The advancement of technology has brought about changes in how people interact and perceive each other and their environment. The presence of online gaming, Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality has paved the way not only in the perception of reality but also in the enjoyment of games, improvement of services, advancement of healthcare and business innovation.

This paper will focus on the characteristics, features and challenges of online gaming, Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR).


Online gaming is an activity using a video game that is connected to the Internet or another computer network where a number of users are participating in one game (Rollings & Hall, 2006). Online gaming has become a popular activity for children, teenagers, young and old adults. A significant amount of time is spent gamers online where they can participate in games that offer club-like virtual communities. With this, the players can virtually socialize and participate in competitive gaming and computer-mediated encounters with other players around the world (Voiskounsky, Mitina, & Avetisova, 2004).

Interaction with fellow gamers is considered to be the highlight of this virtual experience (Lewinski, 2000; Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; Mithra, 1998). Laurel (1993) defined interaction as conduct of communication between two or more people and how this communication affects them (Laurel, 1993). For instance, an online game where a player interact with a certain monster, defeating and killing the monster, the player is rewarded depending on the monster’s response. This kind of interaction has a substantial effect on the popularity of online gaming as it immerses the player in a virtual world through narratives, missions and personalized avatars (Lewinski, 2000; Ju & Wagner, 1997; Cummins, 2002; Eskelinen, 2001). This phenomenon has encouraged online game developers to offer a unique out-of-this-world experience in the games they build (Lewinski, 2000; Johnson, 1998; Gillespie, 1997).

In spite of its popularity, online gaming faces several challenges that hinder the development of enabling technologies that improve the interaction and experience in online gaming. Secretly held engineering practices and proprietary approaches to building games have made it impossible to create online gaming standards. Life span of a game is limited where evolution, upgrading, and new missions are no longer available upon reaching a certain level. A lack of game play description hinders the analysis and creation of new gaming environment (Morgan, 2009).


Virtual Reality (VR) describes a virtually and digitally developed space or environment that a person can access only through the usage of highly technological equipment (Lanier, 1992; Rheingold, 1991; Sutherland, 1968). When a person is inside the created space, the person can travel from one place to another, virtually interacting with the objects and people present in that digital environment. Decades ago, the concept of VR was coupled with images of people wearing futuristic headgears, gloves and full-body suits. This has become the symbol of an emerging technological advancement that can be seen nowadays. VR is continually improving as scientists and artists are working on how this technology can be further optimized to create out-of-the-body experience (Fox, Arena, & Bailenson, 2009).

Virtual reality refers to a virtual environment. This environment is a rendered digital space where the user is placed upon entering a VR experience. In this place, the user’s movements are tracked, surroundings are created, and the user’s experience is rendered based on their reactions to the interactions. To illustrate, in an online game, where keys are used to move forward or sideward, which in effect cause the game to create a new environment based on this movement. The virtual environment makes use of the cues coming from the movement of the player to render new environments, replacing the real actual environment with the virtual environment (Fox, Arena, & Bailenson, 2009).

According to Biocca and Levy (1995), an effective virtual environment is one where the player’s sensory impressions are blocked and separated from the real world environment. The bodily senses of the players must be immersed in the digital world while the user’s physical body is visible to the real world. The player is immersed in the virtual world created by the game where the user’s emotional and psychological being is experiencing a different version of themselves, separate from the physical world (Witmer & Singer, 1998). There are several versions on how a virtual environment can be rendered and experienced. It can be through computer-based platforms, mobile phones and portable electronics like tablets, desktop monitors or wearable VR gadget where a player can move their entire body and interact with the virtual world (Fox, Arena, & Bailenson, 2009).

The Virtual Reality and the virtual environment constantly tracks the user and renders the environment accordingly, thereby enhancing user experience. Unlike the usual games, Virtual Reality provides an optimal level of interaction with the digital world. In the virtual environment, the gamer is given a role where the flow of the game itself can be modified depending on the gamer’s achievements and upgrades. This interaction alone inhibits the gamer to use their cognitive and active participation to realize their progress while playing. Thus, Virtual Reality promotes interactivity between the gamer and the game, which make it more realistic albeit abstract. (Fox, Arena, & Bailenson, 2009)


Augmented Reality (AR) is a different flavour of Virtual Reality or virtual environment. Augmented reality combines the element of the physical world and the digital world. Unlike Virtual Reality, where the gamer is immersed in a rendered environment, Augmented Reality allows the gamer to perceive the real world, virtually, in real time. However, in Augmented Reality, despite the appearance of the physical world, composite virtual objects are continuously rendered and imposed (Azuma, 1997).

