., Zimmermann, T., & Nagappan, N. (2014). Cowboys, ankle sprains, and keepers of quality: How is video game development different from software development? In Paper presented to the proceedings of the 36th international conference on software engineering, Hyderabad, India.

Musial, M., Kauppinen, A., & Puhakka, V. (2015). Recognised creativity: The influence of process, social needs, and the third drive on creative individuals’ work through social media. In Social media and networking: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (Vol. 3–4, pp. 1249–1280).

Musil, J., Schweda, A., Winkler, D., & Biffl, S. (2010). Improving video game development: Facilitating heterogeneous team collaboration through flexible software processes. In Paper presented to the communications in computer and information science .

Myllärniemi, V., Raatikainen, M., & Männistö, T. (2006). Inter-organisational approach in rapid software product family development: A case study. In: M. Morisio (Ed.), Reuse of off - the - shelf components: 9th international conference on software reuse, ICSR 2006 Turin, Italy, June 12 – 15, 2006 Proceedings (pp. 73–86). Berlin: Springer.

Nelson, W. A., & Palumbo, D. B. (2014). When design meets hollywood: Instructional design in a production studio environment. In B. Hokanson & A. Gibbons (Eds.), Design in educational technology: Design thinking, design process, and the design studio (pp. 75–88). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

O’Donnell, C. (2011). Games are not convergence: The lost promise of digital production and convergence. Convergence, 17 (3), 271–286.

O’Hagan, A. O., & O’Connor, R. V. (2015). Towards an understanding of game software development processes: A case study. In Paper presented to the communications in computer and information science .

O’Hagan, A. O., Coleman, G., & O’Connor, R. V. (2014). Software development processes for games: A systematic literature review. In Paper presented to the communications in computer and information science .

Petrillo, F., & Pimenta, M. (2010). Is agility out there? Agile practices in game development. In SIGDOC 2010 - Proceedings of the 28th ACM international conference on design of communication (pp. 9–15).

Petrillo, F., Pimenta, M., Trindade, F., & Dietrich, C. (2008). Houston, we have a problem…: A survey of actual problems in computer games development. In Proceedings of the ACM symposium on applied computing (pp. 707–711).

Petrillo, F., Pimenta, M., Trindade, F., & Dietrich, C. (2009). What went wrong? A survey of problems in game development. Computers in Entertainment, 7 (1), 13.

Ruggiero, D., & Watson, W. R. (2014). Engagement through praxis in educational game design: Common threads. Simulation and Gaming, 45, 471–490.

Schmalz, M., Finn, A., & Taylor, H. (2014). Risk management in video game development projects. In Proceedings of the annual hawaii international conference on system sciences (pp. 4325–4334).

Seung, H. L., Gum, H. L., Hyun, H. C., Doo, H. S., & Sung, Y. R. (2006). An empirical model of the game software development processes. In Proceedings - fourth international conference on software engineering research, management and applications, SERA 2006 (pp. 371–377).

Simon, L. (2006). Managing creative projects: An empirical synthesis of activities. International Journal of Project Management, 24 (2), 116–126.

Srisuriyasavad, A., & Prompoon, N. (2013). Defining usability quality metric for game prototype using software attributes. Lecture Notes in Engineering and Computer Science, 2202, 522–528.

Stacey, P., Brown, A., & Nandhakumar, J. (2007). Making sense of stories: The development of a new mobile computer game. In Proceedings of the annual hawaii international conference on system sciences .

Stacey, P., & Nandhakumar, J. (2008). Opening up to agile games development. Communications of the ACM, 51 (12), 143–146.

Stacey, P., & Nandhakumar, J. (2009). A temporal perspective of the computer game development process. Information Systems Journal, 19 (5), 479–497.

Tran, M. Q., & Biddle, R. (2008). Collaboration in serious game development: A case study. In Paper presented to the proceedings of the 2008 conference on future play: Research, play, share, Toronto, Ontario, Canada .

Trantow, S., Hansen, A., Richert, A., & Jeschke, S. (2013). Emergence of innovation: Eleven strategies to increase innovative capability. In S. Jeschke, I. Isenhardt, F. Hees, & K. Henning (Eds.), Automation, communication and cybernetics in science and engineering 2011/2012 (pp. 161–189). Berlin: Springer.

Tschang, F. T., & Szczypula, J. (2006). Idea creation, constructivism and evolution as key characteristics in the videogame artifact design process. European Management Journal, 24 (4), 270–287.

Vallance, P. (2014). Creative knowing, organisational learning, and socio-spatial expansion in UK videogame development studios. Geoforum, 51, 15–26.

Vanhala, E., Kasurinen, J. (2014). The role of business model and its elements in computer game start-ups. In Paper presented to the lecture notes in business information processing .

VERBI GmbH (1995) MAXQDA , [Software], 18.0.7 edn.

Walfisz, M., Zackariasson, P., & Wilson, T. L. (2006). Real-time strategy: Evolutionary game development. Business Horizons, 49 (6), 487–498.

Wang, A. I., & Nordmark, N. (2015). Software architectures and the creative processes in game development. In K. Chorianopoulos, M. Divitini, J. Baalsrud Hauge, L. Jaccheri, & R. Malaka (Eds.), Entertainment computing - ICEC 2015: 14th international conference, ICEC 2015, Trondheim, Norway, September 29 – Ocotober 2, 2015, Proceedings (pp. 272–285). Springer International Publishing, Cham.

Wimmer, J., & Sitnikova, T. (2011). The professional identity of gameworkers revisited. A qualitative inquiry on the case study of German professionals. In Proceedings of DiGRA 2011 conference: Think design play .

Zackariasson, P., Walfisz, M., & Wilson, T. L. (2006). Management of creativity in video game development: A case study. Services Marketing Quarterly, 27 (4), 73–97.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Open access funding provided by University of Skövde. This research was funded by the University of Skövde, the Game Hub Scandinavia (NYPS 20200428) and the Game Hub Scandinavia 2.0 (NYPS 20201849) projects under the EU regional development fund Interreg Öresund-Kattegat-Skagerrak.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Informatics, University of Skövde, Högskolevägen, Box 408, 541 28, Skövde, Sweden

Björn Berg Marklund, Henrik Engström, Marcus Hellkvist & Per Backlund

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Björn Berg Marklund .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

This article is published under an open access license. Please check the 'Copyright Information' section either on this page or in the PDF for details of this license and what re-use is permitted. If your intended use exceeds what is permitted by the license or if you are unable to locate the licence and re-use information, please contact the Rights and Permissions team .

About this article

Berg Marklund, B., Engström, H., Hellkvist, M. et al. What Empirically Based Research Tells Us About Game Development. Comput Game J 8 , 179–198 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40869-019-00085-1

Download citation

Received : 17 June 2019

Accepted : 15 September 2019

Published : 24 September 2019

Issue Date : December 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40869-019-00085-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Game development
• Development processes
• Game industry
• Literature review
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Open access
• Published: 09 November 2016

Game development software engineering process life cycle: a systematic review

• Saiqa Aleem   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3385-0613 1 ,
• Luiz Fernando Capretz 2 &
• Faheem Ahmed 3  

Journal of Software Engineering Research and Development volume  4 , Article number:  6 ( 2016 ) Cite this article

96k Accesses

65 Citations

5 Altmetric

Metrics details

Software game is a kind of application that is used not only for entertainment, but also for serious purposes that can be applicable to different domains such as education, business, and health care. Multidisciplinary nature of the game development processes that combine sound, art, control systems, artificial intelligence (AI), and human factors, makes the software game development practice different from traditional software development. However, the underline software engineering techniques help game development to achieve maintainability, flexibility, lower effort and cost, and better design. The purpose of this study is to assesses the state of the art research on the game development software engineering process and highlight areas that need further consideration by researchers. In the study, we used a systematic literature review methodology based on well-known digital libraries. The largest number of studies have been reported in the production phase of the game development software engineering process life cycle, followed by the pre-production phase. By contrast, the post-production phase has received much less research activity than the pre-production and production phases. The results of this study suggest that the game development software engineering process has many aspects that need further attention from researchers; that especially includes the postproduction phase.

1 Introduction

With the rapid advancement of computer technology, the significance of software engineering in our daily lives is increasing. It affects every aspect of our lives today, including working, living, learning, and education. A new and popular mode of entertainment and an important application of technology are software games, which have become increasingly accepted by people of all ages. In today’s culture, technology is easily accessible and has become more convenient; more and more people like to play games and are also becoming motivated to design their own games. Salen and Zimmerman ( 2003 ) defined “game is a software application in which one or more players make decisions by controlling game objects and resources, in the pursuit of its goal”. Software games are software applications that are installed on hardware devices such as video game consoles, computers, handheld devices, and Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs). Software games have now become a worldwide creative industry, but because of the multidisciplinary activities required, their development is a very complex task.

The multidisciplinary nature of the processes that combine sound, art, control systems, artificial intelligence (AI), and human factors, also makes the software game development practice different from traditional software development. However, despite the high complexity of the software engineering development process, the game industry is making billions of dollars in profit and creating many hours of fun (PWC, 2011–2014 outlook). The software game market throughout the world has grown by over 7–8 % annually and has reached sales of around $5.5 billion in 2015 (SUPERDATA 2015 ). Newzoo Game Market ( 2015 ) has also reported that the world-wide digital game market will reach $113.3 billion by 2018.

Creation of any game involves cross-functional teams including designers, software developers, musicians, script writers, and many others. Also, Entertainment Software Association (ESA) ( 2014 ); 2015 ) reports highlighted the latest trends about the software game industry. Therefore, game development careers have currently become highly challenging, dynamic, creative, and profitable (Liming and Vilorio, 2011 ). The ability to handle complex development tasks and achieve profitability does not happen by chance, but rather a common set of good practices must be adopted to achieve these goals. The game industry can follow the good and proven practices of traditional software engineering, but only a clear understanding of these practices can enhance the complex game development engineering process.

The computer game domain covers a great variety of player modes and genres (Gredler, 1995 ; Gredler, 2003 ; Rieber, 2005 ). The complexity of software games has posed many challenges and issues in software development engineering process because it involves diverse activities in creative arts disciplines (storyboarding, design, refinement of animations, artificial intelligence, video production, scenarios, sounds, marketing, and, finally, sales) in addition to technological and functional requirements (Keith, 2010 ). This inherent diversity leads to a greatly fragmented domain from the perspectives of both underlying theory and design methodology. The software game literature published in recent years has focused mainly on technical issues. Issues of game production, development, and testing reflect only the general software-engineering state of the art. Pressman ( 2001 ) states that a game is a kind of software that entertains its users, but game development software engineering faces many challenges and issues if only a traditional software-development process is followed (Kanode and Haddad, 2009 ; Petrillo et al., 2009 ). Some studies have proposed a Game Development Software Engineering (GDSE) process life cycle that provides guidelines for the game development software engineering process (Hendrick, 2014 ; Blitz game studio, 2014 ; McGrath, 2014 ; Chandler, 2010 ; Ramadan and Widyani 2013 ). However, the proposed GDSE process life cycle development phases do not ensure a quality development process.

A GDSE process is different from a traditional software development engineering process, and all phases of the proposed GDSE process life cycle can be combined into three main phases: pre-production, production, and post-production. The pre-production phase includes testing the feasibility of target game scenarios, including requirements engineering marketing strategies; the production phase involves planning, documentation, and game implementation scenarios with sound and graphics. The last phase post-production involves testing, marketing, and game advertising. Because of high competition and extreme market demand, game development companies sometimes reduce their development process so they can be first to market (Kaitilla, 2014 ). This reduction of the development process definitely affects game quality. Because of these types of complex project-management tasks, the game development software engineering process diverges from traditional software development. Therefore, it becomes important now to investigate the challenges or issues faced by game development organizations in developing good quality games. This systematic literature review is the first step towards identifying the research gaps in the GDSE field.

1.1 Related work

Managing GDSE process life cycle has become a much harder process than anyone could have initially imagined, and because of the fragmented domain, no clear picture of its advancement can be found in the literature. A systematic literature review provides a state of the art examination of an area and raises open research questions in a field, thus saving a great deal of time for those starting research in the field. However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no systematic literature review has been reported for GDSE process life cycle. Many researchers have adopted the systematic literature review approach to explore different aspects in software games. Boyle et al. ( 2012 ) conducted a systematic literature review to explore the engagement factor in entertainment games from a player’s perspective. In this study, 55 papers were selected to perform the systematic literature review. The study highlighted the different aspects of engagement factors with entertainment games; these include subjective feelings of enjoyment, physiological responses, motives, game usage, player loyalty, and the impact of playing games on a player’s life. Connolly et al. ( 2012 ) explored 129 papers to report the impacts and outcomes of computer and serious games with respect to engagement and learning by using the systematic literature review approach.

Another study also reported the importance of engagement in digital games by using a systematic literature review approach. Osborne-O’Hagan et al. ( 2014 ) performed a systematic literature review on software development processes for games. A total of 404 studies were analyzed from industry and academia and different software development adoption models used for game development were discussed. The findings of the study were that qualitative studies reported more agile practices than the hybrid approach. The quantitative studies used an almost hybrid approach. We also noted that lightweight agile practices such as Scrum, XP, and Kanban – are suitable where innovation and time to market is important. A risk-driven spiral approach is appropriate for large projects. Only one systematic study was performed related to research on software engineering practices in the computer game domain rather than GDSE process life cycle (Ampatzoglou and Stamelos 2010 ).

This study mainly review the existing evidence in the literature concerning the GDSE process research and suggest areas for further investigation by identifying possible gaps in current research. Furthermore, the aim of this study is to cover the state of the art for the GDSE process life cycle, and to accomplish this, an evidence-based research paradigm has been used. In the software engineering field, possible use of an evidence-based paradigm have been proposed by Dyba et al. ( 2005 ) and Kitchenham et al. (2004). The Systematic Literature Review (SLR) research paradigm constitutes the first step in an evidence-based paradigm research process, and its guidelines for performing systematic research are thoroughly described by Brereton et al. ( 2007 ) and Kitchenham ( 2004 ).

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides the research background and Section 3 describes the methodology used for the systematic literature review as described by Breton et al. (2007). Section 4 presents the statistics for the primary studies, Section 5 answers various research questions, Section 6 discuss the external threats to validity, and, finally, Section 7 concludes the presentation.

2 Background

In the software development industry, software games are gaining importance because they are not only used for entertainment, but also for serious purposes that can be applicable to different domains such as education, business, and health care. Serious games are designed to have an impact on the target audience similar to entertainment games but they are combined seemingly with a practical dimension too. Both have to be attractive and appealing to a broad target audience (Alvarez & Michaud, 2008 ). Especially for serious games, along with their applicability to different domains, their revenue has also been increasing. Games software earned three times more revenue than any other software product in 2012 (Nayak, 2013 ).

Robin ( 2009 ) defines a development method as a systematized procedure to achieve the goal of producing a working product within budget and on schedule. A number of methodologies used for game development and design (Castillo 2008 ). The first is the waterfall method, which is also commonly used in traditional software development. Unlike game projects, once the pre-production phase is completed, production phase activities are performed in a “waterfall” manner. First, the activities are segregated based on functionalities and assets, and then they are assigned to their respective teams. The requirements team spent a significant amount of time in functionality definition and front-end activities, which implies a late implementation of level and mechanisms (Schwaber & Beedle, 2002 ). However, in the waterfall method, it is difficult to reverse any activity (Flood, 2003 ).

The second development methodology is the agile method that is commonly used for game development. These methods are highly iterative and not documentation-centric. The production phase is divided into small iterations and focusses on the most crucial features. During the beginning phase of each iteration, the whole team meets and sets clear objectives. At the end of each iteration, results are communicated to clients. These methods support different team cycles and dynamics through daily meetings. The most used agile methodologies in game development are extreme programming (XP), rapid prototyping, and Scrum (Godoy & Barbosa, 2010 ).

The unified development process (Kruchten, 2000 ) is another traditional SE method, which focusses more on analyzing requirements and converting them into functional software components. The requirement analysis document includes a definition of the game concept, use cases, and assets definitions (Schwaber & Beedle, 2002 ). The method includes five disciplines: requirements, analysis, design, implementation, and testing. The unified process is based on a philosophy of four key elements: iterative and incremental, use case-driven, architecture-centric, and risk-driven.

Kanode and Haddad ( 2009 ) stated that an important, but incorrect, assumption was made that GDSE follows the waterfall method. More recently, researchers have agreed that it must follow the incremental model (Munassar and Govardhan 2010 ) because it combines the waterfall method with an iterative process. A major concern, reported by Petrillo et al. ( 2009 ), was that very poor development methodologies are commonly used by developers for software creation in the game industry. The GDSE appears as a question in many forms attempting to determine what types of practices are used. However, there is no single answer to this question. Few researchers have explored GDSE practices and then tried to answer questions like the phases of the GDSE process life cycle. Blitz game studios ( 2014 ) proposed six phases for the GDSE process life cycle: Pitch (initial design and game concept), Pre-production (game design document), Main production (implementation of game concepts), Alpha (internal testers), Beta (third-party testers), and the Master phase (game launch). Hendrick ( 2014 ) proposed a five-phase GDSE process life cycle consisting of Prototype (initial design prototype), Pre-production (design document), Production (asset creation, source code, integration aspects), Beta (user feedback), and, finally, the Live phase (ready to play). McGrath ( 2014 ) divided the GDSE process life cycle into six phases: Design (initial design and game design document), Develop/redevelop (game engine development), Evaluate (if not passed, then redevelop), Test (internal testing), Review release (third-party testing), and Release (game launch). Another GDSE process life cycle proposed by Chandler ( 2010 ) consisted of four phases: Pre-production (design document and project planning), Production (technical and artistic), Testing (bug fixing), and, finally, the Post-production phase (post-mortem activities). The latest GDSE process life cycle in 2013 proposed by Ramadan and Widyani ( 2013 ) was based on the four GDSE process life cycles previously described. They proposed six phases: Initiation (rough concept), Pre-production (creation of game design and prototype), Production (formal details, refinement, implementation), Testing (bug reports, refinement testing, change requests), Beta (third-party testers), and Release (public release).

In traditional software engineering, the development phase usually involves activities such as application design and its implementation; the production phase is when the software actually runs and is ready for use. However, in the GDSE process lifecycle, the production phase includes the development process, which is the pre-production phase of the traditional software engineering process, and the production phase of traditional software engineering is actually the post-production phase of the GDSE process life cycle (Bethke, 2003 ). Therefore, the GDSE process life cycle is different from the traditional software engineering process, and many researchers have studied the challenges faced by this domain (Kanode and Haddad, 2009 ). The most prominent observation made in these studies is that to address the challenges faced by the GDSE process life cycle, more rigorous software engineering strategies must be used. Most researchers have explicitly compared the software engineering process with the GDSE process, but none of them has studied complete GDSE process life cycle and research topics under this domain in detail. This study will provide evidence on these topics and their differences from the traditional software engineering process. In this paper, the GDSE process phases were divided into three phases for basic understanding: Preproduction, Production, and Post-production. Efforts were made to classify these further based on studies found in the literature. The primary contribution of this paper is that it is the first SLR that addresses these GDSE process life cycle research topics and highlights the topics that need further attention by researchers.

In this work, the conceptual description of the SLR process presented by Kitchenham ( 2004 ) was used to investigate the research intensity for each phase of the GDSE process life cycle. Conceptually, SLR provides an opportunity for researchers to collect empirical evidence from the existing literature about a formulated research question. Although most authors followed the general SLR guidelines provided by Kitchenham ( 2004 ), there were slight variations in the description and presentation of the conceptual process layout. The generic SLR guidelines stated by Kitchenham ( 2004 ) are further elaborated here, and the overall process is described as a set of activities The research process has been adopted for this study described by Kitchenham and Charters ( 2007 ). There are mainly three phases of the review and the steps associated with each phase are shown in Fig.  1 .

3.1 Planning phase (Step 1–4)

This study started by selecting a topic, at which point the study objectives were also clearly defined and the boundaries of the domain delineated.

3.1.1 Selection of topic and research questions

Selecting a topic for SLR is of crucial importance because many factors such as individual or community interest, research gaps, and research impact contribute to shaping research questions on the topic. Our understanding of the GDSE process life cycle is continuously evolving (Kitchenham et al., 2010 ), and many areas in this field lack generalized evidence. It is critically important for the game industry to identify a quality-driven GDSE process. Several studies have investigated different phases of the GDSE process life cycle, but they do not offer systematic, comprehensive, and thorough methodological research specific to this topic.

In this review, studies from 2000 to 2015 will be explored to answer the following research questions:

Research Question (RQ1): What is the intensity of research activity on the GDSE process life cycle?

RQ2: What topics are being researched in the pre-production, production, and post-production phases?

RQ3: What research approaches are being used by researchers in the software game domain?

RQ4: What empirical research methods are being used in the software game domain?

The number of publications has been identified by the research group to address RQ1. A graphical representation has been used to represent the increase or decrease in the number of publications per year as a measure of research activity. To address RQ2, RQ3, and RQ4, each study selected has been affiliated to a research topic, to a certain approach, and to a specific methodology used for the research. Details of this classification into corresponding categories are discussed in section 3.2.4 .