In essence, Augmented Reality is merely a combination of real and virtual environments. In AR, the interaction is in real time and it operates and uses 3D environment. The technology in Augmented Reality allows certain digital objects presented visually but cannot be detected alone by the gamer without any interface. This kind of reality, allows a gamer to perceive graphical interfaces combined with the real world in the real time. The use of Augmented Reality involves the combination of advanced technologies that are responsible in materializing digital content with the gamer’s perception of the environment. The technology of Augmented Reality is basically a gold mine for possibilities as it can be used not just in games but also in sports, entertainment, education, medicine, and businesses. (Kipper & Rampolla, 2012)

According to Boyajian (2017) the launch of Pokémon Go in 2016 popularised AD to the rest of the world. The presence and use of Augmented Reality overshadowed the popularity of Virtual Reality (Boyajian, 2017).

The advancement of Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality has proven to be useful in the scenarios like education, medicine and business. However, there are challenges in further enhancement of Augmented Reality and it mass popularity. The first challenge is the limited availablity and cost of AR hardware like headsets. As such, the usage of these headsets is restricted to enterprise and military use. Most developed hardwares are not even available to the public. Aside from price and limited supply, the portability and convenience is also an issue because some hardware needs to be tethered to a computer (Boyajian, 2017).

A second challenge for Augmented Reality is the content which means the corresponding applications that must be installed for the AR and its hardware. As such, hardware manufacturers make sure that their market has already installed the suitable applications in their mobile phones or computers to make use of the hardware.  In addition to this, it is essential for the company to develop 3D content to integrate with their applications and provide optimal virtual experience. However, developing 3D content is costly and time consuming (Boyajian, 2017).

The final challenge facing Augmented Reality is educating the mass market. Vast majority of consumers do not have the knowledge or even awareness of Augmented Reality. There may be others who have exposure, but their experience in Augmented Reality is limited and does not focus on practical aspects of their lives.  Because of this, there is an opportunity for AR and VR to be mainstreamed in the educational curriculum so that students have better grasp about this technology and can think of innovations that are applicable and necessary to the real world (Boyajian, 2017).


The introduction of online gaming, Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality has shattered the typical perception on what is present and what it not. These technologies allowed a user to be physically present but mentally and psychologically detached to the real world, fully immersed with the 2D/3D environment he is in, interacting and making progress. With the Augmented Reality, a person can see objects digitally rendered that are not possible to be physically present, but with the help of hardwares and graphical interface, can be present and allow interaction. These technologies are not just for games but can be widely used in practical ways like education, medicine, sports among other applications.

It is only a matter or time before these applications become commonplace given the fast pace of technological advancements. It is too early to evaluate the security considerations related to AR/ VR. Forensic science is still grappling with how to understand psychological behaviour in virtual environments. Would these applications take into consideration the cultural and emotional element of human interaction? These and many other questions remain unanswered as we pump millions of dollars into developing better gaming environments.