3.1.2 Review team & protocol establishment

A multidisciplinary team is needed to perform a high-quality scientific SLR. To enhance the thoroughness and minimize the potential bias of a study, an SLR is normally undertaken by more than one reviewer. The SLR team for this review was made up of three people. Two people were designated as principal reviewers (Second expert report by American institute 2011). One person was also selected as the project leader to handle additional administrative tasks such as team communication, points of contact, meeting arrangements and documentation, task assignment and follow-up, and quality assurance. Table  1 details the tasks required for the SLR process and reviewer’s involvement and total time duration.

In order to ensure the review could be replicated and to reduce researcher bias a review protocol and it’s evaluation procedure was developed at step 3 and 4. The final review protocol is discussed in the following sections 3.2.1 to 3.2.4 (Steps 5–9 incl.).

3.2 Conducting phase (Step 5–9)

3.2.1 search strategy.

In the SLR, the search procedure is based on an online search. The search strategy for an SLR is a plan to construct search terms by identifying populations, interventions, and outcomes. Key terms are combined together to created different groups in order to form search strings. Each group comprise of terms that are either different forms of the same word, synonyms, or terms that have similar or related semantic meaning within the domain. Table  2 depicts the followed approach.

In order to retrieve different sets of relevant literature, four groups are designed. The main objective of this grouping is to find the literature that is the intersection of the groups as shown in Fig.  2 .

Selection of relevant studies

The search strategy was implemented by applying the “AND” and “OR”, where the “OR” operator is used within the Group and the “AND” is used between the groups. According to Table  2 , the following search string will capture the structure:

( Group 1: [Software game] OR [Digital game] OR [Video game] OR [Computer game] OR [Online Game] OR [Serious games] OR [Educational Games] OR [Learning Games])

( Group 2: [Development] OR [Advancement] OR [Steps] OR [Evolve] OR [Project])

( Group 3: [Life cycle] OR [Design] OR [Implementation] OR [Requirements Engineering] OR [Testing] OR [Evaluation] OR [Maintenance])

( Group 4: [Process] OR [Progression] OR [Method] OR [Model]).

Therefore, “ Software game development lifecycle process ”, “ Computer game development design process ” and “ video game testing process” are some examples of the search strings and similar way different search strings were formed in order to capture all relevant studies.”

To ensure that all relevant research concerning this area of study was reviewed, journals and conferences from 2000 to 2015 were covered, using as sources IEEE Explorer, ACM Digital Library, Science Direct Elsevier, Taylor & Francis, Google Scholar, and Wiley Publications. If the information required, as indicated on the form shown in Table  3 , was not explicitly present in the potential study, then that paper was peer-reviewed by all team members and, after discussion, validated for correctness. Otherwise, each paper was reviewed by one reviewer. Each study involved some general information and some specific information, as indicated on the form.

3.2.2 Pilot selection & data extraction

The research study selection and data extraction was based on the following coverage criteria:

Inclusion criteria for study

For SLR, articles and research papers from 2000 to 2015 were included, and to evaluate their suitability, the following criteria were analyzed:

The study should be thoroughly reviewed by at least one of the reviewers.

Only the following types of studies were considered: case studies, theoretical papers, and empirical analysis surveys.

The full text of the article should be available.

If any article identifies any challenges and problems in software games, that article is included as a review.

Studies that describe motivation for game application.

Study exclusion criteria

The following criteria were used to determine articles to be excluded:

Articles published on company Web sites.

Articles not relevant to the research questions.

Articles not describing any phase of the game development life cycle.

Study selection

This procedure involved two phases. In the first phase, an initial selection was made on the basis of the inclusion criteria and after reading the title, abstract, and conclusion of each article. In the second phase, if a particular article met the criteria, then the whole article was studied. One hundred forty-eight papers were identified after final selection, as shown in Fig.  3 . Table  4 shows the results found in each data source and Additional file 1 : Appendix A contains a full list of selected publications.

Study selection process

3.2.3 Quality criteria

In this research, quality guidelines were defined based on a quality instrument that was used to assign a quality score to each article as a basis for data analysis and synthesis. The quality instrument consisted of four sections: a main section containing a generic checklist applicable to all studies, and three other sections specific to the type of study.

The checklist was based upon SLR guidelines (Kitchenham, 2004 ) and was derived from Kitchenham ( 2004 ) and Second expert report by American institute (2011). The detailed checklist is shown in Table  5 . Some of the checklist items could be answered by “yes” or “no” and they also included a “partial” option. A value of 1 was assigned to “yes,” 0 to “no,” and 0.5 to “partial”; then the sum of the checklist values was used to assign a quality score to the study to assess document quality.

3.2.4 Data synthesis

For data synthesis the topics, research approaches and methods are classified and their classification details are listed below:

Classification of topics in the GDSE Life Cycle

This section includes a classification of the topics covered by each study with respect to the pre-production, production, and post-production phase issues involved. The 2012 ACM classification system was used for classification, which is the same method used by Cai and Card ( 2008 ). The proposed classification system has been adopted by many journals and conferences specifically for software engineering topics. The same classification was used here to classify the papers under study, and these were further fabricated based on studies found in the GDLC domain. Table  6 presents the selected classification schema.

Research approaches and methods classification

Research articles can be characterized based on their method and approach, as described by Glass et al. ( 2002 ). The main categories for scientific approach are descriptive (a system, tool, or method; a literature review can also be considered as descriptive studies), exploratory (performed where a problem was not clearly defined), and empirical (findings based on observation of its subjects). To evaluate new methods or techniques, three major empirical research methods are used: surveys, case studies, and experiments (Wohlin et al., 2000 ). Table  7 describes the three major empirical research types; Dyba and Dingsoyr ( 2008 ) also used the same type of empirical classification.

The data collected were statistically analyzed as follows:

To address RQ1, the number of studies published per year, whether journal articles or conference publications, and the number of publications on the GDLC hosted by each digital library.

To address RQ2, the major topics of the GDLC that were investigated in the software game domain.

To address RQ3 and RQ4, the research approach or method used by number of studies.

From Section  3.2.4 , data were tabulated and are presented in Additional file 2 : Appendix B.

3.3 Documenting (Step 10–12)

This step of the SLR describe conclusion, possible threats and limitations to the validity of this study. Authors believe that there is a chance that the word game was not part of the title of some studies, but that nevertheless they discussed game development. These studies may, therefore, have been excluded from the primary dataset by the search procedure. There are other threats that are also linked to a systematic literature review such as generalization and subjective evaluation (Shadish et al., 2002 ).

There are limitations to our results, although significant amounts of effort and time was spent to select the papers that were studied. More specifically, our search was limited to the academic databases. It is obvious from the results of RQ1 that developers prefer to submit their work on the blogs or forums. However, posts for different game forums and blogs cannot be included in a systematic literature review because they don’t fulfil the quality criteria used for the selection of papers. In addition, the exclusion of less-known journals and conferences from the Web of Science and the Scopus index might have led to a different dataset.

Another limitation of the study is the exclusion of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) filed studies. In the phase of screening out, we found studies from HCI field such as (Plass-Oude Boss et al. ( 2010 )) for games but they didn’t focus on software engineering perspective. In short, we didn’t consider studies from HCI because they take non-functional requirements, and usability features into account. These methods help developers to evaluate software and they considered as an integral part of game development. However, due to the limited scope of the study, we excluded studies from HCI field.

Finally, the classification scheme might have altered the results if they were classified by a scheme, such as the waterfall model, instead of the ACM classification scheme. Despite these limitations, the results of our systematic literature review will be useful to game development organizations and developers of software games.

4 Results and Discussion

This section presents the results of statistical analysis of the data set discusses the findings concerning the RQs formulated in Section 3.1 . The characteristics of the data set are tabulated for better understanding. To trace the categories of each mapped study, the interested reader is referred to the Additional file 2 : Appendix B. A total 148 studies were collated and analyzed as part of this review. To identify GDSE process life cycle domain specific characteristics, the findings of this review will be compared to results from similar studies done by Cai and Card ( 2008 ), Glass et al. ( 2002 ), and Dyba and Dingsoyr ( 2008 ).

4.1 RQ1 What is the intensity of research activity on the GDSE process life cycle?

Table  8 clearly shows that GDSE process life cycle research intensity has increased during the last few years. Figure  4 showed an increase in GDSE process life cycle over time. The y -axis represents the number of publications in the form of a fraction and is calculated by taking year (i) ’s number of publications as the numerator and year (0) ’s number of publications as the denominator. From Table  8 , 2007 was taken as year (0) , and the first data point of the graph was calculated for year (1) i.e., 2008. Figure  4 shows the results up to 2015. Years are given on the x- axis.

Increase in GDSE process life cycle research activity

Figure  4 illustrates that during the last few years, research activity in the GDSE process life cycle domain has continuously increased and the number of publications in the GDSE domain has increased at a polynomial growth rate since 2005. During 2013, 2014 and 2015 the drop in research activity is noted. It seems obvious that most of the work related to GDSE research activity was not published on the selected sources for this study. During 2014, most of the research activities were seen on the game development associations/groups web sites, like DIGRA association and Gamastura, or game developers personal blogs.

Moreover, Fig.  5 shows the list of countries most active in GDSE process life cycle topics research. Looking at research activity based on countries, China now dominates GDSE process life cycle research, but its research into the game domain started only in 2010. In four years, China has come to dominate this area of research. Before 2010, the United States and the United Kingdom were dominant.

Research activity per country

Authors from North and South America have played a dominant role since 2004 and are still contributing in this area. Contributors in Europe also started research into the GDSE domain in 2007, but the Asian continent has dominated the GDSE domain since 2010. It can be visualized in Fig.  6 . The most popular venue for GDSE research publication is IEEE; it seems that IEEE accounts for the main bulk of publications (approximately 63 %), followed by Elsevier, Springer, and ACM.

Research activity by continent

4.2 RQ 2: What topics are being researched in the pre-production. Production and post production phase?

This section addresses the identification of main research topics in the GDSE process life cycle domain. Table  9 clearly suggests that most research has been conducted in the production phase, followed by the pre-production phase. On the other hand, the post-production phase has not attracted much research interest. These GDSE process life cycle topics are somewhat different than in software engineering because of two factors: first, the GDSE domain has special needs and priorities, and second, it is a young domain which requires more fundamental research in the area of requirements, development, and coding tools. When the GDSE domain becomes mature, then other areas in the field, like testing and verification, will attract the interest of researchers.

As mentioned earlier in Section 2 , games have specific characteristics, which the conventional software development process cannot completely address. In the past years, research on GDSE process life cycle topics has become more active because, unlike other software products, games provide entertainment and user enjoyment, and developers need to give more importance to these aspects. As a result, research about the pre-production phase has increased. The implementation phase is shorter than in the traditional software implementation process because of the short time to market. This production-phase research intensity has attracted the interest of many researchers, and maximum research activity has been reported because the GDSE domain requires efficient development and coding techniques. McShaffry ( 2003 ) also highlighted the importance of the production phase to counteract poor internal quality. There is much less research activity in the post-production phase than in the pre-production and production phases.

Figure  7 presents the growth of each GDSE process life cycle research topic since 2000. It is apparent that in the pre-production phase, the most researched topic is management of the game development process, followed in this order by production-phase development platforms, programming, and implementation topics. In the post-production phase, the marketing area attracted the largest amount of research interest. The state of the art research is the description of actual primary studies, and, therefore, they are mapped according to the research topics they addressed (Budgen et al., 2008 ). Next, a short description of each GDSE topic is presented along with a full reference list. A full reference list of all the studies included is presented in Additional file 1 : Appendix A.

GDSE process life cycle research topics

4.2.1 Pre-production phase

In the pre-production phase, most of the studies categorized under this topic address management issues during the GDSE process life cycle. The overall management of the game development process combines both an engineering process and creation of artistic assets. Ramadan and Widyani [S1] compared various game development strategies from a management perspective, and most studies like [S3], [S6], [S7], and [S8] have proposed frameworks for game development. Game development guidelines can be followed to manage GDSE process life cycle. The presence of agile practices in the game development processes is also highlighted by some studies. Tschang [S4] and Petrillo et al. [S17] highlighted the issues in the game development process and their differences from traditional software development practices. Management of development-team members and their interaction is critically important in this aspect.

Some studies [S10] and [S11] have provided data analytics and empirical analysis of the game development process and issues of interdisciplinary team involvement. Best management practices in the game development process must consider certain elements such as staying on budget, timing, and producing the desired output. To assess game quality, five usability and quality criteria (functional, internally complete, balanced, fun, and accessible) can be used, but a process maturity model specific to the game development process is still needed to measure these processes for better management and high performance.

Requirements specification

One of the main differences between the traditional software development process and GDSE process life cycle is the requirements phase. The game development process requires consideration of many factors such as emotion, game play, aesthetics, and immersive factors. In four studies, the authors have discussed the requirements engineering perspective to highlight its importance for the whole game-software development process. They discussed emotional factors, language ontology, elicitation, feedback, and emergence [S19], [S20], [S21], and [S22]. In particular, game developers must understand these basic non-functional requirements along with the game play requirements and incorporate them while developing games. The main challenges in requirements identification are a) communication between diverse background stakeholders, b) non-functional requirements incorporation with game play requirements, such as media and technology integration, and c) validation of non-functional requirement such as fun, which is very complex because it is totally dependent on the target audience. Callele et al. [S20] further fabricated a set of requirements based on emotional criteria, game-playing criteria (cognitive factors and mechanics), and sensory requirements (visual, auditory, and haptic). The requirements specification phase must address both the functional and non-functional requirements of game development.

Game system description language

Many description languages are currently used by developers, such as the UML model, agent-based methodologies, and soft-system methodologies. Quanyin et al. [S32] proposed the UML model for mobile games. They performed experiments and reported that it would be a good model for further development of games on the Android operating system. Shaker et al. [S33] extracted features of the Super Mario Brothers game from different levels, frequency sequences of level elements, and statistical design levels. Then, they analyzed the relationship between a player’s experience and the level design parameters of platform games using feature analysis modelling. Tylor et al. [S28] proposed a soft system methodology for initial identification of game concepts in the development process. The proposed approach can be used instead of a popular description language because it provides an overview of the game. Chan and Yuen [S30] and Rodriguez et al. [S31] proposed an ontology knowledge framework for digital game development and serious games modelling using the AOSE methodology. A system description language for games must be both intelligible to human beings and formal enough to support comparison and analysis of players and system behaviors. In addition, it must be production-independent, adequately describe the overall game process, and provide clear guidelines for developers.

Reusability

The existence of reusability of software (Capretz and Lee 1992 ) and development platforms in game development has been reported by some researchers, but to gain its full advantages, commonality and variability analysis must be done in the pre-production phase. This category addresses reuse techniques for game development software (Ahmed and Capretz, 2011 ). Neto et al. [S34] performed a survey that analyzed game development software reuse techniques and their similarity to software product lines. Reuse techniques in game development could reduce cost and time and improve quality and productivity. For reuse techniques, commonality and variability analysis is very important, similar to a software product line. Szegletes and Forstner [S36] proposed a reusable framework for adaptive game development. The architecture of the proposed framework consisted of loosely coupled components for better flexibility. They tested their framework by developing educational games. The requirements of the new game must be well aligned with the reusable components of the previously developed game.

Game design document

The Game Design Document (GDD) is an important deliverable in the pre-production phase. It consists of a coherent description of the basic components, their interrelationships, directions, and a shared vocabulary for efficient development. Westera et al. [S37] addressed the issue of design complexity in serious games by proposing a design framework. Furthermore, Salazar et al. [S38] highlighted the importance of a game design document for game development and provided an analysis of many available game design documents from the literature. They also compared their findings with traditional software requirement specifications and concluded that a poor game design document can lead to poor-quality product, rework, and financial losses in the production and post-production phases. Hsu et al. [S40] pointed out the issues of level determination in games and trade-off decisions about them. They proposed an approach to solve the trade-off decision problem, which is based on a neural network technique and uses a genetic algorithm to perform design optimization. Khanal et al. [S41] presented design research for serious games for mobile platforms, and Cheng et al. [S42] provided design research for integrating GIS spatial query information into serious games. Finally, Ibrahim and Jaafar [S43] and Tang and Hanneghan [S44] worked on a game content model for game design documents. Currently, GDD suffers from formalism and incomplete representation; to address this issue, the formal development of GDD is very important. A comprehensive GDD (focused on the game’s basic design and premises) results in good game quality.

Game prototyping

Game prototyping in the pre-production phase helps the developer to clarify the fundamental mechanics of the final game. Game prototyping in the preproduction phases is considered important because it is used to convey game and play mechanics and also helps in evaluating a game player’s experience. Reyno and Cubel [S49] proposed automatic prototyping for game development based on a model-driven approach. An automatic transformation generates the software prototype code in C++. De Silva et al. [S48] proposed community-driven game prototyping. The developer can approach the well-established community and focus on the technical stuff rather than starting from scratch. They used this approach for massive, multi-player online game development. Guo et al. [S50], Kanev and Sugiyam [S51], and Piesoto et al. [S52] proposed analysis of rapid prototyping for Pranndo’s history-dependent games, 3D interactive computer games, and game development frameworks respectively. Prototypes also help to identify missing functionality, after which developers can easily incorporate quick design changes. Model-driven or rapid-prototyping approaches can be used to develop game prototypes.

Design tools

Game design tools are used to help game developers create descriptions of effects and game events in detail without high-level programming skills. Cho and Lee [S56] and Segundo et al. [S57] proposed an event design tool for rapid game development and claimed that it does not require any kind of programming skill. These tools also enable reuse of existing components and reduce the total time of the game-creation process.

Risk management

In the game development domain, risk management factors do not receive much discussion by researchers. Risk management is very important from a project management point of view. Identifying risk factors in the game development process is also important. In game development, the project manager is the game producer and must bring together management, technical, and aesthetic aspects to create a successful game. The study by Schmalz et al. [S58] is the only study highlighting the issue of risk management in video development projects. They identified two risk factors during the development process: failure of development strategy and absence of the fun factor. In game development, important risk factors can be the development strategy, the fun factor or extent of originality, scheduling, budgeting, and others, but very low priority has been given by game developers to formal analysis of risk factors.

4.2.2 Production phase

Asset creation.

Asset creation in the production phase is the foundation stage where game developers create the various assets and then use them in the game implementation phase. In the production phase, the first step is to create assets for the game. One of these assets is audio creation. Migneco et al. [S63] developed an audio-processing library for game development in Flash. It includes common audio-processing routines and sound-interaction Web games. Minovic et al. [S65] proposed an approach based on the model drive method for user interface development, and Pour et al. [S64] presented a brain computer interface technology that can control a game on a mobile device using EEG Mu rhythms. For audio processing, open-source libraries are available, especially for games. Audio and interface design are examples of game assets.

Storyboard production

Storyboard production is the most important phase of game production; it involves development of game scenarios for level solutions and incorporation of artificial intelligence planning techniques for representing the various features of games through a traditional white board or flow chart. Pizzi et al. [S59] proposed a rational approach that elaborated game-level scenario solutions using knowledge representation and also incorporated AI techniques to explore alternative solutions by direct interaction with generated storyboards. Finally, Anderson [S61] presented a classification of scripting systems for serious and entertainment games, and Cai and Chen [S62] explored scene editor software for game scenes. Their approach was based on the OGRE.Net framework and C++ technology. Various scripting editors based on different technologies are available for game developers to produce storyboards. Some of this software helps to develop and edit scenes at different game levels, and other software helps by generating game levels automatically based on a description.

Development platforms

The studies classified under this category proposed various types of platforms for game development. Development platforms provide a ready-made architecture for server–client connectivity and help developers create games quickly. Open-source development platforms are available, but developers must customize them according to the required functionality. Peres et al. [S69] used a scrum methodology for game development, especially for multiple platforms, and implemented interfaces with social networking Web sites such as Twitter and Facebook. Jieyi et al. [S70] proposed a platform for quick development of mobile 3D games. First, the platform implemented the game template in two environments such as the Nokia series 60 platform and the Symbian OS. The second part of the process involved analysis of the entire game structure and extraction of game parameters for later customization. Finally, the tool could be used for game customization. Lin et al. [S] developed intelligent multimedia mobile games from embedded platforms. The proposed communication protocol was able to control the embedded platform to achieve the game usability and amusement. Mao et al. [S78] presented a logical animation platform for game design and development, and Alers and Barakova [S81] developed a multi-agent platform for an educational children’s game. Suomela et al. [S77] highlighted the important aspects of multi-user application platforms used for rapid game development. Some researchers have proposed a development platform similar to that described above that provides connectivity along with client customization and unnecessary updating of game servers.

Formal language description

Game semantics can be classified under formal language description for programming languages; only two studies were reported under this classification. The formal language description of game semantics provided a way to gain insight into the design of programming languages for game development. Mellies [S99] proposed a denotational prepositional linear logic for asynchronous games, and Calderon and McCusker [S100] presented their analysis of game semantics using coherence spaces. Very little work has been reported in this area, and very few game semantic descriptions of languages have been published.

Programming

Code complexity is increasing, especially in game development, because of the incorporation of complex modules, AI techniques, and a variety of behaviors. The most common programming languages used in game development are object-oriented structured languages such as Java, C, and C++. Studies classified under this category explored the programming aspect of game development. El Rhalibi et al. [S82] proposed a development environment based on Java Web Start and JXTA P2P technologies called Homura and NetHomura. It extends the JME game engine by facilitating content libraries, providing a new interface, and also providing a software suite that supports advanced graphical functionalities within IDE. The other two studies, done by Meng et al. [S84] and Chen and Xu [S85], also explored programming languages such as C++, DirectX, and Web GL and also Web Socket technologies for game development. Three studies by Yang et al. [S87], Yang and Zhang [S88], and Wang and Lu [S89] explored collision detection algorithms from a game logic aspect for software games, proposed A* search, and AI optimization-based algorithms.