  1. Azuma, R. T. (1997). A Survey of Augmented Reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 355-385.
  2. Biocca, F., & Levy, M. (1995). Communication applications of Virtual Reality. In F. Biocca, & M. Levy, Communication in the age of Virtual Reality (pp. 127–157). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  3. Boyajian, L. (2017, February 27). The 3 biggest challenges facing Augmented Reality. Retrieved June 19, 2017, from Network World:
  4. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: the psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York: Basic Books.
  5. Cummins, N. (2002). Integrating e-commerce and games. Personal and Ubiquitous , 362–370.
  6. Eskelinen, M. (2001). Towards computer game studies. Digital Creativity, 175–183.
  7. Fox, J., Arena, D., & Bailenson, J. N. (2009). Virtual Reality: A Survival Guide for the Social Scientist. Journal of Media Psychology, 95–113.
  8. Gillespie, T. (1997). Digital storytelling and computer game design. Proceeding of the 1997 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, (pp. 148–149).
  9. Johnson, J. (1998). Simplifying the controls of an interactivemovie game. Proceeding of the 1998 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, (pp. 65-72).
  10. Ju, E., & Wagner, C. (1997). Personal computer adventure games: their structure, principles, and applicability for training. The DATA BASE for Advancesin Information Systems.
  11. Kipper, G., & Rampolla, J. (2012). Augmented Reality: An Emerging Technologies Guide to AR. Elsevier.
  12. Lanier, J. (1992). Virtual reality: The promise of the future. Interactive Learning International, 275–279.
  13. Laurel, B. (1993). Computer as theatre. New York: Addison-Wesley.
  14. Lewinski, J. (2000). Developer’s guide to computer game design. Portland: Wordware Publishing Inc.
  15. Mithra, P. (1998). 10 ways to destroy a perfectly good game idea. Proceeding of the 1998 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, (p. 377).
  16. Morgan, G. (2009). Challenges of Online Game Development: A Review. Simulation & Gaming.
  17. Rheingold, H. (1991). Virtual reality. New York: Simon & Schuster.
  18. Rollings, A., & Hall, E. A. (2006). Fundamentals of Game Design. Prentice Hall.
  19. Sutherland, I. (1968). A head mounted three dimensional display. Proceedings of the Fall Joint Computer Conference.
  20. Voiskounsky, A. E., Mitina, O. V., & Avetisova, A. A. (2004). Playing Online Games: Flow Experience . PsychNology Journal, 259 – 281.
  21. Witmer, B., & Singer, M. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. PRESENCE: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 225–240.






The increase in the number of people using networked digital devices has led to incidences of crime that call for forensic investigations (Brown, 2015). The existence of Cyber Forensics skills has made it possible to gather evidence from such devices. The evidence collected is used in courts to establish the crime and bring Cyber criminals to justice. Cyber Forensic investigators and analysts are often entrusted with the task of finding, recording, analysing, and reporting of digital evidence. The whole process of gathering forensic evidence has a number of challenges. These challenges are categorized into five broad areas: hardware challenges, software challenges, cloud forensic challenges, legal challenges and human challenges (Karie, & Venter, 2015; Lindsey, 2006; Mohay, 2005).


Hardware challenges are linked to the needs of the modulated technology and enhancements of the hardware. Studies suggested that some criminal suspects change the hard disk within their devices before the Cyber Forensic expert can gain access to the device (National Institute of Justice, 2002; Brown, 2015). In such cases, the suspects use the write blockers to shift information between the two hard disks. The main effect is that a forensic examination of the new hard disk, may not display some of the relevant evidence. On the other hand, the evidence gathered from the new hard disk will lack consistency, and may not be apparent (Brown, 2015; Spafford, 2006).

Further, the evidence gathered from a device that was reset, may accentuate the problem since during the reset process, a small portion of the backup information is likely to have been reinstalled. For example, different mobile devices have hard disks that have enmeshed algorithm that are responsible for erasing the data automatically. Since the technology for collecting information from unused devices or devices where information was deleted by a user is still under development, there is likely to be some delays in obtaining such information. It is for this reasons that some Cyber Forensic experts have reported tremendous challenges in retrieving information from content that was deleted from the device (Spafford, 2006).


The current era of technological advancements and changes in gathering forensic evidence has resulted into the birth of Platform as a Service (PaaS) and Software as a Service (SaaS), which have brought a number of changes into the computing structure. The use of new software and new technology has brought about a number of challenges. One of the challenges is lined to the well-developed device operating system. The current operating systems have been log enabled, and now requires a Cyber Forensic expert to gather background information on the device, which includes the information on accessibility of the application, usage of the application, and the level of information provided by the specific user of the application. Even though the new development appears like a progress for the different devices, the development requires some time for it to mature (Spafford, 2006; Giordano & Maciag, 2002).

Several challenges have been reported on the application accessibility since the application and the operating system are defined differently (Giordano & Maciag, 2002). For example, any alteration made on the file content may not be tracked until it is compared with subsequent/previous file versions or, if it is compared with the modified version of the time stamp. In case the Cyber Forensic expert suspects some manipulation on the document, it would be a challenge to determine the extent of manipulation (Brown, 2015).

Further, some forms of applications and log information that are collected by the application or the operating system, could be useful as evidence in certain cases. Despite the usefulness of the application, the awareness of its use is still at an infant stage making it difficult for the Cyber Forensic experts to ensure the effective use of the application. For example, an operating system like Windows 8 will collect information on all the Wi-Fi networks that have been accessed together with the transmission of the data. The information gathered would help investigations, such as those investigations that involve theft of data or in cases of network intrusion. However, a correlation between the gathered information, from the sources, and the event violation in the gathered information is a concept under research and experimentation (Giordano & Maciag, 2002).