Wang et al. [S83] proposed a framework for developing games based on J2ME technology. Zhang et al. [S92] also explored the effects of object-oriented technology on performance, executable file size, and optimization techniques for mobile games and suggested that object-oriented technology should be used with great care because the structured programming in game development is highly competitive. Bartish and Thevathayan [S86] and Fahy and Krewer [S90] analyzed the use of agents, finite state machines, and open-source libraries for the overwhelmingly complex process of multi-platform game development. Optimization techniques can be used with object-oriented programming to avoid unnecessarily redundant classes and inheritance, and to handle performance bottlenecks. These languages can be used across different development environments such as Android, iOS, Windows, and Linux. Researchers have proposed various approaches and tools for efficient game development. The integration of various development artefacts into games can also be done by generative programming, which also helps to achieve efficient development.

Game engine

A game engine is a kind of special software framework that is used in the production phase for creating and developing games. Game engines consist mainly of a combination of core functionalities such as sound, a physics engine or collision detection, AI, scripting, animation, networking, memory management, and scene graphs. Hudlicka [S108] identified a set of requirements for a game engine, including identification of the player’s emotions and the social interactions among game characters. This is the only study that has highlighted the important functionalities that an affective game engine must support. Another study by Wu et al. [S109] focused on game script engine development based on J2ME. It divided script engines into two types. The first type is the high-level script engine that includes packaging and refining of the script engine. The second type, the low-level script engine includes feature packages associated only with API. Four studies [S102], [S105], [S106], and [S107] explored the development of game engines on mobile platforms. Finally, Anderson et al. [S109] proposed a game engine selection tool. Recently, developers have been using previously developed or open-source game engines to economize on the game development process. Various researchers have proposed script-based, design pattern-based, and customizable game engines. In the GDSE process life cycle, game engines automate the game creation process and help a developer to develop a game in a shorter time.

Implementation

The foundations of game theory are used in game development because it is a branch of decision theory that describes interdependent decisions. Most studies in this category described different aspects of game implementation technologies on various types of platforms. They considered improving programming skills, 2D/3D animations and graphics, sound engineering, project management, logic design, story-writing interface design, and AI techniques. Various kinds of game implementation technologies can be found in the literature. Vanhatupa [S117] presented a survey of implementation technologies especially for browser games. The technologies explored in these studies are mainly server applications (application runtime, server-side scripting, and user interface and communication), client applications, databases, and architecture. The same study also described the accessories that can be used for implementation: application platforms, game engines, and various types of plug-ins. Abd El-Sattar [S112] proposed an interactive computer-based game framework for the implementation process. The framework includes steps from design through implementation that are based on game theory foundations and focus mainly on game models, Nash equilibrium, and strategies of play. The proposed framework includes architectural design and specifications, a proposed game overview, a game start-up interface and difficulty scaling, game modelling, the game environment and player control, and a free-style combat system.

Four studies [S113], [S114], [S119] and [S120] focused mainly on a development framework for mobile devices. Su et al. [S96] proposed a framework describing implementation of various main modules such as pressure movement, a thread pool based on the I/O completion port, and a message module. They also claimed that their proposed framework addressed the problems of traditional frameworks such as the single-server exhaustion problem, synchronization, and thread-pooling issues. Jhingut et al. [S114] discussed 3D mobile game implementation technologies from both single-player and multi-player perspectives. They also evaluated two game APIs: MDP 2.0 and M3G API. Finally, Kao et al. [S120] proposed a client framework for mobile devices that used a message-based communication protocol and reserved platform-specific data as much as possible. A few researchers have proposed agent-based frameworks as explored above for effective communication and synchronization between system components.

4.2.3 Post-production phase

Quality assurance.

Process validation plays an important role in assessing game quality. Collection and evaluation of process data from the pre-production phase through to the post-production phase either provide evidence that the overall development process produces a good-quality game as a final product or reveal that it cannot. Only two studies were reported under this classification. Stacey et al. [S122] used a story-telling strategy to assess the game development process. They carried out a two-year case study on a four-person development team. Astrachan et al. [S126] tried to validate the game creation process by analyzing the development process and design decisions made during development. The scope of studies done under this category was limited. The case studies were done for small teams and were limited to only one phase. In the game development process, quality assurance and process validation are critical components, and standard methodologies are lacking. More exploration is needed to provide deeper insights. QA for games needs more research attention because very little work has been reported.

Beta testing

Beta testing in games is used to evaluate overall game functionality using external testers. Beta testing is a kind of first public release for testing purposes by users. Game publishers often find it effective because bugs are identified by users that were missed by developers. If any desired functionality is missing, it must be addressed at this stage. This testing is performed before final game release. Under this classification, only four studies [S127], [S128], [S129], and [S130] were reported. Hable and Platzer [S129] evaluated their proposed development framework for mobile game platforms. Omar et al. [S128] evaluated educational computer games and identified two evaluation techniques: Playability Heuristic for Educational Games (PHEG) for expert evaluators, and Playability Assessment of Educational Games (PAEG) for real-world users. The proposed AHP-based Holistic Online Evaluation System for Educational Computer Games (AHP_HeGES) online evaluation tool can be used in the evaluation process. Very little work was reported in this category.

Heuristic-based testing

Heuristics are a kind of design guideline and can be used as an evaluation tool by game design developers or users. Basically, heuristics can be used in software engineering to test the interface. In games, evaluation must extend beyond the interface because other playability experiences also need evaluation such as the game story, play, and mechanics. Six studies [S132], [S133], [S134], [S146], [S147], and [S148] fell under this classification. Al-Azawi et al. [S132] proposed a heuristic testing-based framework for game development. The proposed framework divides testing by two types of user: experts and real-world users. Experts evaluate playability, game usability, and game quality factors. Users evaluate the game as a positive or negative experience. Omar and Jaafar [S133] and Al-Azawi et al. [S134] proposed a framework for the evaluation phase in the game development process. Heuristic testing can be done during the development process and repeated from the early design phase. It is perfect for game testing because after the game is implemented, if anything goes wrong, it will be too expensive to fix and will affect the project schedule. This topic also needs attention by researchers.

Empirical testing

Empirical testing approaches for the game-testing phase have been explored by only a few researchers. The approaches described by these researchers have focused only on final-product quality and usability. Only two studies were reported under this classification [S135] and [S136]. Escudeiro and Escudeiro [S135] used a Quantitative Evaluation Framework (QEF) to evaluate serious mobile games and reported that QEF frameworks are very important in validating educational games and final-product quality. Choi [S136] analyzed the effectiveness of usability-expert evaluation and testing for game development. Experimental results showed the importance of the validation process in game development. The scope of the studies done under this category was very limited, and other aspects of final-product testing have not been explored by researchers.

Testing tools

Development of testing tools has not been addressed by many researchers. Only one study [S137] was reported under this classification. Cho et al. [S137] proposed testing tools for black-box and scenario-based testing. They used their tool on several online games to verify its effectiveness. Tools for game testing facilitate the testing process. The proposed scope of study was also limited, and available testing tools have focused only on evaluation of online games.

After a game has been developed, the final step is marketing. Marketing of games includes a marketing strategy and a marketing plan. The marketing strategy is directly related to the choice of users and the types of games that are in demand. The marketing plan is something that a publisher can give to a distributor to execute on the publisher’s behalf. Some studies have been done from the perspective of game-user satisfaction that provide the baseline for the factors that game developers must take into account for new game development. Yee et al. [S142] described a game motivation scale based on a three-factor model that can be used to assess game trends. Three studies [S139], [S143], and [S144] empirically investigated the perspective of game-user satisfaction and loyalty. No study in the literature has directly captured a marketing strategy and a marketing plan for games.

4.3 RQ 3: What research approaches are being used by researchers in digital game domain?

Table  10 shows that most GDSE process life cycle studies have used an exploratory research approach. Figure  8 shows a comparison between the three research approaches used in the GDSE process life cycle domain. Figure  9 shows a comparison among the empirical research methods used in the GDSE process life cycle domain. The results suggest that surveys are most frequently used in GDSE domain research.

GDSE process life cycle research approaches

Empirical research approaches

These results were to be expected because the GDSE domain has only been growing since 2005; before 2010 more studies follow the descriptive approach because the field was young. After 2010, more studies have followed the exploratory approach because the domain has been maturing. More specifically, exploratory and descriptive approaches seem now to be equally used in the GDSE process life cycle domain.

4.4 RQ4: What empirical research methods are being used in the software games domain?

Table  11 depicts the results of the RQ4. The experimental empirical method is less used in the GDSE process life cycle domain, as mentioned by Wohlin et al. ( 2000 ), because carrying out formal experiments requires significant experience. The case-study method has also been used infrequently by researchers. The reason for this could be that case studies require project data obtained through various types of observations or measurements, and no research database or repository is available for the GDSE process life cycle domain. Finally, the survey method was more common than the other two methods. This is reasonable because the GDSE domain is still immature and researchers are trying to produce knowledge by questioning game users, experts, and others.

5 Conclusions

The GDSE process proved to be incredibly challenging as game technology including game platforms and engines changes rapidly and coding modules are used very rarely in the another game project. However, recent success of digital game industry enforces further stress along with game development challenges and highlights the need of good practices adoption for game development process. In order to find out the specific area in game development software engineering process for improvement, assessment of process activities needs to be performed. However, due to relatively young history and empirical nature of the field, there has not been any development strategies or set of best practices to carry out game development fully explored. This systematic literature review helps to identify the research gaps in game development life cycle.

The main objective of this research was to provide an insight into the GDSE process life cycle domain because, in the past, researchers have pointed out that it is different from the traditional software development process. To achieve this objective, a systematic literature review was performed, which confirmed the first step of the evidence-based paradigm. The results also confirmed that the GDSE process life cycle domain is different from the traditional software engineering development process and that research activity is growing day by day, attracting the interest of more researchers. This observation provided an evidence for developers they need to look for other important activities on top of software development process. This paper describes the various topics in the GDSE domain and highlights the main research activities related to the GDSE process life cycle. The research topics identified in the GDSE were a combination of different disciplines and together they complete the game development process.

The most heavily researched topics were from the production phase, followed by the pre-production phase. On the other hand, in the post-production phase, less research activity was reported. In the pre-production phase, the management topic accounted for the most publications, whereas in the production phase, the development platform, programming, and the implementation phase attracted the most researchers. The production phase has attracted more research because game developers focus more on implementation and programming because of the limited game-development time period. The post-production phase includes process validation, testing, and marketing topics. Very little research activity was observed in this area because the quality aspect of game development is not yet a mature field. These results highlighted that researcher’s need to pay attention especially in the phase of post-production.

In addition to research topics, more researchers used exploratory research methods; as for empirical research methods, surveys were carried out by more researchers than case studies and experiments. Overall, the findings of this study are important for the development of good-quality digital games. Rapid and continual changes in technology and intense competition not only affect the business, but also have a great impact on development activities. To deal with this strong competition and high pressure, game development organizations and game developers must continually assess their activities and adopt an appropriate evaluation methodology. The result of the study highlighted that use of a proper assessment methodology will help the organization identify its strengths and weaknesses and provide guidance for improvement. However, the fragmented nature of the GDSE process requires a comprehensive evaluation strategy, which has not yet been entirely explored. Finally, this kind of research work provides a baseline for other studies in the GDSE process life cycle domain and highlights research topics that need more attention in this area. The findings of this study will help researchers to identify research gaps in GDSE process life cycle and highlights areas for further research contributions. This study also is a part of a larger project aiming to propose a digital game maturity assessment model (Aleem et al. 2016a ). The identified important dimensions are developer’s perspective (Aleem et al. 2016b ), the consumer, the business (Aleem et al. 2016c ), and the process itself. It also reinforces the assertion that the GDSE process life cycle domain is a complex scientific domain comparable to the software engineering development process, and it needs more attention and consideration of different factors in game development software engineering process.

In short, this study presents a systematic literature review of the GDLC topics. Overall, the findings of this study are important for the development of good-quality digital games because they highlight the areas that needs research attention. The results of this study have shown that the fragmented nature of the GDLC process requires a comprehensive evaluation strategy, which has not yet been entirely explored. Finally, this kind of research work provides a baseline for other studies in the GDLC domain and highlights research topics that need more attention in this area. The findings of this study will also help researchers to identify research gaps in the GDLC and highlight areas for further research contributions.

Abbreviations

Game Design Document

Game Development Software Engineering (GDSE)

Quantitative Evaluation Framework

Systematic Literature Review

Ahmed, F., Capretz, L. F., 2011. A business maturity model of software product line engineering. Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, 13, 4, 543–560, DOI: 10.1007/s10796-010-9230-8

Aleem S, Fernando Capretz L, Ahmed F (2016). A Digital Game Maturity Model (DGMM), Entertainment Computing 17, 55-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2016.08.004

Aleem S, Capretz LF, Ahmed F (2016a) Critical Success Factors to Improve the Game Development Process from a Developer’s Perspective. J Comput Sci Technol 31(5):925–950

Article   Google Scholar  

Aleem S, Capretz LF, Ahmed F, (2016c). Empirical investigation of key business factors for digital game performance, Entertainment Computing, Vol. 13,pp. -25-36, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.entcom.2015.09.001

Alvarez, J. Michaud, L., (2008). Serious Games: Advergaming, Edugaming, Training, and More, IDATE

Ampatzoglou A, Stamelos I (2010) Software engineering research for computer games: a systematic review. J Inf Softw Technol Elsevier 52(9):888–901.

Bethke E (2003). Game Development and Production. Wordware game developer's library. Wordware Pub, Plano. ISBN 978-0-585-44833-6

Blitz game studio, (2014). Project Lifecycle. Retrieved May 1, 2014 from http://www.blitzgamesstudios.com/blitz_academy/game_dev .

Boyle EA, Connolly TM, Hainey T, Boyle JM (2012) Engagement in digital entertainment games: A systematic review. Comput Hum Behav 28:771–780

Brereton P, Kitchenham B, Budgen D, Turner M, Khalil M (2007) Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain. J Syst Softw 80(4):571–583

Budgen D, Turner M, Brereton P, Kitchenham B (2008). Using mapping studies in software engineering. In: Proceedings of Psychology of Programming Interest Group (PPIG). Lancaster University, Lancaster. pp. 195–204

Cai KY, Card D (2008) An analysis of topics in software engineering. J Syst Softw 81(6):1051–1058

Capretz LF, Lee PA (1992) Reusability and life cycle issues within an Object-Oriented Design methodology (refereed). In: Ege R, Singh M, Meyer B (eds) Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp 139–150. ISBN 0-13-042441-2

Google Scholar  

Castillo T, Novak J, (2008). Game Development Essentials: Game Level Design. Delmar Cengage Learning. ISBN: 9781401878641

Chandler HM (2010) Game Production Handbook. Johns and Bartletts, Sudbury

Connolly TM, Boyle EA, MacArthur E, Hainey T, Boyle JM (2012) A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Comput Educ 59:661–686

Dyba T, Dingsoyr T (2008) Empirical studies of agile software development: a systematic review. Information and Software Technology 50(9-10):833–859

Dyba T, Kitchenham BA, Jorgensen M (2005) Evidence-based software engineering for practitioners. Software Magazine. IEEE Computer Society 22(1):58–65

Entertainment Software Association (ESA), (2014). Essential facts about the Computer and Video Game Industry. Entertainment Software Association Available at: http://www.theesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ESA_EF_2014.pdf . Accessed on 15 Oct 2015.

Entertainment Software Association (ESA), (2015). Essential facts about the Computer and Video Game Industry. Entertainment Software Association. Available at: http://www.theesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ESA-Essential-Facts-2015.pdf . Accessed on 15 Oct 2015.

Flood K (2003) Game Unified Process: GameDev., Available at: http://www.gamedev.net/page/resources/_/technical/generalprogramming/game-unified-process-r1940 . Accessed June 12, 2015

Glass RL, Vessey I, Ramesh V (2002) Research in software engineering: an analysis of the literature. Inf Softw Technol 44(8):491–506

Godoy A, Barbosa E F, (2010). Game-Scrum: An approach to agile game development, Proceedings of SBGames 2010 Computing Track (I. S. F. SC, ed.), Sao Carlos, pp. 292–295, November 8–10, pp. 292–295.

Gredler M. E (1995). Designing and evaluating games and simulations. Behavioral Science. Wiley Online Library, 40, 1 (1995), 76–77

Gredler M. E (2003). Games and simulations and their relationship to learning. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, Lawrence Erlbaum, Inc: Mahwah, NJ pp. 571–581.

Hendrick A (2014). Project Management for Game Development. Retrieved 20 May 2014, from http://mmotidbits.com/2009/06/

Kaitilla C (2014). How to learn Ouya Gamdev. Retrieved December 20, 2014, from http://gamedevelopment.tutsplus.com/articles/how-to-learn-ouya-gamedev--gamedev-9197 .

Kanode C M., Haddad H M (2009). Software engineering challenges in game development. In Proceedings of the 2009 Sixth International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations, (April 27–29, 2009), 260–265

Keith C (2010) Agile game development with Scrum. Addison-Wesley, Boston

Kitchenham B (2004). Procedures for performing systematic literature reviews. Joint Technical Report. Computer Science Department, Keele University, July 2004, 33 pages.

Kitchenham B, Charters S, (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering, Software Engineering Group, Keele University and Department of Computer Science, University of Durham, United Kingdom, Technical Report EBSE-2007-01, 2007

Kitchenham, B., Sjoberg, D.I.K., Brereton, P., Budgen, D., Dyba, T., Host, M., Pfahl, D., Runeson, P., 2010. Can we evaluate the quality of software engineering experiments? In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, 1–8

Kruchten P (2000) The Rational Unified Process: An Introduction, 2nd edn. Addison Wesley Longman, Reading

Liming D, Vilorio D (2011). Work for play: Careers in video game development, Occupational Outlook Quarterly. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2011/fall/art01.pdf . Accessed on: 30 Sept 2015.

McGrath J (2014). The game development lifecycle: A theory for the extension of the agile project methodology. http://blog.dopplerinteractive.com/2011_04_01_archive.html . Accessed 1 May 2014

McShaffry M (2003) Game coding complete. Paraglyph Press, AZ, USA

Munassar N, Govardhan A (2010) A Comparison Between Five Models Of Software Engineering. International Journal of Computer Science Issues 7(5):94–101

Nayak M (2013). A look at the $66 billion video-games industry, Reuters, Retrieved June 2013 from http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/06/10/gameshow-e-idINDEE9590DW20130610 . Accessed 12 Sept 2014

Newzoo Game Market Research, 2015. Global Report: U.S. and China take half of $113 bn game market in 2018. Available at: http://www.newzoo.com/insights/us-and-china-take-half-of-113bn-games-market-in-2018/ . Accessed 2 Oct 2015

Osbourne-O'Hagan A, Coleman G, O'Connor RV (2014) Software development processes for games: a systematic literature review. In: 21st European Conference on Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement EuroSPI, Luxembourg, 25-27 June 2014

Petrillo F, Pimenta M, Trindade F, Dietrich C (2009) What went wrong? A survey of problems in game development. Computers in Entertainment. ACM Digit Library 7(1(13)):1–22

Plass-Oude Boss, D., Reuderink, B., Van De Laar, B.L.A., Gurkok, H, Muhl, C., Poel, M., Heylen, D.K.J., Nijholt, A. (2010), Human-Computer Interaction for BCI Games: Usability and User Experience. In Proceedings of the International Conference on CYBERWORLDS, A. Sourin (eds), IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, 277–281

Pressman RS (2001) Software engineering: a practitioner approach, 5th edn. Wiley, New York

PWC global media and entertainment outlook 2011–2014, 2011. Available at http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/global-entertainment-mediaoutlook/territory-segments-digital-forecast-overview.jhtml . Accessed on 28 Jul 2013.

Ramadan R., Widyani Y, (2013). Game development life cycle guidelines. In Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Advanced Computer Science and Information Systems (ICACIS). IEEE Computer Society, Jakarta, Indonesia, (September 28–29, 2013) 95–100.

Rieber LP (2005) Multimedia learning in games, simulations and microworlds. Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press, UK, pp 549–567

Book   Google Scholar  

Robin S, (2009). Introduction to game development, 2nd edition. Charles River Media. ISBN-10: 1584506792

Salen K, Zimmerman E (2003). Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. MIT Press, ACM Digital Library. p. 80. ISBN 0-262-24045-9

Schwaber K, Beedle M (2002) Agile Software Development With Scrum. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River

MATH   Google Scholar  

Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT (2002). Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston

SUPERDATA 2015 Digital Good Measurement Blog. Worldwide digital games market. Available at: https://www.superdataresearch.com/blog/us-digital-games-market/ . Accessed 30 Dec 2015.

Wohlin C, Runeson P, Host M, Ohlsson MC, Regnell B, Wesslen A (2000) Experimentation in Software Engineering. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston/Dordrecht/London

Book   MATH   Google Scholar  

Download references

Authors’ contributions

SA designed the study and performed the review methodology, collected the data, analyzed the data and drafted the manuscript. LC helped to conceive the study and provided guidance to carry out the quality assessments of paper, reviewed the drafted manuscript and fine-tune the final draft. FA helped in study design, provided guidance to present the analysis and helped to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Technological Innovation, Zayed University, Abu Dhabi, 144534, United Arab Emirates

Saiqa Aleem

Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, N6A 5B9, Canada

Luiz Fernando Capretz

Department of Computing Science, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, BC, V2C 0C8, Canada

Faheem Ahmed

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saiqa Aleem .

Additional files

Additional file 1:.

Appendix A (DOC 114 kb)

Additional file 2:

Appendix B (DOC 313 kb)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Aleem, S., Capretz, L.F. & Ahmed, F. Game development software engineering process life cycle: a systematic review. J Softw Eng Res Dev 4 , 6 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40411-016-0032-7

Download citation

Received : 16 March 2016

Accepted : 25 October 2016

Published : 09 November 2016

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40411-016-0032-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Software Game
• Online game
• Systematic review
• Development software engineerong proces

Game Development Research

By Henrik Engström

About the book

Digital games have become a ubiquitous part of our society. In many countries, game development is a substantial and important industry. Academic institutions provide programmes aimed at preparing students for careers in game development. Over the past 20 years, there has been great interest in game research. However, very few studies address game development. Instead, most studies have focused on: serious applications of games; analysis of games and players; or, social aspects of playing.

This book provides an overview of the scattered academic landscape of game development research. It highlights studies from a wide range of disciplines and raises arguments for game development to be understood as a complex activity that inherently includes elements of science, engineering, design and art. The consequences of this complexity need to be taken into account by research and/or academic programmes that have a disciplinary focus. There is otherwise the risk that the true nature of game development will not be understood.

Bibliographic Information

Engström, H. (2020) Game Development Research . The University of Skövde, ISBN 978-91-984918-7-6 (print), 978-91-984918-8-3 (digital), https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:his:diva-19248 .

This book was created within the Game Hub Scandinavia 2.0 project. Project id: NYPS20201849. EU Interreg Öresund-Kattegat-Skagerrak .

About the Author

Henrik Engström is a professor at the University of Skövde. He holds a PhD in Computer Science from the University of Exeter and has conducted game-related research since 2001. His research focuses on the game development process and, in particular, its entangled, multidisciplinary nature. In a research context, Henrik has served as project manager, producer and developer in a number of game projects.

• © 2020 Henrik Engström. All rights reserved.
• Design: HTML5 UP

What follows is a list of the papers and articles that I have collected over the years on various topics relating to game development . This is by no means an exhaustive list but one that I hope will help you find an answer. If you wish contribute to any papers or articles from your own collection, feel free to email me at [email protected] or drop in the IRC channel #gamedev on AfterNET.

Additional contributions by: Shawn Presser

Commercial Game Design Documents ¶

• Diablo David Brevik, Condor, Inc.
• Grand Theft Auto Rockstar Games
• Planescape: Torment Black Isle Studios
• Claw Monolith Productions

World & Game Objects Programming ¶

• The Continuous World of Dungeon Siege Scott Bilas, Gas Powered Games, GDC 2003
• Data-Driven Game Object System Scott Bilas, Gas Powered Games, GDC 2002
• An Anatomy of Despair: Aggregation Over Inheritence GameArchitect
• The Guerrilla Guide to Game Code Jorrit Rouwé, Guerrilla Games, Gamasutra 2005

Level Design ¶

• The Art and Science of Level Design Cliff Bleszinski, Epic Games, GDC 2000
• Level Design (external website) David Johnston

Data-Oriented Programming ¶

• Pitfalls of Object-Oriented Programming Tony Albrecht
• Data-Oriented Design Now And In The Future (external website)
• Data-Oriented Design (Or Why You Might Be Shooting Yourself in The Foot With OOP) (external website)
• Practical Examples in Data-Oriented Design Niklas Frykholm, BitSquid
• Introduction to Data-Oriented Design Daniel Collin, DICE
• A Step Towards Data Orientation Johan Torp, DICE
• Typical C++ Bullshit (external website) Mike Acton, Insomniac Games
• Three Big Lies: Typical Design Failures in Game Programming Mike Acton, Insomniac Games
• Benefits of a Data-Driven Renderer Tobias Persson, BitSquid, GDC 2011
• What Every Programmer Needs to Know About Memory Ulrich Drepper, Red Hat Inc.

A.I. Programming ¶

• Efficient Triangulation-Based Pathfinding Douglas Jon Demyen

File Formats Programming ¶

• MPQ File Format (external website)
• MDX - Warcraft 3 Models Magnus Ostberg
• The Definitive Guide to Exploring File Formats Mr.Mouse, WATTO

Memory Allocation Programming ¶

• Alternatives to malloc and new (external website) Steven Tovey
• Custom Memory Allocation in C++ (external website) BitSquid

Network Programming ¶

• 1500 Archers on a 28.8: Network Programming in Age of Empires and Beyond Paul Bettner, Mark Terrano, Ensemble Studios
• Tribes Networking Model Mark Frohnmayer, Tim Gift, Dynamix
• Latency Compensation Methods in Client/Server In-game Protocol Design and Optimization Yahn W. Bernier, Valve Software
• Binary Packet (external website) Sirisian
• Introduction to Sync Host Peter Kao, Insomniac Games
• Networking for Physics Programmers Glenn Fiedler, Sony Santa Monica
• Unreal Networking Architecture (external website)
• Source Multiplayer Networking (external website)
• I Shot You First: Networking the Gameplay of HALO: REACH (external website, video) David Aldridge, Bungie
• WarCraft III Replay Action Format Description blue, nagger
• Inside Blizzard: Battle.net Skywing
• Starcraft Game Network Protocol Part 1 (external website)
• Starcraft Game Network Protocol Part 2 (external website)
• Battle.net Protocol (external website)

Graphics Programming ¶

• Depixelizing Pixel Art (external website) Johannes Kopf, Dani Lischinski
• Real-Time Texture Quilting Hugh Malan, Jeff Cairns
• Pre-Integrated Skin Shading Eric Penner
• Halo Reach Effects Tech Chris Tchou
• Water Flow in Portal 2 Alex Vlachos, Valve Software
• Voxels in Little Big Planet 2 Alex Evans, Anton Kirczenow
• Fast Extraction of Viewing Frustum Planes from the World-View-Projection Matrix Gil Gribb, Klaus Hartmann
• Interactive Order-Independent Transparency Class Everitt
• Real-Time Order Independent Transparency and Indirect Illumination Using Direct3D 11 Jason Yang, Jay McKee
• S.T.A.L.K.E.R: Clear Sky - A Showcase for Direct3D 10.0/1 Igor A. Lobanchikov, Holger Gruen, GDC 2009
• The A to Z of DX10 Performance Cem Cebenoyan, Nick Thibieroz, GDC 2009
• Crysis Next-Gen Effects Tiago Sousa
• Rendering Techniques in Gears of War 2 Niklas Smedberg, Daniel Wright
• Inside the Gears of War 2 Character Modeling Pipeline Chris Wells, Epic Games
• Far Cry and DirectX Carsten Wenzel, CryTEK
• Porting Game Engines Direct3D 10: Crysis/CryEngine 2 Carsten Wenzel, CryTEK
• The Intersection of Game Engines & GPUs: Current & Future Johan Andersson, DICE
• Rendering in Battlefield 3 John White, Colin Barre-Brisebois, SIGGRAPH 2011
• A Comparative Study of Screen-Space Ambient Occlusion Methods Frederik P. Aalund, J. Andreas Bærentzen

Terrain Rendering

• Halo Wars: Terrain of Next Gen Colt McAnlis, Bonfire Studios, GDC 2009
• Global Terrain Technology for Flight Simulation Adam Szofran, Microsoft ACES Game Studio, GDC 2006
• Terrain in Battlefield 3: A modern, complete and scalable system Mattias Widmark, DICE, GDC 2012
• Quadtree Displacement Mapping with Height Blending Michal Drobot, Reality Pump
• Deferred Rendering of Planetary Terrains with Accurate Atmospheres Stefan Sperlhofer

Animation and Skinning

• A Beginners Guide to Dual-Quaternions Ben Kenwright
• Skeletal Animation and Skinning Brandon Furtwangler
• Skinning with Dual Quaternions Ladislav Kavan, Steven Collins, Jiri Zara, Carol O'Sullivan
• Skinned Mesh Character Animation with DirectX 9.0c Frank Luna

Shadows and Lighting

• "A bit more Deferred" - CryEngine 3 Martin Mittring, CryTEK
• Adaptive Volumetric Shadow Maps Marco Salvi, Kiril Vidimce, Andrew Lauritzen, Aaron Lefohn, Intel Corporation, SIGGRAPH 2010
• Advanced Soft Shadow-Mapping Techniques Louis Bavoil, NVIDIA, GDC 2008
• Deferred Shading Tutorial Fabio Policarpo, Francisco Fonseca, CheckMate Games
• Detailed Shape Representation with Parallax Mapping Tomomichi Kaneko,Toshiyuki Takahei,Masahiko Inami, Naoki Kawakami, Yasuyuki Yanagida, Taro Maeda, Susumu Tachi
• Dynamic Lights in God of War 3 SIGGRAPH 2011
• Light Propagation Volumes in CryEngine 3 Anton Kaplayan, SIGGRAPH 2009
• Physically-Based Lighting in Call of Duty: Black Ops Dimitar Lazarov, Treyarch, SIGGRAPH 2011
• Practical Dynamic Parallax Occlusion Mapping Natalya Tatarchuk, SIGGRAPH 2005
• Realistic, Hardware-accelerated Shading and Lighting Wolfgang Heidrich, Hans-Peter Seidel
• Real-time Atmospheric Effects in Games Carsten Wenzel, CryTEK, SIGGRAPH 2006
• Rectilinear Texture Warping for Fast Adaptive Shadow Mapping Paul Rosen
• 2D Visibility (external website) Amit Patel, Red Blob Games

Managing Polygon Counts

• Don't Throw it all Away: Efficient Buffer Management John McDonald, NVIDIA
• Culling the Battlefield: Battlefield 3 Daniel Collin, DICE
• Everything About Particle Effects Lutz Latta, EA L.A., GDC 2007
• Firaxis LORE
• Game Worlds from Polygon Soup Hao Chen, Ari Silvennoinen, Natalya Tatarchuk, SIGGRAPH 2011

Physics Programming ¶

• Anatomy of a Physics Engine Erwin Coumans, Sony Computer Entertainment, GDC 2009
• Numerical Robustness (for Geometric Calculations) Christer Ericson
• Geometric Primitives & Proximity Detection Marq Singer
• Numerical Integration Erin Catto, Blizzard Entertainment
• Continuous Collision Detection and Physics Erwin Coumans, Sony Computer Entertainment

Mathematics Programming ¶

• Vectors and Matrices Marq Singer
• Interpolation and Splines Squirrel Eiserloh, TrueThought LLC, GDC 2009
• Affine Transformations Jim Van Verth, NVIDIA, GDC 2009
• Orientation Representation Jim Van Verth, NVIDIA, GDC 2009

Other Game Related Programming ¶

• AAA Automated Testing for AAA Games Francesco Carucci
• Valve's Design Process for Creating Half-Life 2 David Speyrer, Brian Jacobson, Valve Software, GDC 2006
• The Next Mainstream Programming Language: A Game Developer's Perspective Tim Sweeney, Epic Games

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

•  We're Hiring!
•  Help Center

Game Development

• Most Cited Papers
• Most Downloaded Papers
• Newest Papers
• Last »
• Mobile Game-based Learning Follow Following
• Digital Game Based Learning Follow Following
• Unity3d Follow Following
• Game-based Learning Follow Following
• Game Design Follow Following
• Mobile games Follow Following
• Rafael Sanzio Macedo Porto Follow Following
• C# Programming Follow Following
• Practice Based Approaches to the Study of Knowing Follow Following
• Framework Follow Following

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• Academia.edu Journals
•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

The MIT Game Lab has a long history of innovative research that spans game culture to design practice. Below are some highlights of our work. See specific pages in the pull down menu for more detailed information on some of them.

Games & Colonialism

2017-: mikael jakobsson (co-pi), mary flanagan (co-pi).

What does the history of colonialism-themed board games look like, and what can it tell us about the situation today? What does it mean to present these historical moments in such a lavish form and then let these artifacts serve as centerpieces to gather around for social interaction at board game cafes, meetups, and conventions? This greater project includes Playing Oppression , a forthcoming book to be published by MIT Press; Orderly Adventures, in which we play and analyze games with colonialist themes; and Creating Counter-Colonial Games, a series of workshops to prototype games through cultural engagement with people affected by the colonialist endeavor.

Diversity and Inclusion in Esports and Gaming

2015-: t.l. taylor.

Launched in 2015, AnyKey was co-founded by Dr. T.L. Taylor and Dr. Morgan Romine (with support from Intel and ESL) with the goal of building a more inclusive and accessible esports world for all. Since that inception, AnyKey has become the leading advocacy organization for inclusion and diversity in competitive gaming & live streaming. It now operates as a non-profit and Dr. Taylor has transitioned from being the Director of Research to Chair of the Advisory Board.

Playful Augmented Reality Audio Design Exploration

2018-2019: mikael jakobsson & philip tan.

The focus of this project was to explore the potential of audio augmented reality (AR) technology through design research methodology, particularly exploratory prototyping. Going into this, we understood that location-based audio AR allows the potential for telling stories using the players lived world, through innovative use of the affordances of mobile phone devices, particularly GPS. We also considered audio AR as a means of playing with sound and music. Utilizing the accelerometers of the Bose AR glasses and connected mobile device, body movement can be linked to the players’ own music collection or a music generation engine.

Our work culminated in the discovery of what we are calling locomotion-based gameplay, a modification to the assumptions that occur when considering location- based gameplay. From our explorative work, locomotion-based gameplay arises from the affordances and limitations of current audio AR technology. It considers a person’s movement through space as important, more so than their precise location. Locomotion also implies whole body movement through gestures including the nod of a head and the tap of a toe, not just the vector of movement on a map. These gestures are ephemeral and contain multiple meanings dependent on context and mood. We believe more work in discovering this style of gameplay would be fruitful, for purposes of art and entertainment, for education and tourism, and other currently unforeseen use cases.

Intimate Worlds: Reading for Intimate Affects in Contemporary Video Games

2016-2018: kaelan doyle-myerscough (s.m., comparative media studies, 2018).

When we think of pleasures to be found in video games, we often talk about power, control, agency, and fun. But to center these pleasures is to privilege certain stories, players, actions and possibility spaces. This thesis uses the framework of intimacy to closely examine three games for their capacity to create pleasure in vulnerability, the loss of control, dependence on others, and precarity.

Drawing from Deleuzian affect theory and feminist, queer and posthuman theorists, I read for intimate affects in the formal, aesthetic, proprioceptive and structural elements of Overwatch , The Last Guardian and The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild . Ultimately, I argue two points: that video games have a unique capacity to generate intimate affects, and that my games of choice push us to rethink our assumptions about what constitutes intimacy more broadly.

When All You Have is a Banhammer: The Social and Communicative Work of Volunteer Moderators

2016-2018: claudia lo (s.m., comparative media studies, 2018).

The popular understanding of moderation online is that moderation is inherently reactive, where moderators see and then react to content generated by users, typically by removing it; in order to understand the work already being performed by moderators, we need to expand our understanding of what that work entails. Drawing upon interviews, participant observation, and my own experiences as a volunteer community moderator on Reddit, I propose that a significant portion of work performed by volunteer moderators is social and communicative in nature. Even the chosen case studies of large-scale esports events on Twitch, where the most visible and intense tasks given to volunteer moderators consists of reacting and removing user-generated chat messages, exposes faults in the reactive model of moderation. A better appreciation of the full scope of moderation work will be vital in guiding future research, design, and development efforts in this field.

Recasting Player Two

2016-2017: mikael jakobsson, claudia lo, kaelan doyle myerscough, richard eberhardt & dozens of game designers from near and far.

The game development industry is currently on a mission to include “non-gamers” in local co-op games. Within the development community and among players, these games are said to have a “girlfriend mode.” Developers often cast player one as an expert player in their own image, while player two is a projection of antiquated gender stereotypes who has less agency and control over their play experience. This type of interaction would be better described as mansplaining in motion. This project consists of a series of workshops with participants from the game development community, where we not just discuss and spread awareness of what is problematic with current games and development practices, but work together in creating better alternatives.

OpenRelativity

2012-2016: gerd kortemeyer, philip tan, zach sherin, ryan cheu, & steven schirra.

OpenRelativity is an open-source toolkit to simulate effects of special relativity by varying the speed of light, developed to help people create, test, and share experiments to explore the effects of special relativity. Developed by the MIT Game Lab, it contains open-source code for public use with the free and paid versions of the Unity engine. The toolkit was developed during the creation of the game A Slower Speed of Light.

Gender and Systems of Warm Interaction in Digital Games

2014-2016: kyrie caldwell (s.m., comparative media studies, 2016).

This thesis considers the ways in which digital game mechanics (interactive inputs) contribute to games’ worldbuilding. In particular, this work is concerned with the replication and reinforcement of problematic gender roles through game mechanics that express positive (“warm”) interactions between characters, namely healing, protection, and building relationships. Characters who are women and girls are often associated with physical weakness, nature-based magic, and nurturing (or absent) personalities, whereas characters who are men and boys often protect women through physical combat, heal through medical means, and keep an emotional distance from others. Relationships built through game mechanics rely on one-sided agency and potential that renders lovers and friends as characters who exist to support the player character in achieving the primary goals of the game. Even warm interactions in games carry negative, even potentially violent and oppressive, representations and that there is thusly a need for design interventions on the mechanical level to mitigate violence in game worlds and the reinforcement of negative real world stereotypes.

E-sports Broadcasting

2014-2015: jesse sell (s.m., comparative media studies, 2015).

Situating e-sports broadcasting within the larger sports media industrial complex, discussing e-sportscasters, and investigating the economics behind the growing e-sports industry. E-sports, often referred to as competitive or professional gaming, stands as a prime example of the merger of work and play. A growing body of literature has started focusing on this pastime turned profession. As more professionals enter the scene and audiences continue to grow, e-sports broadcasters look towards older models of broadcasting to inform their own style. This reapplication of former conventions stands in contrast to the trends in the larger sports media trajectory. E-sports broadcasting is largely informed by traditional sports broadcasting, yet remains unable to fully capture the success of the global sports industry. On-air talent, once informed solely by traditional sportscasters are now looking to their fellow e-sportscasters to create something new. Revenue streams which form the foundation of the sports industry are making their way into e-sports but not in the way that one might expect.

MIT Overseer: Improving Observer Experience in Starcraft 2

2013-2015: philip tan & nick mohr.

The MIT Overseer project aims to provide casters with real-time graphics to help them tell the story of a game while it is in progress. We are trying out several different ways of displaying what happened in the past of a single game and anticipating what might happen in the near future.

Subversive Game Design and Meaningful Conflict

2012-2013: konstantin mitgutsch & steven schirra.

Movers & Shakers is used as a research tool to explore how a social component influences experiences in serious games. In addition subversive game design elements are implemented in the game to foster the players’ thinking process and to get them out of unquestioned routines. In the game the players are challenged to give up their prior egoistic goals to reach their common goal – to save the world. In a nutshell, the game shifts from a competitive to a collaborational gameplay – once the players start communicating.

Playstyle Motivation Explorations

2012-2013: todd harper.

Across game genres and communities, there are as many styles of play as there are players, from the highly competitive “powergamer” to the MMO fan who’s content to just take in the scenery and everything in between. Fugue is a game that asks: what are some of the motivations behind these styles? Do players reflect themselves — or a desired projection of the self — through playstyle? Or does the shape and context of the game itself direct such decisions? In order to explore these questions, we created a small, controlled gamespace that gives players an opportunity to express themselves via play.

Procedural Puzzles as a Design Tool for Games

2011-2013: alec thomson, clara fernández-vara.

Puzzledice is a set of tools and programming libraries for procedurally generating puzzles for a wide variety of games. These tools, developed by Alec Thomson at the MIT Game Lab from 2011-2013, are the result of multiple iterations of research and were used to develop Stranded in Singapore during the 2011 summer session of the Singapore-MIT GAMBIT Game Lab. Puzzledice is the result of research into how general purpose procedural puzzles can be used as a tool by game designers. These tools were designed to meet the following three goals: Solvability, Generality, and Usability.

Televisual Sports Videogames

2012-2013: abe stein (s.m., comparative media studies, 2013).

Over the three decade long history of sports videogame development, design conventions have lead to the emergence of a new sports game genre: the televisual sports videogames. These games, which usually simulate major professional or college sports, look and sound like television, and they use televised sports as a reference point for players. This thesis takes a critical look at how these televisual sports videogames are situated in the broader sports media industrial complex of North America, while also considering how the televisual design of these games is meaningful for fans of sports. Specifically, the text looks at how sports videogames reflect or reinforce dominant ideologies of hegemonic sports culture. Building on critical theories in sports studies, and through critical close readings of videogame texts, this thesis explores the relationship between sports television production, and sports videogames, with a focus on features that are found in both. Features such as introductory sequences, audio commentary, in-game advertising, news tickers, and instant replay are all commonly found in both sports television and sports videogames.

Purposeful Games for Social Change

2011-2012: konstantin mitgutsch & narda alvarado.

“ Purposeful Games for Social Change ” is a list of serious games designed to foster social change/justice or to raise awareness. This list was created in order to create the Purposeful Games Framework , a tool used to assess the cohesiveness in design of serious games.

Singapore-MIT GAMBIT Game Lab

The Singapore-MIT GAMBIT Game Lab was a six-year research initiative that addressed important challenges faced by the global digital game research community and industry, with a core focus on identifying and solving research problems using a multi-disciplinary approach that can be applied by Singapore’s digital game industry. The Singapore-MIT GAMBIT Game Lab focused on building collaborations between Singapore institutions of higher learning and several MIT departments to accomplish both research and development.

Research topics explored included artificial intelligence, game design, computer graphics and animation, character design, procedurally generated content, interactive fiction, narrative design, and video game production. Game prototypes were made for these research topics during the GAMBIT summer internship program, many of which won international recognition at festivals like IndieCade and the Independent Games Festivals held at GDC and GDC China, as well as academic conferences such as Meaningful Play and Foundations of Digital Games.

IEEE Account

• Change Username/Password
• Update Address

Purchase Details

• Payment Options
• Order History
• View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

• Communications Preferences
• Profession and Education
• Technical Interests
• US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
• Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
• Contact & Support
• About IEEE Xplore
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Nondiscrimination Policy
• Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.

Search & Additional Links

Additional links, meet bucknell.

• Plan a Visit
• Bucknell Stories
• Bucknell Magazine
• Bucknell Leadership
• Class Pages
• History & Traditions

Admissions & Aid

• Request Information
• Apply to Bucknell
• Tuition, Fees & Financial Aid
• Admissions Dates & Deadlines
• Virtual Welcome Center
• I've Been Admitted
• Find Your Counselor
• Office of Admissions
• Office of Financial Aid
• Admissions Blog & Podcast
• Majors & Minors
• College of Arts & Sciences
• College of Engineering
• Freeman College of Management
• Graduate Studies
• Undergraduate Research Opportunities
• Beyond the Classroom
• For Current Students

Life at Bucknell

• Housing & Dining
• First-year Experience
• Health, Wellness & Safety
• Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
• Free Expression
• Sustainability
• Arts & Performances
• Get Involved
• Commencement

Find Information For...

• Prospective Students
• Families of Prospective Students
• Current Students
• Current Parents & Families
• Prospective Employees
• Faculty & Staff

Find information for

@bucknellu social media accounts, meet our students social media accounts.

Bucknell Researchers Predict Next NFL Scorigami in New Paper

August 30, 2024

by Mike Ferlazzo

Professors Sam Gutekunst (right) and Joe Wilck (center) discuss an NFL-related research project with student Max Wilson '27 (left). Photo by Emily Paine, Marketing & Communications

NFL scorigamis — a final score combination that has never previously occurred in league history, such as 11-6 or 22-16 — have sparked a cult-like following among football fans and statisticians alike. For many, tracking the emergence of a new scorigami has become a side game almost as thrilling as the game itself, adding to the excitement of a new NFL season this week.

But predicting when and where these elusive scores will appear has always been more of an art than a science — until now, thanks to Bucknell University researchers.

Professor Sam Gutekunst , the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Professor of Data Science , along with recent Bucknell graduates Liam Moyer '24 and Jameson Railey '23, and USC Professor Andrew Daw, took on the challenge of scientifically predicting the next NFL scorigami. They are authors on a research paper that offers a fresh approach to forecasting these rare events. The paper has been accepted for presentation at the prestigious Winter Simulation Conference in Orlando in December.

The team's study compares two models: a traditional Poisson random variable (R.V.) model, which has long been a staple in sports score prediction, and a new non-stationary (N.S.) Poisson process model. The latter, developed by the authors, accounts for the dynamic nature of NFL games, incorporating factors such as team strength, strategic decision-making and changes in play as the game progresses.

"Traditional models simplify the game by considering each scoring event independently, but NFL games are much more complex," Gutekunst says. "These traditional models don't capture the impact of factors like team strength or how strategies shift as the game progresses. Our model addresses these dynamics, making it more accurate for predicting scorigamis."

As of the end of the 2023-2024 NFL season, their research found that the probability of a scorigami occurring in a given game was 5.58% according to the Poisson R.V. model and 5.52% with the N.S. Poisson process model. The study identified the most likely scores to become the next scorigami within this framework, with 32-26 and 36-23 emerging as the top contenders.

"Our top prediction is 32-26," says Gutekunst. "If a game ends in a scorigami, that's the most likely score. While the odds are still long — about a one in 60 chance — this score stands out as a good bet compared to other possibilities."

This prediction showcases the subtle differences between the two models. The Poisson R.V. model ranks 36-23 as the most likely new scorigami, with a conditional probability of 1.759%, while the N.S. Poisson process model gives 32-26 the edge with a probability of 1.737%. These slight variations underscore how the models account for the competitive nature of NFL games and the in-game dynamics that make a scorigami more likely to happen.

The research draws from an extensive dataset, utilizing resources like Pro Football Reference and the Python package NFL data, which records detailed play-by-play data for NFL games.

"Our model looks at everything from scoring events to strategic decisions, like how the current score changes whether or not a team attempts a two-point conversion after a touchdown," Gutekunst says. "In our model for predicting scores, we've focused on data from the 2015 through 2023 seasons since that's the last time a major rule change had a notable effect on game dynamics."

The Bucknell team is looking forward to presenting this research in December at the Winter Simulation Conference, which will publish the paper in its peer-reviewed proceedings. The conference is known for its focus on cutting-edge simulation and modeling.

"This project is a great example of academic curiosity intersecting with real-world application," Gutekunst says. "Liam and Jamison were passionate about scorigamis, and together we were able to create something that contributes meaningfully to both the academic community and the world of sports."

As the NFL season begins, fans and bettors alike will be watching closely to see when the next scorigami occurs. When it occurs, the Bucknell researchers will be watching closely to see if it aligns with their predictions.

Related Stories

Bucknell professors deeann reeder, ken field featured in august national geographic cover story.

Bucknell Students Named as National Science Foundation Fellows and Goldwater Scholars

Want to learn more about Bucknell?

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 31 August 2024

Knowledge mapping and evolution of research on older adults’ technology acceptance: a bibliometric study from 2013 to 2023

• Xianru Shang   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0000-8906-3216 1 ,
• Zijian Liu 1 ,
• Chen Gong 1 ,
• Zhigang Hu 1 ,
• Yuexuan Wu 1 &
• Chengliang Wang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2208-3508 2  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  1115 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

The rapid expansion of information technology and the intensification of population aging are two prominent features of contemporary societal development. Investigating older adults’ acceptance and use of technology is key to facilitating their integration into an information-driven society. Given this context, the technology acceptance of older adults has emerged as a prioritized research topic, attracting widespread attention in the academic community. However, existing research remains fragmented and lacks a systematic framework. To address this gap, we employed bibliometric methods, utilizing the Web of Science Core Collection to conduct a comprehensive review of literature on older adults’ technology acceptance from 2013 to 2023. Utilizing VOSviewer and CiteSpace for data assessment and visualization, we created knowledge mappings of research on older adults’ technology acceptance. Our study employed multidimensional methods such as co-occurrence analysis, clustering, and burst analysis to: (1) reveal research dynamics, key journals, and domains in this field; (2) identify leading countries, their collaborative networks, and core research institutions and authors; (3) recognize the foundational knowledge system centered on theoretical model deepening, emerging technology applications, and research methods and evaluation, uncovering seminal literature and observing a shift from early theoretical and influential factor analyses to empirical studies focusing on individual factors and emerging technologies; (4) moreover, current research hotspots are primarily in the areas of factors influencing technology adoption, human-robot interaction experiences, mobile health management, and aging-in-place technology, highlighting the evolutionary context and quality distribution of research themes. Finally, we recommend that future research should deeply explore improvements in theoretical models, long-term usage, and user experience evaluation. Overall, this study presents a clear framework of existing research in the field of older adults’ technology acceptance, providing an important reference for future theoretical exploration and innovative applications.

Similar content being viewed by others

Research progress and intellectual structure of design for digital equity (DDE): A bibliometric analysis based on citespace

Exploring the role of interaction in older-adult service innovation: insights from the testing stage

Smart device interest, perceived usefulness, and preferences in rural Alabama seniors

Introduction.

In contemporary society, the rapid development of information technology has been intricately intertwined with the intensifying trend of population aging. According to the latest United Nations forecast, by 2050, the global population aged 65 and above is expected to reach 1.6 billion, representing about 16% of the total global population (UN 2023 ). Given the significant challenges of global aging, there is increasing evidence that emerging technologies have significant potential to maintain health and independence for older adults in their home and healthcare environments (Barnard et al. 2013 ; Soar 2010 ; Vancea and Solé-Casals 2016 ). This includes, but is not limited to, enhancing residential safety with smart home technologies (Touqeer et al. 2021 ; Wang et al. 2022 ), improving living independence through wearable technologies (Perez et al. 2023 ), and increasing medical accessibility via telehealth services (Kruse et al. 2020 ). Technological innovations are redefining the lifestyles of older adults, encouraging a shift from passive to active participation (González et al. 2012 ; Mostaghel 2016 ). Nevertheless, the effective application and dissemination of technology still depends on user acceptance and usage intentions (Naseri et al. 2023 ; Wang et al. 2023a ; Xia et al. 2024 ; Yu et al. 2023 ). Particularly, older adults face numerous challenges in accepting and using new technologies. These challenges include not only physical and cognitive limitations but also a lack of technological experience, along with the influences of social and economic factors (Valk et al. 2018 ; Wilson et al. 2021 ).

User acceptance of technology is a significant focus within information systems (IS) research (Dai et al. 2024 ), with several models developed to explain and predict user behavior towards technology usage, including the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis 1989 ), TAM2, TAM3, and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al. 2003 ). Older adults, as a group with unique needs, exhibit different behavioral patterns during technology acceptance than other user groups, and these uniquenesses include changes in cognitive abilities, as well as motivations, attitudes, and perceptions of the use of new technologies (Chen and Chan 2011 ). The continual expansion of technology introduces considerable challenges for older adults, rendering the understanding of their technology acceptance a research priority. Thus, conducting in-depth research into older adults’ acceptance of technology is critically important for enhancing their integration into the information society and improving their quality of life through technological advancements.

Reviewing relevant literature to identify research gaps helps further solidify the theoretical foundation of the research topic. However, many existing literature reviews primarily focus on the factors influencing older adults’ acceptance or intentions to use technology. For instance, Ma et al. ( 2021 ) conducted a comprehensive analysis of the determinants of older adults’ behavioral intentions to use technology; Liu et al. ( 2022 ) categorized key variables in studies of older adults’ technology acceptance, noting a shift in focus towards social and emotional factors; Yap et al. ( 2022 ) identified seven categories of antecedents affecting older adults’ use of technology from an analysis of 26 articles, including technological, psychological, social, personal, cost, behavioral, and environmental factors; Schroeder et al. ( 2023 ) extracted 119 influencing factors from 59 articles and further categorized these into six themes covering demographics, health status, and emotional awareness. Additionally, some studies focus on the application of specific technologies, such as Ferguson et al. ( 2021 ), who explored barriers and facilitators to older adults using wearable devices for heart monitoring, and He et al. ( 2022 ) and Baer et al. ( 2022 ), who each conducted in-depth investigations into the acceptance of social assistive robots and mobile nutrition and fitness apps, respectively. In summary, current literature reviews on older adults’ technology acceptance exhibit certain limitations. Due to the interdisciplinary nature and complex knowledge structure of this field, traditional literature reviews often rely on qualitative analysis, based on literature analysis and periodic summaries, which lack sufficient objectivity and comprehensiveness. Additionally, systematic research is relatively limited, lacking a macroscopic description of the research trajectory from a holistic perspective. Over the past decade, research on older adults’ technology acceptance has experienced rapid growth, with a significant increase in literature, necessitating the adoption of new methods to review and examine the developmental trends in this field (Chen 2006 ; Van Eck and Waltman 2010 ). Bibliometric analysis, as an effective quantitative research method, analyzes published literature through visualization, offering a viable approach to extracting patterns and insights from a large volume of papers, and has been widely applied in numerous scientific research fields (Achuthan et al. 2023 ; Liu and Duffy 2023 ). Therefore, this study will employ bibliometric methods to systematically analyze research articles related to older adults’ technology acceptance published in the Web of Science Core Collection from 2013 to 2023, aiming to understand the core issues and evolutionary trends in the field, and to provide valuable references for future related research. Specifically, this study aims to explore and answer the following questions:

RQ1: What are the research dynamics in the field of older adults’ technology acceptance over the past decade? What are the main academic journals and fields that publish studies related to older adults’ technology acceptance?

RQ2: How is the productivity in older adults’ technology acceptance research distributed among countries, institutions, and authors?

RQ3: What are the knowledge base and seminal literature in older adults’ technology acceptance research? How has the research theme progressed?

RQ4: What are the current hot topics and their evolutionary trajectories in older adults’ technology acceptance research? How is the quality of research distributed?

Methodology and materials

Research method.

In recent years, bibliometrics has become one of the crucial methods for analyzing literature reviews and is widely used in disciplinary and industrial intelligence analysis (Jing et al. 2023 ; Lin and Yu 2024a ; Wang et al. 2024a ; Xu et al. 2021 ). Bibliometric software facilitates the visualization analysis of extensive literature data, intuitively displaying the network relationships and evolutionary processes between knowledge units, and revealing the underlying knowledge structure and potential information (Chen et al. 2024 ; López-Robles et al. 2018 ; Wang et al. 2024c ). This method provides new insights into the current status and trends of specific research areas, along with quantitative evidence, thereby enhancing the objectivity and scientific validity of the research conclusions (Chen et al. 2023 ; Geng et al. 2024 ). VOSviewer and CiteSpace are two widely used bibliometric software tools in academia (Pan et al. 2018 ), recognized for their robust functionalities based on the JAVA platform. Although each has its unique features, combining these two software tools effectively constructs mapping relationships between literature knowledge units and clearly displays the macrostructure of the knowledge domains. Particularly, VOSviewer, with its excellent graphical representation capabilities, serves as an ideal tool for handling large datasets and precisely identifying the focal points and hotspots of research topics. Therefore, this study utilizes VOSviewer (version 1.6.19) and CiteSpace (version 6.1.R6), combined with in-depth literature analysis, to comprehensively examine and interpret the research theme of older adults’ technology acceptance through an integrated application of quantitative and qualitative methods.

Data source

Web of Science is a comprehensively recognized database in academia, featuring literature that has undergone rigorous peer review and editorial scrutiny (Lin and Yu 2024b ; Mongeon and Paul-Hus 2016 ; Pranckutė 2021 ). This study utilizes the Web of Science Core Collection as its data source, specifically including three major citation indices: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), and Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI). These indices encompass high-quality research literature in the fields of science, social sciences, and arts and humanities, ensuring the comprehensiveness and reliability of the data. We combined “older adults” with “technology acceptance” through thematic search, with the specific search strategy being: TS = (elder OR elderly OR aging OR ageing OR senile OR senior OR old people OR “older adult*”) AND TS = (“technology acceptance” OR “user acceptance” OR “consumer acceptance”). The time span of literature search is from 2013 to 2023, with the types limited to “Article” and “Review” and the language to “English”. Additionally, the search was completed by October 27, 2023, to avoid data discrepancies caused by database updates. The initial search yielded 764 journal articles. Given that searches often retrieve articles that are superficially relevant but actually non-compliant, manual screening post-search was essential to ensure the relevance of the literature (Chen et al. 2024 ). Through manual screening, articles significantly deviating from the research theme were eliminated and rigorously reviewed. Ultimately, this study obtained 500 valid sample articles from the Web of Science Core Collection. The complete PRISMA screening process is illustrated in Fig. 1 .

Presentation of the data culling process in detail.

Data standardization

Raw data exported from databases often contain multiple expressions of the same terminology (Nguyen and Hallinger 2020 ). To ensure the accuracy and consistency of data, it is necessary to standardize the raw data (Strotmann and Zhao 2012 ). This study follows the data standardization process proposed by Taskin and Al ( 2019 ), mainly executing the following operations:

(1) Standardization of author and institution names is conducted to address different name expressions for the same author. For instance, “Chan, Alan Hoi Shou” and “Chan, Alan H. S.” are considered the same author, and distinct authors with the same name are differentiated by adding identifiers. Diverse forms of institutional names are unified to address variations caused by name changes or abbreviations, such as standardizing “FRANKFURT UNIV APPL SCI” and “Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences,” as well as “Chinese University of Hong Kong” and “University of Hong Kong” to consistent names.

(2) Different expressions of journal names are unified. For example, “International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction” and “Int J Hum Comput Interact” are standardized to a single name. This ensures consistency in journal names and prevents misclassification of literature due to differing journal names. Additionally, it involves checking if the journals have undergone name changes in the past decade to prevent any impact on the analysis due to such changes.

(3) Keywords data are cleansed by removing words that do not directly pertain to specific research content (e.g., people, review), merging synonyms (e.g., “UX” and “User Experience,” “aging-in-place” and “aging in place”), and standardizing plural forms of keywords (e.g., “assistive technologies” and “assistive technology,” “social robots” and “social robot”). This reduces redundant information in knowledge mapping.

Bibliometric results and analysis

Distribution power (rq1), literature descriptive statistical analysis.

Table 1 presents a detailed descriptive statistical overview of the literature in the field of older adults’ technology acceptance. After deduplication using the CiteSpace software, this study confirmed a valid sample size of 500 articles. Authored by 1839 researchers, the documents encompass 792 research institutions across 54 countries and are published in 217 different academic journals. As of the search cutoff date, these articles have accumulated 13,829 citations, with an annual average of 1156 citations, and an average of 27.66 citations per article. The h-index, a composite metric of quantity and quality of scientific output (Kamrani et al. 2021 ), reached 60 in this study.

Trends in publications and disciplinary distribution

The number of publications and citations are significant indicators of the research field’s development, reflecting its continuity, attention, and impact (Ale Ebrahim et al. 2014 ). The ranking of annual publications and citations in the field of older adults’ technology acceptance studies is presented chronologically in Fig. 2A . The figure shows a clear upward trend in the amount of literature in this field. Between 2013 and 2017, the number of publications increased slowly and decreased in 2018. However, in 2019, the number of publications increased rapidly to 52 and reached a peak of 108 in 2022, which is 6.75 times higher than in 2013. In 2022, the frequency of document citations reached its highest point with 3466 citations, reflecting the widespread recognition and citation of research in this field. Moreover, the curve of the annual number of publications fits a quadratic function, with a goodness-of-fit R 2 of 0.9661, indicating that the number of future publications is expected to increase even more rapidly.

A Trends in trends in annual publications and citations (2013–2023). B Overlay analysis of the distribution of discipline fields.

Figure 2B shows that research on older adults’ technology acceptance involves the integration of multidisciplinary knowledge. According to Web of Science Categories, these 500 articles are distributed across 85 different disciplines. We have tabulated the top ten disciplines by publication volume (Table 2 ), which include Medical Informatics (75 articles, 15.00%), Health Care Sciences & Services (71 articles, 14.20%), Gerontology (61 articles, 12.20%), Public Environmental & Occupational Health (57 articles, 11.40%), and Geriatrics & Gerontology (52 articles, 10.40%), among others. The high output in these disciplines reflects the concentrated global academic interest in this comprehensive research topic. Additionally, interdisciplinary research approaches provide diverse perspectives and a solid theoretical foundation for studies on older adults’ technology acceptance, also paving the way for new research directions.

Knowledge flow analysis

A dual-map overlay is a CiteSpace map superimposed on top of a base map, which shows the interrelationships between journals in different domains, representing the publication and citation activities in each domain (Chen and Leydesdorff 2014 ). The overlay map reveals the link between the citing domain (on the left side) and the cited domain (on the right side), reflecting the knowledge flow of the discipline at the journal level (Leydesdorff and Rafols 2012 ). We utilize the in-built Z-score algorithm of the software to cluster the graph, as shown in Fig. 3 .

The left side shows the citing journal, and the right side shows the cited journal.

Figure 3 shows the distribution of citing journals clusters for older adults’ technology acceptance on the left side, while the right side refers to the main cited journals clusters. Two knowledge flow citation trajectories were obtained; they are presented by the color of the cited regions, and the thickness of these trajectories is proportional to the Z-score scaled frequency of citations (Chen et al. 2014 ). Within the cited regions, the most popular fields with the most records covered are “HEALTH, NURSING, MEDICINE” and “PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATION, SOCIAL”, and the elliptical aspect ratio of these two fields stands out. Fields have prominent elliptical aspect ratios, highlighting their significant influence on older adults’ technology acceptance research. Additionally, the major citation trajectories originate in these two areas and progress to the frontier research area of “PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATION, HEALTH”. It is worth noting that the citation trajectory from “PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATION, SOCIAL” has a significant Z-value (z = 6.81), emphasizing the significance and impact of this development path. In the future, “MATHEMATICS, SYSTEMS, MATHEMATICAL”, “MOLECULAR, BIOLOGY, IMMUNOLOGY”, and “NEUROLOGY, SPORTS, OPHTHALMOLOGY” may become emerging fields. The fields of “MEDICINE, MEDICAL, CLINICAL” may be emerging areas of cutting-edge research.

Main research journals analysis

Table 3 provides statistics for the top ten journals by publication volume in the field of older adults’ technology acceptance. Together, these journals have published 137 articles, accounting for 27.40% of the total publications, indicating that there is no highly concentrated core group of journals in this field, with publications being relatively dispersed. Notably, Computers in Human Behavior , Journal of Medical Internet Research , and International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction each lead with 15 publications. In terms of citation metrics, International Journal of Medical Informatics and Computers in Human Behavior stand out significantly, with the former accumulating a total of 1,904 citations, averaging 211.56 citations per article, and the latter totaling 1,449 citations, with an average of 96.60 citations per article. These figures emphasize the academic authority and widespread impact of these journals within the research field.

Research power (RQ2)

Countries and collaborations analysis.

The analysis revealed the global research pattern for country distribution and collaboration (Chen et al. 2019 ). Figure 4A shows the network of national collaborations on older adults’ technology acceptance research. The size of the bubbles represents the amount of publications in each country, while the thickness of the connecting lines expresses the closeness of the collaboration among countries. Generally, this research subject has received extensive international attention, with China and the USA publishing far more than any other countries. China has established notable research collaborations with the USA, UK and Malaysia in this field, while other countries have collaborations, but the closeness is relatively low and scattered. Figure 4B shows the annual publication volume dynamics of the top ten countries in terms of total publications. Since 2017, China has consistently increased its annual publications, while the USA has remained relatively stable. In 2019, the volume of publications in each country increased significantly, this was largely due to the global outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has led to increased reliance on information technology among the elderly for medical consultations, online socialization, and health management (Sinha et al. 2021 ). This phenomenon has led to research advances in technology acceptance among older adults in various countries. Table 4 shows that the top ten countries account for 93.20% of the total cumulative number of publications, with each country having published more than 20 papers. Among these ten countries, all of them except China are developed countries, indicating that the research field of older adults’ technology acceptance has received general attention from developed countries. Currently, China and the USA were the leading countries in terms of publications with 111 and 104 respectively, accounting for 22.20% and 20.80%. The UK, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands also made significant contributions. The USA and China ranked first and second in terms of the number of citations, while the Netherlands had the highest average citations, indicating the high impact and quality of its research. The UK has shown outstanding performance in international cooperation, while the USA highlights its significant academic influence in this field with the highest h-index value.

A National collaboration network. B Annual volume of publications in the top 10 countries.

Institutions and authors analysis

Analyzing the number of publications and citations can reveal an institution’s or author’s research strength and influence in a particular research area (Kwiek 2021 ). Tables 5 and 6 show the statistics of the institutions and authors whose publication counts are in the top ten, respectively. As shown in Table 5 , higher education institutions hold the main position in this research field. Among the top ten institutions, City University of Hong Kong and The University of Hong Kong from China lead with 14 and 9 publications, respectively. City University of Hong Kong has the highest h-index, highlighting its significant influence in the field. It is worth noting that Tilburg University in the Netherlands is not among the top five in terms of publications, but the high average citation count (130.14) of its literature demonstrates the high quality of its research.

After analyzing the authors’ output using Price’s Law (Redner 1998 ), the highest number of publications among the authors counted ( n  = 10) defines a publication threshold of 3 for core authors in this research area. As a result of quantitative screening, a total of 63 core authors were identified. Table 6 shows that Chen from Zhejiang University, China, Ziefle from RWTH Aachen University, Germany, and Rogers from Macquarie University, Australia, were the top three authors in terms of the number of publications, with 10, 9, and 8 articles, respectively. In terms of average citation rate, Peek and Wouters, both scholars from the Netherlands, have significantly higher rates than other scholars, with 183.2 and 152.67 respectively. This suggests that their research is of high quality and widely recognized. Additionally, Chen and Rogers have high h-indices in this field.

Knowledge base and theme progress (RQ3)

Research knowledge base.

Co-citation relationships occur when two documents are cited together (Zhang and Zhu 2022 ). Co-citation mapping uses references as nodes to represent the knowledge base of a subject area (Min et al. 2021). Figure 5A illustrates co-occurrence mapping in older adults’ technology acceptance research, where larger nodes signify higher co-citation frequencies. Co-citation cluster analysis can be used to explore knowledge structure and research boundaries (Hota et al. 2020 ; Shiau et al. 2023 ). The co-citation clustering mapping of older adults’ technology acceptance research literature (Fig. 5B ) shows that the Q value of the clustering result is 0.8129 (>0.3), and the average value of the weight S is 0.9391 (>0.7), indicating that the clusters are uniformly distributed with a significant and credible structure. This further proves that the boundaries of the research field are clear and there is significant differentiation in the field. The figure features 18 cluster labels, each associated with thematic color blocks corresponding to different time slices. Highlighted emerging research themes include #2 Smart Home Technology, #7 Social Live, and #10 Customer Service. Furthermore, the clustering labels extracted are primarily classified into three categories: theoretical model deepening, emerging technology applications, research methods and evaluation, as detailed in Table 7 .

A Co-citation analysis of references. B Clustering network analysis of references.

Seminal literature analysis

The top ten nodes in terms of co-citation frequency were selected for further analysis. Table 8 displays the corresponding node information. Studies were categorized into four main groups based on content analysis. (1) Research focusing on specific technology usage by older adults includes studies by Peek et al. ( 2014 ), Ma et al. ( 2016 ), Hoque and Sorwar ( 2017 ), and Li et al. ( 2019 ), who investigated the factors influencing the use of e-technology, smartphones, mHealth, and smart wearables, respectively. (2) Concerning the development of theoretical models of technology acceptance, Chen and Chan ( 2014 ) introduced the Senior Technology Acceptance Model (STAM), and Macedo ( 2017 ) analyzed the predictive power of UTAUT2 in explaining older adults’ intentional behaviors and information technology usage. (3) In exploring older adults’ information technology adoption and behavior, Lee and Coughlin ( 2015 ) emphasized that the adoption of technology by older adults is a multifactorial process that includes performance, price, value, usability, affordability, accessibility, technical support, social support, emotion, independence, experience, and confidence. Yusif et al. ( 2016 ) conducted a literature review examining the key barriers affecting older adults’ adoption of assistive technology, including factors such as privacy, trust, functionality/added value, cost, and stigma. (4) From the perspective of research into older adults’ technology acceptance, Mitzner et al. ( 2019 ) assessed the long-term usage of computer systems designed for the elderly, whereas Guner and Acarturk ( 2020 ) compared information technology usage and acceptance between older and younger adults. The breadth and prevalence of this literature make it a vital reference for researchers in the field, also providing new perspectives and inspiration for future research directions.

Research thematic progress

Burst citation is a node of literature that guides the sudden change in dosage, which usually represents a prominent development or major change in a particular field, with innovative and forward-looking qualities. By analyzing the emergent literature, it is often easy to understand the dynamics of the subject area, mapping the emerging thematic change (Chen et al. 2022 ). Figure 6 shows the burst citation mapping in the field of older adults’ technology acceptance research, with burst citations represented by red nodes (Fig. 6A ). For the ten papers with the highest burst intensity (Fig. 6B ), this study will conduct further analysis in conjunction with literature review.

A Burst detection of co-citation. B The top 10 references with the strongest citation bursts.

As shown in Fig. 6 , Mitzner et al. ( 2010 ) broke the stereotype that older adults are fearful of technology, found that they actually have positive attitudes toward technology, and emphasized the centrality of ease of use and usefulness in the process of technology acceptance. This finding provides an important foundation for subsequent research. During the same period, Wagner et al. ( 2010 ) conducted theory-deepening and applied research on technology acceptance among older adults. The research focused on older adults’ interactions with computers from the perspective of Social Cognitive Theory (SCT). This expanded the understanding of technology acceptance, particularly regarding the relationship between behavior, environment, and other SCT elements. In addition, Pan and Jordan-Marsh ( 2010 ) extended the TAM to examine the interactions among predictors of perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, subjective norm, and convenience conditions when older adults use the Internet, taking into account the moderating roles of gender and age. Heerink et al. ( 2010 ) adapted and extended the UTAUT, constructed a technology acceptance model specifically designed for older users’ acceptance of assistive social agents, and validated it using controlled experiments and longitudinal data, explaining intention to use by combining functional assessment and social interaction variables.

Then the research theme shifted to an in-depth analysis of the factors influencing technology acceptance among older adults. Two papers with high burst strengths emerged during this period: Peek et al. ( 2014 ) (Strength = 12.04), Chen and Chan ( 2014 ) (Strength = 9.81). Through a systematic literature review and empirical study, Peek STM and Chen K, among others, identified multidimensional factors that influence older adults’ technology acceptance. Peek et al. ( 2014 ) analyzed literature on the acceptance of in-home care technology among older adults and identified six factors that influence their acceptance: concerns about technology, expected benefits, technology needs, technology alternatives, social influences, and older adult characteristics, with a focus on differences between pre- and post-implementation factors. Chen and Chan ( 2014 ) constructed the STAM by administering a questionnaire to 1012 older adults and adding eight important factors, including technology anxiety, self-efficacy, cognitive ability, and physical function, based on the TAM. This enriches the theoretical foundation of the field. In addition, Braun ( 2013 ) highlighted the role of perceived usefulness, trust in social networks, and frequency of Internet use in older adults’ use of social networks, while ease of use and social pressure were not significant influences. These findings contribute to the study of older adults’ technology acceptance within specific technology application domains.

Recent research has focused on empirical studies of personal factors and emerging technologies. Ma et al. ( 2016 ) identified key personal factors affecting smartphone acceptance among older adults through structured questionnaires and face-to-face interviews with 120 participants. The study found that cost, self-satisfaction, and convenience were important factors influencing perceived usefulness and ease of use. This study offers empirical evidence to comprehend the main factors that drive smartphone acceptance among Chinese older adults. Additionally, Yusif et al. ( 2016 ) presented an overview of the obstacles that hinder older adults’ acceptance of assistive technologies, focusing on privacy, trust, and functionality.

In summary, research on older adults’ technology acceptance has shifted from early theoretical deepening and analysis of influencing factors to empirical studies in the areas of personal factors and emerging technologies, which have greatly enriched the theoretical basis of older adults’ technology acceptance and provided practical guidance for the design of emerging technology products.

Research hotspots, evolutionary trends, and quality distribution (RQ4)

Core keywords analysis.

Keywords concise the main idea and core of the literature, and are a refined summary of the research content (Huang et al. 2021 ). In CiteSpace, nodes with a centrality value greater than 0.1 are considered to be critical nodes. Analyzing keywords with high frequency and centrality helps to visualize the hot topics in the research field (Park et al. 2018 ). The merged keywords were imported into CiteSpace, and the top 10 keywords were counted and sorted by frequency and centrality respectively, as shown in Table 9 . The results show that the keyword “TAM” has the highest frequency (92), followed by “UTAUT” (24), which reflects that the in-depth study of the existing technology acceptance model and its theoretical expansion occupy a central position in research related to older adults’ technology acceptance. Furthermore, the terms ‘assistive technology’ and ‘virtual reality’ are both high-frequency and high-centrality terms (frequency = 17, centrality = 0.10), indicating that the research on assistive technology and virtual reality for older adults is the focus of current academic attention.

Research hotspots analysis

Using VOSviewer for keyword co-occurrence analysis organizes keywords into groups or clusters based on their intrinsic connections and frequencies, clearly highlighting the research field’s hot topics. The connectivity among keywords reveals correlations between different topics. To ensure accuracy, the analysis only considered the authors’ keywords. Subsequently, the keywords were filtered by setting the keyword frequency to 5 to obtain the keyword clustering map of the research on older adults’ technology acceptance research keyword clustering mapping (Fig. 7 ), combined with the keyword co-occurrence clustering network (Fig. 7A ) and the corresponding density situation (Fig. 7B ) to make a detailed analysis of the following four groups of clustered themes.

A Co-occurrence clustering network. B Keyword density.

Cluster #1—Research on the factors influencing technology adoption among older adults is a prominent topic, covering age, gender, self-efficacy, attitude, and and intention to use (Berkowsky et al. 2017 ; Wang et al. 2017 ). It also examined older adults’ attitudes towards and acceptance of digital health technologies (Ahmad and Mozelius, 2022 ). Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic, significantly impacting older adults’ technology attitudes and usage, has underscored the study’s importance and urgency. Therefore, it is crucial to conduct in-depth studies on how older adults accept, adopt, and effectively use new technologies, to address their needs and help them overcome the digital divide within digital inclusion. This will improve their quality of life and healthcare experiences.

Cluster #2—Research focuses on how older adults interact with assistive technologies, especially assistive robots and health monitoring devices, emphasizing trust, usability, and user experience as crucial factors (Halim et al. 2022 ). Moreover, health monitoring technologies effectively track and manage health issues common in older adults, like dementia and mild cognitive impairment (Lussier et al. 2018 ; Piau et al. 2019 ). Interactive exercise games and virtual reality have been deployed to encourage more physical and cognitive engagement among older adults (Campo-Prieto et al. 2021 ). Personalized and innovative technology significantly enhances older adults’ participation, improving their health and well-being.

Cluster #3—Optimizing health management for older adults using mobile technology. With the development of mobile health (mHealth) and health information technology, mobile applications, smartphones, and smart wearable devices have become effective tools to help older users better manage chronic conditions, conduct real-time health monitoring, and even receive telehealth services (Dupuis and Tsotsos 2018 ; Olmedo-Aguirre et al. 2022 ; Kim et al. 2014 ). Additionally, these technologies can mitigate the problem of healthcare resource inequality, especially in developing countries. Older adults’ acceptance and use of these technologies are significantly influenced by their behavioral intentions, motivational factors, and self-management skills. These internal motivational factors, along with external factors, jointly affect older adults’ performance in health management and quality of life.

Cluster #4—Research on technology-assisted home care for older adults is gaining popularity. Environmentally assisted living enhances older adults’ independence and comfort at home, offering essential support and security. This has a crucial impact on promoting healthy aging (Friesen et al. 2016 ; Wahlroos et al. 2023 ). The smart home is a core application in this field, providing a range of solutions that facilitate independent living for the elderly in a highly integrated and user-friendly manner. This fulfills different dimensions of living and health needs (Majumder et al. 2017 ). Moreover, eHealth offers accurate and personalized health management and healthcare services for older adults (Delmastro et al. 2018 ), ensuring their needs are met at home. Research in this field often employs qualitative methods and structural equation modeling to fully understand older adults’ needs and experiences at home and analyze factors influencing technology adoption.

Evolutionary trends analysis

To gain a deeper understanding of the evolutionary trends in research hotspots within the field of older adults’ technology acceptance, we conducted a statistical analysis of the average appearance times of keywords, using CiteSpace to generate the time-zone evolution mapping (Fig. 8 ) and burst keywords. The time-zone mapping visually displays the evolution of keywords over time, intuitively reflecting the frequency and initial appearance of keywords in research, commonly used to identify trends in research topics (Jing et al. 2024a ; Kumar et al. 2021 ). Table 10 lists the top 15 keywords by burst strength, with the red sections indicating high-frequency citations and their burst strength in specific years. These burst keywords reveal the focus and trends of research themes over different periods (Kleinberg 2002 ). Combining insights from the time-zone mapping and burst keywords provides more objective and accurate research insights (Wang et al. 2023b ).

Reflecting the frequency and time of first appearance of keywords in the study.

An integrated analysis of Fig. 8 and Table 10 shows that early research on older adults’ technology acceptance primarily focused on factors such as perceived usefulness, ease of use, and attitudes towards information technology, including their use of computers and the internet (Pan and Jordan-Marsh 2010 ), as well as differences in technology use between older adults and other age groups (Guner and Acarturk 2020 ). Subsequently, the research focus expanded to improving the quality of life for older adults, exploring how technology can optimize health management and enhance the possibility of independent living, emphasizing the significant role of technology in improving the quality of life for the elderly. With ongoing technological advancements, recent research has shifted towards areas such as “virtual reality,” “telehealth,” and “human-robot interaction,” with a focus on the user experience of older adults (Halim et al. 2022 ). The appearance of keywords such as “physical activity” and “exercise” highlights the value of technology in promoting physical activity and health among older adults. This phase of research tends to make cutting-edge technology genuinely serve the practical needs of older adults, achieving its widespread application in daily life. Additionally, research has focused on expanding and quantifying theoretical models of older adults’ technology acceptance, involving keywords such as “perceived risk”, “validation” and “UTAUT”.

In summary, from 2013 to 2023, the field of older adults’ technology acceptance has evolved from initial explorations of influencing factors, to comprehensive enhancements in quality of life and health management, and further to the application and deepening of theoretical models and cutting-edge technologies. This research not only reflects the diversity and complexity of the field but also demonstrates a comprehensive and in-depth understanding of older adults’ interactions with technology across various life scenarios and needs.

Research quality distribution

To reveal the distribution of research quality in the field of older adults’ technology acceptance, a strategic diagram analysis is employed to calculate and illustrate the internal development and interrelationships among various research themes (Xie et al. 2020 ). The strategic diagram uses Centrality as the X-axis and Density as the Y-axis to divide into four quadrants, where the X-axis represents the strength of the connection between thematic clusters and other themes, with higher values indicating a central position in the research field; the Y-axis indicates the level of development within the thematic clusters, with higher values denoting a more mature and widely recognized field (Li and Zhou 2020 ).

Through cluster analysis and manual verification, this study categorized 61 core keywords (Frequency ≥5) into 11 thematic clusters. Subsequently, based on the keywords covered by each thematic cluster, the research themes and their directions for each cluster were summarized (Table 11 ), and the centrality and density coordinates for each cluster were precisely calculated (Table 12 ). Finally, a strategic diagram of the older adults’ technology acceptance research field was constructed (Fig. 9 ). Based on the distribution of thematic clusters across the quadrants in the strategic diagram, the structure and developmental trends of the field were interpreted.

Classification and visualization of theme clusters based on density and centrality.

As illustrated in Fig. 9 , (1) the theme clusters of #3 Usage Experience and #4 Assisted Living Technology are in the first quadrant, characterized by high centrality and density. Their internal cohesion and close links with other themes indicate their mature development, systematic research content or directions have been formed, and they have a significant influence on other themes. These themes play a central role in the field of older adults’ technology acceptance and have promising prospects. (2) The theme clusters of #6 Smart Devices, #9 Theoretical Models, and #10 Mobile Health Applications are in the second quadrant, with higher density but lower centrality. These themes have strong internal connections but weaker external links, indicating that these three themes have received widespread attention from researchers and have been the subject of related research, but more as self-contained systems and exhibit independence. Therefore, future research should further explore in-depth cooperation and cross-application with other themes. (3) The theme clusters of #7 Human-Robot Interaction, #8 Characteristics of the Elderly, and #11 Research Methods are in the third quadrant, with lower centrality and density. These themes are loosely connected internally and have weak links with others, indicating their developmental immaturity. Compared to other topics, they belong to the lower attention edge and niche themes, and there is a need for further investigation. (4) The theme clusters of #1 Digital Healthcare Technology, #2 Psychological Factors, and #5 Socio-Cultural Factors are located in the fourth quadrant, with high centrality but low density. Although closely associated with other research themes, the internal cohesion within these clusters is relatively weak. This suggests that while these themes are closely linked to other research areas, their own development remains underdeveloped, indicating a core immaturity. Nevertheless, these themes are crucial within the research domain of elderly technology acceptance and possess significant potential for future exploration.

Discussion on distribution power (RQ1)

Over the past decade, academic interest and influence in the area of older adults’ technology acceptance have significantly increased. This trend is evidenced by a quantitative analysis of publication and citation volumes, particularly noticeable in 2019 and 2022, where there was a substantial rise in both metrics. The rise is closely linked to the widespread adoption of emerging technologies such as smart homes, wearable devices, and telemedicine among older adults. While these technologies have enhanced their quality of life, they also pose numerous challenges, sparking extensive research into their acceptance, usage behaviors, and influencing factors among the older adults (Pirzada et al. 2022 ; Garcia Reyes et al. 2023 ). Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic led to a surge in technology demand among older adults, especially in areas like medical consultation, online socialization, and health management, further highlighting the importance and challenges of technology. Health risks and social isolation have compelled older adults to rely on technology for daily activities, accelerating its adoption and application within this demographic. This phenomenon has made technology acceptance a critical issue, driving societal and academic focus on the study of technology acceptance among older adults.

The flow of knowledge at the level of high-output disciplines and journals, along with the primary publishing outlets, indicates the highly interdisciplinary nature of research into older adults’ technology acceptance. This reflects the complexity and breadth of issues related to older adults’ technology acceptance, necessitating the integration of multidisciplinary knowledge and approaches. Currently, research is primarily focused on medical health and human-computer interaction, demonstrating academic interest in improving health and quality of life for older adults and addressing the urgent needs related to their interactions with technology. In the field of medical health, research aims to provide advanced and innovative healthcare technologies and services to meet the challenges of an aging population while improving the quality of life for older adults (Abdi et al. 2020 ; Wilson et al. 2021 ). In the field of human-computer interaction, research is focused on developing smarter and more user-friendly interaction models to meet the needs of older adults in the digital age, enabling them to actively participate in social activities and enjoy a higher quality of life (Sayago, 2019 ). These studies are crucial for addressing the challenges faced by aging societies, providing increased support and opportunities for the health, welfare, and social participation of older adults.

Discussion on research power (RQ2)

This study analyzes leading countries and collaboration networks, core institutions and authors, revealing the global research landscape and distribution of research strength in the field of older adults’ technology acceptance, and presents quantitative data on global research trends. From the analysis of country distribution and collaborations, China and the USA hold dominant positions in this field, with developed countries like the UK, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands also excelling in international cooperation and research influence. The significant investment in technological research and the focus on the technological needs of older adults by many developed countries reflect their rapidly aging societies, policy support, and resource allocation.

China is the only developing country that has become a major contributor in this field, indicating its growing research capabilities and high priority given to aging societies and technological innovation. Additionally, China has close collaborations with countries such as USA, the UK, and Malaysia, driven not only by technological research needs but also by shared challenges and complementarities in aging issues among these nations. For instance, the UK has extensive experience in social welfare and aging research, providing valuable theoretical guidance and practical experience. International collaborations, aimed at addressing the challenges of aging, integrate the strengths of various countries, advancing in-depth and widespread development in the research of technology acceptance among older adults.

At the institutional and author level, City University of Hong Kong leads in publication volume, with research teams led by Chan and Chen demonstrating significant academic activity and contributions. Their research primarily focuses on older adults’ acceptance and usage behaviors of various technologies, including smartphones, smart wearables, and social robots (Chen et al. 2015 ; Li et al. 2019 ; Ma et al. 2016 ). These studies, targeting specific needs and product characteristics of older adults, have developed new models of technology acceptance based on existing frameworks, enhancing the integration of these technologies into their daily lives and laying a foundation for further advancements in the field. Although Tilburg University has a smaller publication output, it holds significant influence in the field of older adults’ technology acceptance. Particularly, the high citation rate of Peek’s studies highlights their excellence in research. Peek extensively explored older adults’ acceptance and usage of home care technologies, revealing the complexity and dynamics of their technology use behaviors. His research spans from identifying systemic influencing factors (Peek et al. 2014 ; Peek et al. 2016 ), emphasizing familial impacts (Luijkx et al. 2015 ), to constructing comprehensive models (Peek et al. 2017 ), and examining the dynamics of long-term usage (Peek et al. 2019 ), fully reflecting the evolving technology landscape and the changing needs of older adults. Additionally, the ongoing contributions of researchers like Ziefle, Rogers, and Wouters in the field of older adults’ technology acceptance demonstrate their research influence and leadership. These researchers have significantly enriched the knowledge base in this area with their diverse perspectives. For instance, Ziefle has uncovered the complex attitudes of older adults towards technology usage, especially the trade-offs between privacy and security, and how different types of activities affect their privacy needs (Maidhof et al. 2023 ; Mujirishvili et al. 2023 ; Schomakers and Ziefle 2023 ; Wilkowska et al. 2022 ), reflecting a deep exploration and ongoing innovation in the field of older adults’ technology acceptance.

Discussion on knowledge base and thematic progress (RQ3)

Through co-citation analysis and systematic review of seminal literature, this study reveals the knowledge foundation and thematic progress in the field of older adults’ technology acceptance. Co-citation networks and cluster analyses illustrate the structural themes of the research, delineating the differentiation and boundaries within this field. Additionally, burst detection analysis offers a valuable perspective for understanding the thematic evolution in the field of technology acceptance among older adults. The development and innovation of theoretical models are foundational to this research. Researchers enhance the explanatory power of constructed models by deepening and expanding existing technology acceptance theories to address theoretical limitations. For instance, Heerink et al. ( 2010 ) modified and expanded the UTAUT model by integrating functional assessment and social interaction variables to create the almere model. This model significantly enhances the ability to explain the intentions of older users in utilizing assistive social agents and improves the explanation of actual usage behaviors. Additionally, Chen and Chan ( 2014 ) extended the TAM to include age-related health and capability features of older adults, creating the STAM, which substantially improves predictions of older adults’ technology usage behaviors. Personal attributes, health and capability features, and facilitating conditions have a direct impact on technology acceptance. These factors more effectively predict older adults’ technology usage behaviors than traditional attitudinal factors.

With the advancement of technology and the application of emerging technologies, new research topics have emerged, increasingly focusing on older adults’ acceptance and use of these technologies. Prior to this, the study by Mitzner et al. ( 2010 ) challenged the stereotype of older adults’ conservative attitudes towards technology, highlighting the central roles of usability and usefulness in the technology acceptance process. This discovery laid an important foundation for subsequent research. Research fields such as “smart home technology,” “social life,” and “customer service” are emerging, indicating a shift in focus towards the practical and social applications of technology in older adults’ lives. Research not only focuses on the technology itself but also on how these technologies integrate into older adults’ daily lives and how they can improve the quality of life through technology. For instance, studies such as those by Ma et al. ( 2016 ), Hoque and Sorwar ( 2017 ), and Li et al. ( 2019 ) have explored factors influencing older adults’ use of smartphones, mHealth, and smart wearable devices.

Furthermore, the diversification of research methodologies and innovation in evaluation techniques, such as the use of mixed methods, structural equation modeling (SEM), and neural network (NN) approaches, have enhanced the rigor and reliability of the findings, enabling more precise identification of the factors and mechanisms influencing technology acceptance. Talukder et al. ( 2020 ) employed an effective multimethodological strategy by integrating SEM and NN to leverage the complementary strengths of both approaches, thus overcoming their individual limitations and more accurately analyzing and predicting older adults’ acceptance of wearable health technologies (WHT). SEM is utilized to assess the determinants’ impact on the adoption of WHT, while neural network models validate SEM outcomes and predict the significance of key determinants. This combined approach not only boosts the models’ reliability and explanatory power but also provides a nuanced understanding of the motivations and barriers behind older adults’ acceptance of WHT, offering deep research insights.

Overall, co-citation analysis of the literature in the field of older adults’ technology acceptance has uncovered deeper theoretical modeling and empirical studies on emerging technologies, while emphasizing the importance of research methodological and evaluation innovations in understanding complex social science issues. These findings are crucial for guiding the design and marketing strategies of future technology products, especially in the rapidly growing market of older adults.

Discussion on research hotspots and evolutionary trends (RQ4)

By analyzing core keywords, we can gain deep insights into the hot topics, evolutionary trends, and quality distribution of research in the field of older adults’ technology acceptance. The frequent occurrence of the keywords “TAM” and “UTAUT” indicates that the applicability and theoretical extension of existing technology acceptance models among older adults remain a focal point in academia. This phenomenon underscores the enduring influence of the studies by Davis ( 1989 ) and Venkatesh et al. ( 2003 ), whose models provide a robust theoretical framework for explaining and predicting older adults’ acceptance and usage of emerging technologies. With the widespread application of artificial intelligence (AI) and big data technologies, these theoretical models have incorporated new variables such as perceived risk, trust, and privacy issues (Amin et al. 2024 ; Chen et al. 2024 ; Jing et al. 2024b ; Seibert et al. 2021 ; Wang et al. 2024b ), advancing the theoretical depth and empirical research in this field.

Keyword co-occurrence cluster analysis has revealed multiple research hotspots in the field, including factors influencing technology adoption, interactive experiences between older adults and assistive technologies, the application of mobile health technology in health management, and technology-assisted home care. These studies primarily focus on enhancing the quality of life and health management of older adults through emerging technologies, particularly in the areas of ambient assisted living, smart health monitoring, and intelligent medical care. In these domains, the role of AI technology is increasingly significant (Qian et al. 2021 ; Ho 2020 ). With the evolution of next-generation information technologies, AI is increasingly integrated into elder care systems, offering intelligent, efficient, and personalized service solutions by analyzing the lifestyles and health conditions of older adults. This integration aims to enhance older adults’ quality of life in aspects such as health monitoring and alerts, rehabilitation assistance, daily health management, and emotional support (Lee et al. 2023 ). A survey indicates that 83% of older adults prefer AI-driven solutions when selecting smart products, demonstrating the increasing acceptance of AI in elder care (Zhao and Li 2024 ). Integrating AI into elder care presents both opportunities and challenges, particularly in terms of user acceptance, trust, and long-term usage effects, which warrant further exploration (Mhlanga 2023 ). These studies will help better understand the profound impact of AI technology on the lifestyles of older adults and provide critical references for optimizing AI-driven elder care services.

The Time-zone evolution mapping and burst keyword analysis further reveal the evolutionary trends of research hotspots. Early studies focused on basic technology acceptance models and user perceptions, later expanding to include quality of life and health management. In recent years, research has increasingly focused on cutting-edge technologies such as virtual reality, telehealth, and human-robot interaction, with a concurrent emphasis on the user experience of older adults. This evolutionary process demonstrates a deepening shift from theoretical models to practical applications, underscoring the significant role of technology in enhancing the quality of life for older adults. Furthermore, the strategic coordinate mapping analysis clearly demonstrates the development and mutual influence of different research themes. High centrality and density in the themes of Usage Experience and Assisted Living Technology indicate their mature research status and significant impact on other themes. The themes of Smart Devices, Theoretical Models, and Mobile Health Applications demonstrate self-contained research trends. The themes of Human-Robot Interaction, Characteristics of the Elderly, and Research Methods are not yet mature, but they hold potential for development. Themes of Digital Healthcare Technology, Psychological Factors, and Socio-Cultural Factors are closely related to other themes, displaying core immaturity but significant potential.

In summary, the research hotspots in the field of older adults’ technology acceptance are diverse and dynamic, demonstrating the academic community’s profound understanding of how older adults interact with technology across various life contexts and needs. Under the influence of AI and big data, research should continue to focus on the application of emerging technologies among older adults, exploring in depth how they adapt to and effectively use these technologies. This not only enhances the quality of life and healthcare experiences for older adults but also drives ongoing innovation and development in this field.

Research agenda

Based on the above research findings, to further understand and promote technology acceptance and usage among older adults, we recommend future studies focus on refining theoretical models, exploring long-term usage, and assessing user experience in the following detailed aspects:

Refinement and validation of specific technology acceptance models for older adults: Future research should focus on developing and validating technology acceptance models based on individual characteristics, particularly considering variations in technology acceptance among older adults across different educational levels and cultural backgrounds. This includes factors such as age, gender, educational background, and cultural differences. Additionally, research should examine how well specific technologies, such as wearable devices and mobile health applications, meet the needs of older adults. Building on existing theoretical models, this research should integrate insights from multiple disciplines such as psychology, sociology, design, and engineering through interdisciplinary collaboration to create more accurate and comprehensive models, which should then be validated in relevant contexts.

Deepening the exploration of the relationship between long-term technology use and quality of life among older adults: The acceptance and use of technology by users is a complex and dynamic process (Seuwou et al. 2016 ). Existing research predominantly focuses on older adults’ initial acceptance or short-term use of new technologies; however, the impact of long-term use on their quality of life and health is more significant. Future research should focus on the evolution of older adults’ experiences and needs during long-term technology usage, and the enduring effects of technology on their social interactions, mental health, and life satisfaction. Through longitudinal studies and qualitative analysis, this research reveals the specific needs and challenges of older adults in long-term technology use, providing a basis for developing technologies and strategies that better meet their requirements. This understanding aids in comprehensively assessing the impact of technology on older adults’ quality of life and guiding the optimization and improvement of technological products.

Evaluating the Importance of User Experience in Research on Older Adults’ Technology Acceptance: Understanding the mechanisms of information technology acceptance and use is central to human-computer interaction research. Although technology acceptance models and user experience models differ in objectives, they share many potential intersections. Technology acceptance research focuses on structured prediction and assessment, while user experience research concentrates on interpreting design impacts and new frameworks. Integrating user experience to assess older adults’ acceptance of technology products and systems is crucial (Codfrey et al. 2022 ; Wang et al. 2019 ), particularly for older users, where specific product designs should emphasize practicality and usability (Fisk et al. 2020 ). Researchers need to explore innovative age-appropriate design methods to enhance older adults’ usage experience. This includes studying older users’ actual usage preferences and behaviors, optimizing user interfaces, and interaction designs. Integrating feedback from older adults to tailor products to their needs can further promote their acceptance and continued use of technology products.

Conclusions

This study conducted a systematic review of the literature on older adults’ technology acceptance over the past decade through bibliometric analysis, focusing on the distribution power, research power, knowledge base and theme progress, research hotspots, evolutionary trends, and quality distribution. Using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, this study has reached the following conclusions:

Technology acceptance among older adults has become a hot topic in the international academic community, involving the integration of knowledge across multiple disciplines, including Medical Informatics, Health Care Sciences Services, and Ergonomics. In terms of journals, “PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATION, HEALTH” represents a leading field, with key publications including Computers in Human Behavior , Journal of Medical Internet Research , and International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction . These journals possess significant academic authority and extensive influence in the field.

Research on technology acceptance among older adults is particularly active in developed countries, with China and USA publishing significantly more than other nations. The Netherlands leads in high average citation rates, indicating the depth and impact of its research. Meanwhile, the UK stands out in terms of international collaboration. At the institutional level, City University of Hong Kong and The University of Hong Kong in China are in leading positions. Tilburg University in the Netherlands demonstrates exceptional research quality through its high average citation count. At the author level, Chen from China has the highest number of publications, while Peek from the Netherlands has the highest average citation count.

Co-citation analysis of references indicates that the knowledge base in this field is divided into three main categories: theoretical model deepening, emerging technology applications, and research methods and evaluation. Seminal literature focuses on four areas: specific technology use by older adults, expansion of theoretical models of technology acceptance, information technology adoption behavior, and research perspectives. Research themes have evolved from initial theoretical deepening and analysis of influencing factors to empirical studies on individual factors and emerging technologies.

Keyword analysis indicates that TAM and UTAUT are the most frequently occurring terms, while “assistive technology” and “virtual reality” are focal points with high frequency and centrality. Keyword clustering analysis reveals that research hotspots are concentrated on the influencing factors of technology adoption, human-robot interaction experiences, mobile health management, and technology for aging in place. Time-zone evolution mapping and burst keyword analysis have revealed the research evolution from preliminary exploration of influencing factors, to enhancements in quality of life and health management, and onto advanced technology applications and deepening of theoretical models. Furthermore, analysis of research quality distribution indicates that Usage Experience and Assisted Living Technology have become core topics, while Smart Devices, Theoretical Models, and Mobile Health Applications point towards future research directions.

Through this study, we have systematically reviewed the dynamics, core issues, and evolutionary trends in the field of older adults’ technology acceptance, constructing a comprehensive Knowledge Mapping of the domain and presenting a clear framework of existing research. This not only lays the foundation for subsequent theoretical discussions and innovative applications in the field but also provides an important reference for relevant scholars.

Limitations

To our knowledge, this is the first bibliometric analysis concerning technology acceptance among older adults, and we adhered strictly to bibliometric standards throughout our research. However, this study relies on the Web of Science Core Collection, and while its authority and breadth are widely recognized, this choice may have missed relevant literature published in other significant databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar, potentially overlooking some critical academic contributions. Moreover, given that our analysis was confined to literature in English, it may not reflect studies published in other languages, somewhat limiting the global representativeness of our data sample.

It is noteworthy that with the rapid development of AI technology, its increasingly widespread application in elderly care services is significantly transforming traditional care models. AI is profoundly altering the lifestyles of the elderly, from health monitoring and smart diagnostics to intelligent home systems and personalized care, significantly enhancing their quality of life and health care standards. The potential for AI technology within the elderly population is immense, and research in this area is rapidly expanding. However, due to the restrictive nature of the search terms used in this study, it did not fully cover research in this critical area, particularly in addressing key issues such as trust, privacy, and ethics.

Consequently, future research should not only expand data sources, incorporating multilingual and multidatabase literature, but also particularly focus on exploring older adults’ acceptance of AI technology and its applications, in order to construct a more comprehensive academic landscape of older adults’ technology acceptance, thereby enriching and extending the knowledge system and academic trends in this field.

Data availability

The datasets analyzed during the current study are available in the Dataverse repository: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/6K0GJH .

Abdi S, de Witte L, Hawley M (2020) Emerging technologies with potential care and support applications for older people: review of gray literature. JMIR Aging 3(2):e17286. https://doi.org/10.2196/17286

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Achuthan K, Nair VK, Kowalski R, Ramanathan S, Raman R (2023) Cyberbullying research—Alignment to sustainable development and impact of COVID-19: Bibliometrics and science mapping analysis. Comput Human Behav 140:107566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107566

Article   Google Scholar  

Ahmad A, Mozelius P (2022) Human-Computer Interaction for Older Adults: a Literature Review on Technology Acceptance of eHealth Systems. J Eng Res Sci 1(4):119–126. https://doi.org/10.55708/js0104014

Ale Ebrahim N, Salehi H, Embi MA, Habibi F, Gholizadeh H, Motahar SM (2014) Visibility and citation impact. Int Educ Stud 7(4):120–125. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n4p120

Amin MS, Johnson VL, Prybutok V, Koh CE (2024) An investigation into factors affecting the willingness to disclose personal health information when using AI-enabled caregiver robots. Ind Manag Data Syst 124(4):1677–1699. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-09-2023-0608

Baer NR, Vietzke J, Schenk L (2022) Middle-aged and older adults’ acceptance of mobile nutrition and fitness apps: a systematic mixed studies review. PLoS One 17(12):e0278879. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278879

Barnard Y, Bradley MD, Hodgson F, Lloyd AD (2013) Learning to use new technologies by older adults: Perceived difficulties, experimentation behaviour and usability. Comput Human Behav 29(4):1715–1724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.006

Berkowsky RW, Sharit J, Czaja SJ (2017) Factors predicting decisions about technology adoption among older adults. Innov Aging 3(1):igy002. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igy002

Braun MT (2013) Obstacles to social networking website use among older adults. Comput Human Behav 29(3):673–680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.004

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Campo-Prieto P, Rodríguez-Fuentes G, Cancela-Carral JM (2021) Immersive virtual reality exergame promotes the practice of physical activity in older people: An opportunity during COVID-19. Multimodal Technol Interact 5(9):52. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti5090052

Chen C (2006) CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 57(3):359–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20317

Chen C, Dubin R, Kim MC (2014) Emerging trends and new developments in regenerative medicine: a scientometric update (2000–2014). Expert Opin Biol Ther 14(9):1295–1317. https://doi.org/10.1517/14712598.2014.920813

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Chen C, Leydesdorff L (2014) Patterns of connections and movements in dual‐map overlays: A new method of publication portfolio analysis. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 65(2):334–351. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22968

Chen J, Wang C, Tang Y (2022) Knowledge mapping of volunteer motivation: A bibliometric analysis and cross-cultural comparative study. Front Psychol 13:883150. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.883150

Chen JY, Liu YD, Dai J, Wang CL (2023) Development and status of moral education research: Visual analysis based on knowledge graph. Front Psychol 13:1079955. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1079955

Chen K, Chan AH (2011) A review of technology acceptance by older adults. Gerontechnology 10(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.4017/gt.2011.10.01.006.00

Chen K, Chan AH (2014) Gerontechnology acceptance by elderly Hong Kong Chinese: a senior technology acceptance model (STAM). Ergonomics 57(5):635–652. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2014.895855

Chen K, Zhang Y, Fu X (2019) International research collaboration: An emerging domain of innovation studies? Res Policy 48(1):149–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.005

Chen X, Hu Z, Wang C (2024) Empowering education development through AIGC: A systematic literature review. Educ Inf Technol 1–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12549-7

Chen Y, Chen CM, Liu ZY, Hu ZG, Wang XW (2015) The methodology function of CiteSpace mapping knowledge domains. Stud Sci Sci 33(2):242–253. https://doi.org/10.16192/j.cnki.1003-2053.2015.02.009

Codfrey GS, Baharum A, Zain NHM, Omar M, Deris FD (2022) User Experience in Product Design and Development: Perspectives and Strategies. Math Stat Eng Appl 71(2):257–262. https://doi.org/10.17762/msea.v71i2.83

Dai J, Zhang X, Wang CL (2024) A meta-analysis of learners’ continuance intention toward online education platforms. Educ Inf Technol 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12654-7

Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13(3):319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

Delmastro F, Dolciotti C, Palumbo F, Magrini M, Di Martino F, La Rosa D, Barcaro U (2018) Long-term care: how to improve the quality of life with mobile and e-health services. In 2018 14th International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob), pp. 12–19. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/WiMOB.2018.8589157

Dupuis K, Tsotsos LE (2018) Technology for remote health monitoring in an older population: a role for mobile devices. Multimodal Technol Interact 2(3):43. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti2030043

Ferguson C, Hickman LD, Turkmani S, Breen P, Gargiulo G, Inglis SC (2021) Wearables only work on patients that wear them”: Barriers and facilitators to the adoption of wearable cardiac monitoring technologies. Cardiovasc Digit Health J 2(2):137–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cvdhj.2021.02.001

Fisk AD, Czaja SJ, Rogers WA, Charness N, Sharit J (2020) Designing for older adults: Principles and creative human factors approaches. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420080681

Friesen S, Brémault-Phillips S, Rudrum L, Rogers LG (2016) Environmental design that supports healthy aging: Evaluating a new supportive living facility. J Hous Elderly 30(1):18–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763893.2015.1129380

Garcia Reyes EP, Kelly R, Buchanan G, Waycott J (2023) Understanding Older Adults’ Experiences With Technologies for Health Self-management: Interview Study. JMIR Aging 6:e43197. https://doi.org/10.2196/43197

Geng Z, Wang J, Liu J, Miao J (2024) Bibliometric analysis of the development, current status, and trends in adult degenerative scoliosis research: A systematic review from 1998 to 2023. J Pain Res 17:153–169. https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S437575

González A, Ramírez MP, Viadel V (2012) Attitudes of the elderly toward information and communications technologies. Educ Gerontol 38(9):585–594. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601277.2011.595314

Guner H, Acarturk C (2020) The use and acceptance of ICT by senior citizens: a comparison of technology acceptance model (TAM) for elderly and young adults. Univ Access Inf Soc 19(2):311–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-018-0642-4

Halim I, Saptari A, Perumal PA, Abdullah Z, Abdullah S, Muhammad MN (2022) A Review on Usability and User Experience of Assistive Social Robots for Older Persons. Int J Integr Eng 14(6):102–124. https://penerbit.uthm.edu.my/ojs/index.php/ijie/article/view/8566

He Y, He Q, Liu Q (2022) Technology acceptance in socially assistive robots: Scoping review of models, measurement, and influencing factors. J Healthc Eng 2022(1):6334732. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/6334732

Heerink M, Kröse B, Evers V, Wielinga B (2010) Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: the almere model. Int J Soc Robot 2:361–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0068-5

Ho A (2020) Are we ready for artificial intelligence health monitoring in elder care? BMC Geriatr 20(1):358. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-020-01764-9

Hoque R, Sorwar G (2017) Understanding factors influencing the adoption of mHealth by the elderly: An extension of the UTAUT model. Int J Med Inform 101:75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.02.002

Hota PK, Subramanian B, Narayanamurthy G (2020) Mapping the intellectual structure of social entrepreneurship research: A citation/co-citation analysis. J Bus Ethics 166(1):89–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04129-4

Huang R, Yan P, Yang X (2021) Knowledge map visualization of technology hotspots and development trends in China’s textile manufacturing industry. IET Collab Intell Manuf 3(3):243–251. https://doi.org/10.1049/cim2.12024

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Jing Y, Wang C, Chen Y, Wang H, Yu T, Shadiev R (2023) Bibliometric mapping techniques in educational technology research: A systematic literature review. Educ Inf Technol 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12178-6

Jing YH, Wang CL, Chen ZY, Shen SS, Shadiev R (2024a) A Bibliometric Analysis of Studies on Technology-Supported Learning Environments: Hotopics and Frontier Evolution. J Comput Assist Learn 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12934

Jing YH, Wang HM, Chen XJ, Wang CL (2024b) What factors will affect the effectiveness of using ChatGPT to solve programming problems? A quasi-experimental study. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11:319. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02751-w

Kamrani P, Dorsch I, Stock WG (2021) Do researchers know what the h-index is? And how do they estimate its importance? Scientometrics 126(7):5489–5508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03968-1

Kim HS, Lee KH, Kim H, Kim JH (2014) Using mobile phones in healthcare management for the elderly. Maturitas 79(4):381–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2014.08.013

Article   MathSciNet   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Kleinberg J (2002) Bursty and hierarchical structure in streams. In Proceedings of the eighth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pp. 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1145/775047.775061

Kruse C, Fohn J, Wilson N, Patlan EN, Zipp S, Mileski M (2020) Utilization barriers and medical outcomes commensurate with the use of telehealth among older adults: systematic review. JMIR Med Inform 8(8):e20359. https://doi.org/10.2196/20359

Kumar S, Lim WM, Pandey N, Christopher Westland J (2021) 20 years of electronic commerce research. Electron Commer Res 21:1–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-021-09464-1

Kwiek M (2021) What large-scale publication and citation data tell us about international research collaboration in Europe: Changing national patterns in global contexts. Stud High Educ 46(12):2629–2649. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1749254

Lee C, Coughlin JF (2015) PERSPECTIVE: Older adults’ adoption of technology: an integrated approach to identifying determinants and barriers. J Prod Innov Manag 32(5):747–759. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12176

Lee CH, Wang C, Fan X, Li F, Chen CH (2023) Artificial intelligence-enabled digital transformation in elderly healthcare field: scoping review. Adv Eng Inform 55:101874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2023.101874

Leydesdorff L, Rafols I (2012) Interactive overlays: A new method for generating global journal maps from Web-of-Science data. J Informetr 6(2):318–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.11.003

Li J, Ma Q, Chan AH, Man S (2019) Health monitoring through wearable technologies for older adults: Smart wearables acceptance model. Appl Ergon 75:162–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.10.006

Article   ADS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Li X, Zhou D (2020) Product design requirement information visualization approach for intelligent manufacturing services. China Mech Eng 31(07):871, http://www.cmemo.org.cn/EN/Y2020/V31/I07/871

Google Scholar  

Lin Y, Yu Z (2024a) An integrated bibliometric analysis and systematic review modelling students’ technostress in higher education. Behav Inf Technol 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2024.2332458

Lin Y, Yu Z (2024b) A bibliometric analysis of artificial intelligence chatbots in educational contexts. Interact Technol Smart Educ 21(2):189–213. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-12-2022-0165

Liu L, Duffy VG (2023) Exploring the future development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications in chatbots: a bibliometric analysis. Int J Soc Robot 15(5):703–716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-022-00956-0

Liu R, Li X, Chu J (2022) Evolution of applied variables in the research on technology acceptance of the elderly. In: International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp 500–520. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05581-23_5

Luijkx K, Peek S, Wouters E (2015) “Grandma, you should do it—It’s cool” Older Adults and the Role of Family Members in Their Acceptance of Technology. Int J Environ Res Public Health 12(12):15470–15485. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph121214999

Lussier M, Lavoie M, Giroux S, Consel C, Guay M, Macoir J, Bier N (2018) Early detection of mild cognitive impairment with in-home monitoring sensor technologies using functional measures: a systematic review. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform 23(2):838–847. https://doi.org/10.1109/JBHI.2018.2834317

López-Robles JR, Otegi-Olaso JR, Porto Gomez I, Gamboa-Rosales NK, Gamboa-Rosales H, Robles-Berumen H (2018) Bibliometric network analysis to identify the intellectual structure and evolution of the big data research field. In: International Conference on Intelligent Data Engineering and Automated Learning, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03496-2_13

Ma Q, Chan AH, Chen K (2016) Personal and other factors affecting acceptance of smartphone technology by older Chinese adults. Appl Ergon 54:62–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.11.015

Ma Q, Chan AHS, Teh PL (2021) Insights into Older Adults’ Technology Acceptance through Meta-Analysis. Int J Hum-Comput Interact 37(11):1049–1062. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1865005

Macedo IM (2017) Predicting the acceptance and use of information and communication technology by older adults: An empirical examination of the revised UTAUT2. Comput Human Behav 75:935–948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.013

Maidhof C, Offermann J, Ziefle M (2023) Eyes on privacy: acceptance of video-based AAL impacted by activities being filmed. Front Public Health 11:1186944. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1186944

Majumder S, Aghayi E, Noferesti M, Memarzadeh-Tehran H, Mondal T, Pang Z, Deen MJ (2017) Smart homes for elderly healthcare—Recent advances and research challenges. Sensors 17(11):2496. https://doi.org/10.3390/s17112496

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Mhlanga D (2023) Artificial Intelligence in elderly care: Navigating ethical and responsible AI adoption for seniors. Available at SSRN 4675564. 4675564 min) Identifying citation patterns of scientific breakthroughs: A perspective of dynamic citation process. Inf Process Manag 58(1):102428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2020.102428

Mitzner TL, Boron JB, Fausset CB, Adams AE, Charness N, Czaja SJ, Sharit J (2010) Older adults talk technology: Technology usage and attitudes. Comput Human Behav 26(6):1710–1721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.020

Mitzner TL, Savla J, Boot WR, Sharit J, Charness N, Czaja SJ, Rogers WA (2019) Technology adoption by older adults: Findings from the PRISM trial. Gerontologist 59(1):34–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gny113

Mongeon P, Paul-Hus A (2016) The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics 106:213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5

Mostaghel R (2016) Innovation and technology for the elderly: Systematic literature review. J Bus Res 69(11):4896–4900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.049

Mujirishvili T, Maidhof C, Florez-Revuelta F, Ziefle M, Richart-Martinez M, Cabrero-García J (2023) Acceptance and privacy perceptions toward video-based active and assisted living technologies: Scoping review. J Med Internet Res 25:e45297. https://doi.org/10.2196/45297

Naseri RNN, Azis SN, Abas N (2023) A Review of Technology Acceptance and Adoption Models in Consumer Study. FIRM J Manage Stud 8(2):188–199. https://doi.org/10.33021/firm.v8i2.4536

Nguyen UP, Hallinger P (2020) Assessing the distinctive contributions of Simulation & Gaming to the literature, 1970–2019: A bibliometric review. Simul Gaming 51(6):744–769. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878120941569

Olmedo-Aguirre JO, Reyes-Campos J, Alor-Hernández G, Machorro-Cano I, Rodríguez-Mazahua L, Sánchez-Cervantes JL (2022) Remote healthcare for elderly people using wearables: A review. Biosensors 12(2):73. https://doi.org/10.3390/bios12020073

Pan S, Jordan-Marsh M (2010) Internet use intention and adoption among Chinese older adults: From the expanded technology acceptance model perspective. Comput Human Behav 26(5):1111–1119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.015

Pan X, Yan E, Cui M, Hua W (2018) Examining the usage, citation, and diffusion patterns of bibliometric map software: A comparative study of three tools. J Informetr 12(2):481–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.03.005

Park JS, Kim NR, Han EJ (2018) Analysis of trends in science and technology using keyword network analysis. J Korea Ind Inf Syst Res 23(2):63–73. https://doi.org/10.9723/jksiis.2018.23.2.063

Peek ST, Luijkx KG, Rijnaard MD, Nieboer ME, Van Der Voort CS, Aarts S, Wouters EJ (2016) Older adults’ reasons for using technology while aging in place. Gerontology 62(2):226–237. https://doi.org/10.1159/000430949

Peek ST, Luijkx KG, Vrijhoef HJ, Nieboer ME, Aarts S, van der Voort CS, Wouters EJ (2017) Origins and consequences of technology acquirement by independent-living seniors: Towards an integrative model. BMC Geriatr 17:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-017-0582-5

Peek ST, Wouters EJ, Van Hoof J, Luijkx KG, Boeije HR, Vrijhoef HJ (2014) Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform 83(4):235–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.01.004

Peek STM, Luijkx KG, Vrijhoef HJM, Nieboer ME, Aarts S, Van Der Voort CS, Wouters EJM (2019) Understanding changes and stability in the long-term use of technologies by seniors who are aging in place: a dynamical framework. BMC Geriatr 19:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-019-1241-9

Perez AJ, Siddiqui F, Zeadally S, Lane D (2023) A review of IoT systems to enable independence for the elderly and disabled individuals. Internet Things 21:100653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iot.2022.100653

Piau A, Wild K, Mattek N, Kaye J (2019) Current state of digital biomarker technologies for real-life, home-based monitoring of cognitive function for mild cognitive impairment to mild Alzheimer disease and implications for clinical care: systematic review. J Med Internet Res 21(8):e12785. https://doi.org/10.2196/12785

Pirzada P, Wilde A, Doherty GH, Harris-Birtill D (2022) Ethics and acceptance of smart homes for older adults. Inform Health Soc Care 47(1):10–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538157.2021.1923500

Pranckutė R (2021) Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The titans of bibliographic information in today’s academic world. Publications 9(1):12. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9010012

Qian K, Zhang Z, Yamamoto Y, Schuller BW (2021) Artificial intelligence internet of things for the elderly: From assisted living to health-care monitoring. IEEE Signal Process Mag 38(4):78–88. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2021.3057298

Redner S (1998) How popular is your paper? An empirical study of the citation distribution. Eur Phys J B-Condens Matter Complex Syst 4(2):131–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s100510050359

Sayago S (ed.) (2019) Perspectives on human-computer interaction research with older people. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06076-3

Schomakers EM, Ziefle M (2023) Privacy vs. security: trade-offs in the acceptance of smart technologies for aging-in-place. Int J Hum Comput Interact 39(5):1043–1058. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2078463

Schroeder T, Dodds L, Georgiou A, Gewald H, Siette J (2023) Older adults and new technology: Mapping review of the factors associated with older adults’ intention to adopt digital technologies. JMIR Aging 6(1):e44564. https://doi.org/10.2196/44564

Seibert K, Domhoff D, Bruch D, Schulte-Althoff M, Fürstenau D, Biessmann F, Wolf-Ostermann K (2021) Application scenarios for artificial intelligence in nursing care: rapid review. J Med Internet Res 23(11):e26522. https://doi.org/10.2196/26522

Seuwou P, Banissi E, Ubakanma G (2016) User acceptance of information technology: A critical review of technology acceptance models and the decision to invest in Information Security. In: Global Security, Safety and Sustainability-The Security Challenges of the Connected World: 11th International Conference, ICGS3 2017, London, UK, January 18-20, 2017, Proceedings 11:230-251. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51064-4_19

Shiau WL, Wang X, Zheng F (2023) What are the trend and core knowledge of information security? A citation and co-citation analysis. Inf Manag 60(3):103774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2023.103774

Sinha S, Verma A, Tiwari P (2021) Technology: Saving and enriching life during COVID-19. Front Psychol 12:647681. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.647681

Soar J (2010) The potential of information and communication technologies to support ageing and independent living. Ann Telecommun 65:479–483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12243-010-0167-1

Strotmann A, Zhao D (2012) Author name disambiguation: What difference does it make in author‐based citation analysis? J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 63(9):1820–1833. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22695

Talukder MS, Sorwar G, Bao Y, Ahmed JU, Palash MAS (2020) Predicting antecedents of wearable healthcare technology acceptance by elderly: A combined SEM-Neural Network approach. Technol Forecast Soc Change 150:119793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119793

Taskin Z, Al U (2019) Natural language processing applications in library and information science. Online Inf Rev 43(4):676–690. https://doi.org/10.1108/oir-07-2018-0217

Touqeer H, Zaman S, Amin R, Hussain M, Al-Turjman F, Bilal M (2021) Smart home security: challenges, issues and solutions at different IoT layers. J Supercomput 77(12):14053–14089. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-021-03825-1

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2023) World population ageing 2023: Highlights. https://www.un.org/zh/193220

Valk CAL, Lu Y, Randriambelonoro M, Jessen J (2018) Designing for technology acceptance of wearable and mobile technologies for senior citizen users. In: 21st DMI: Academic Design Management Conference (ADMC 2018), Design Management Institute, pp 1361–1373. https://www.dmi.org/page/ADMC2018

Van Eck N, Waltman L (2010) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84(2):523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

Vancea M, Solé-Casals J (2016) Population aging in the European Information Societies: towards a comprehensive research agenda in eHealth innovations for elderly. Aging Dis 7(4):526. https://doi.org/10.14336/AD.2015.1214

Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Q 27(3):425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

Wagner N, Hassanein K, Head M (2010) Computer use by older adults: A multi-disciplinary review. Comput Human Behav 26(5):870–882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.029

Wahlroos N, Narsakka N, Stolt M, Suhonen R (2023) Physical environment maintaining independence and self-management of older people in long-term care settings—An integrative literature review. J Aging Environ 37(3):295–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/26892618.2022.2092927

Wang CL, Chen XJ, Yu T, Liu YD, Jing YH (2024a) Education reform and change driven by digital technology: a bibliometric study from a global perspective. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02717-y

Wang CL, Dai J, Zhu KK, Yu T, Gu XQ (2023a) Understanding the Continuance Intention of College Students Toward New E-learning Spaces Based on an Integrated Model of the TAM and TTF. Int J Hum-comput Int 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2291609

Wang CL, Wang HM, Li YY, Dai J, Gu XQ, Yu T (2024b) Factors Influencing University Students’ Behavioral Intention to Use Generative Artificial Intelligence: Integrating the Theory of Planned Behavior and AI Literacy. Int J Hum-comput Int 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2383033

Wang J, Zhao W, Zhang Z, Liu X, Xie T, Wang L, Zhang Y (2024c) A journey of challenges and victories: a bibliometric worldview of nanomedicine since the 21st century. Adv Mater 36(15):2308915. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.202308915

Wang J, Chen Y, Huo S, Mai L, Jia F (2023b) Research hotspots and trends of social robot interaction design: A bibliometric analysis. Sensors 23(23):9369. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23239369

Wang KH, Chen G, Chen HG (2017) A model of technology adoption by older adults. Soc Behav Personal 45(4):563–572. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.5778

Wang S, Bolling K, Mao W, Reichstadt J, Jeste D, Kim HC, Nebeker C (2019) Technology to Support Aging in Place: Older Adults’ Perspectives. Healthcare 7(2):60. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare7020060

Wang Z, Liu D, Sun Y, Pang X, Sun P, Lin F, Ren K (2022) A survey on IoT-enabled home automation systems: Attacks and defenses. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor 24(4):2292–2328. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2022.3201557

Wilkowska W, Offermann J, Spinsante S, Poli A, Ziefle M (2022) Analyzing technology acceptance and perception of privacy in ambient assisted living for using sensor-based technologies. PloS One 17(7):e0269642. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269642

Wilson J, Heinsch M, Betts D, Booth D, Kay-Lambkin F (2021) Barriers and facilitators to the use of e-health by older adults: a scoping review. BMC Public Health 21:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11623-w

Xia YQ, Deng YL, Tao XY, Zhang SN, Wang CL (2024) Digital art exhibitions and psychological well-being in Chinese Generation Z: An analysis based on the S-O-R framework. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11:266. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02718-x

Xie H, Zhang Y, Duan K (2020) Evolutionary overview of urban expansion based on bibliometric analysis in Web of Science from 1990 to 2019. Habitat Int 95:102100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2019.10210

Xu Z, Ge Z, Wang X, Skare M (2021) Bibliometric analysis of technology adoption literature published from 1997 to 2020. Technol Forecast Soc Change 170:120896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120896

Yap YY, Tan SH, Choon SW (2022) Elderly’s intention to use technologies: a systematic literature review. Heliyon 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e08765

Yu T, Dai J, Wang CL (2023) Adoption of blended learning: Chinese university students’ perspectives. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10:390. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01904-7

Yusif S, Soar J, Hafeez-Baig A (2016) Older people, assistive technologies, and the barriers to adoption: A systematic review. Int J Med Inform 94:112–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.07.004

Zhang J, Zhu L (2022) Citation recommendation using semantic representation of cited papers’ relations and content. Expert Syst Appl 187:115826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115826

Zhao Y, Li J (2024) Opportunities and challenges of integrating artificial intelligence in China’s elderly care services. Sci Rep 14(1):9254. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-60067-w

Article   ADS   MathSciNet   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Social Science Foundation of Shaanxi Province in China (Grant No. 2023J014).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Art and Design, Shaanxi University of Science and Technology, Xi’an, China

Xianru Shang, Zijian Liu, Chen Gong, Zhigang Hu & Yuexuan Wu

Department of Education Information Technology, Faculty of Education, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China

Chengliang Wang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, XS, YW, CW; methodology, XS, ZL, CG, CW; software, XS, CG, YW; writing-original draft preparation, XS, CW; writing-review and editing, XS, CG, ZH, CW; supervision, ZL, ZH, CW; project administration, ZL, ZH, CW; funding acquisition, XS, CG. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. All authors have read and approved the re-submission of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chengliang Wang .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was not required as the study did not involve human participants.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not required as the study did not involve human participants.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Shang, X., Liu, Z., Gong, C. et al. Knowledge mapping and evolution of research on older adults’ technology acceptance: a bibliometric study from 2013 to 2023. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 1115 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03658-2

Download citation

Received : 20 June 2024

Accepted : 21 August 2024

Published : 31 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03658-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• DOI: 10.1108/jpmh-04-2024-0055
• Corpus ID: 272230078

Defining mental health literacy: a systematic literature review and educational inspiration

• Shengnan Zeng , Richard Bailey , +1 author Xiaohui Chen
• Published in Journal of Public Mental… 2 September 2024
• Psychology, Education

56 References

A systematic review of the limitations and associated opportunities of chatgpt, deductive qualitative analysis: evaluating, expanding, and refining theory, conceptualising and measuring positive mental health literacy: a systematic literature review, mental health education integration into the school curriculum needs to be implemented, review: school-based mental health literacy interventions to promote help-seeking - a systematic review., public opinion towards mental health (the case of the vologda region), quantifying the global burden of mental disorders and their economic value, mental health literacy: it is now time to put knowledge into practice, clarifying the concept of mental health literacy: protocol for a scoping review, positive mental health literacy: a concept analysis, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

• Human Machine Interaction
• Video Games
• Computer Science and Engineering
• Game Development

Unity Game Development Engine: A Technical Survey

• October 2020
• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

• Hamdard University

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Sebastian Alchimowicz
• Małgorzata Plechawska-Wójcik
• Franklin Parrales-Bravo
• Víctor Gómez-Rodríguez
• Luis Chiquito-Vera
• Lorenzo Cevallos-Torres

• Yohanes Yohanie Fridelin Panduman

• Nikolaos Mitrakas

• Gregório F. Azevedo
• Matheus V. V. Berto

• Hafizh As Shoqri
• Cindy Taurusta
• Nayeth Solorzano
• Lissenia Sornoza
• Michael Arce
• Mercedez Mawyin

• Amanpreet Kaur

• Oskar Stålberg
• Int Enterpren Manag J

• Sonia Dasí-Rodríguez

• Ronald Alvares

• Kelvin Sung
• Gregory Smith
• Thibault Raffaillac

• Sue Blackman
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up