The high number of mobile messaging applications available across the globe uses a software that automatically erase the information that is shared. The main challenge here is that it will be complex for a Cyber Forensic expert to gather such information that was deleted. Another challenge is the encryption in different mobile devices with intention of having the information protected especially during the process of gathering data. For example, gathering data from encrypted mobile chat applications may pose a challenge in certain situations. Contrary to popular belief all mobile chat applications are not encrypted. Certain mobile chats allow a secure connection between the sender and the receiver with no option to retrieve the message after a set time period. Other sessions are simply saved as text messages in the phone storage allowing anyone with the mobile phone passcode to access all stored messages. Even without a passcode, it is technically possible for the chat server to provide chat history with the right encryption key. The decryption of devices may be a challenge to some investigations where the storage or device itself is encrypted (Giordano & Maciag, 2002).

Not handing over mobile device PIN and passwords could lead to legal consequences in certain countries. For example, not giving passwords can get someone arrested according to Schedule 7 of Terrorism Act in the United Kingdom (, 2008; Mandhai, 2017).


Cloud computing is now used by smart mobile devices. The flexibility and scalability of cloud computing poses a huge challenge to forensic investigation (Lopez, Moon, & Park, 2016). The data in these devices, maybe able to be accessed everywhere hence posing another challenge to the investigators. It is a challenge for the investigator to locate the data in a way that ensures the privacy rights of the users. The investigators require the knowledge on anti-forensic tools, practices, and tools that help ensure that the forensic analysis is done accordingly (Spafford, 2006; Lopez, Moon, & Park, 2016).

Cloud-based applications also enable users to ensure that data is accessed from various devices. For example, if one of the two devices of a single user is compromised and both devices lead to some changes in the application, it would be difficult for the Cyber Forensic expert to identify the real source of the change. High risks may compromise credentials and theft of the identity in an environment that is cloud-based and lead to changes that are unknown such as the evidence remaining unknown. On the other hand, an email viewed using a user’s smart mobile device and deleted may not be traced easily. In most cases, it would be difficult to examine severs of the mail and identify the evidence of the deleted communication (Lopez, Moon, & Park, 2016).


There have been some changes in the data protection and privacy regulations in different countries across the globe (Garrie & Morrissy, 2014). Cyber laws and regulations in different jurisdiction vary and many do not take into account, the complexity in collecting forensic evidence. For example, in the machine of a suspect, the information that is available is likely to have some personal information that could be crucial in an investigation. However, accessibility to such private information is likely to be considered as a violation of user privacy (Spafford, 2006).

On the other hand, the era of companies giving some provision to their employees to use their individual devices in accessing the official communication is likely to contribute to several challenges involved in data gathering. Accessing the email of a user, for instance, using webmail and a smart mobile device together with downloading the involved attachments is an example of theft of personal data. In the current era, collecting specific information from a user device is in itself a challenge (Kaur & Kaur, 2012).


Cyber Forensic experts are tasked with collecting and analysing the role of identifying criminals and going through all the evidence gathered against the criminals. These are well-trained professionals working for the public law enforcement agencies or in the private sector to perform roles that are associated to the collection and analysis of forensic evidence. The Cyber Forensic experts also come up with reports that are majorly used in the legal settings for investigations. Besides working in the laboratory, Cyber Forensic experts take up the role of applying the techniques of forensic investigation in the field uncovering the data that is relevant for the court (Karie & Venter, 2015).

The Cyber Forensic experts have the ability of recovering data, which was deleted previously, hidden in the mobile folds, or encrypted. The court, in most cases, calls the Cyber Forensic experts to provide testimony in the court and elaborate on the evidence reports during a given investigation. As such, the Cyber Forensic investigators get involved in complicated cases that may include examining Internet abuse, determining the digital resources that are misused, verifying the offenders’ alibis, and examining how the network was used to come up with forensic threats. There are times when the Cyber Forensic expert is expected to offer support to cases that deal with intrusions, breaching of data, or any form of incident. Through the application of the relevant software and techniques, the device, system or the platform is examined for any kind of evidence on the persons involved on the crime (Karie, & Venter, 2015).

In a forensic examination, data is retrieved from the digital devices, which are considered to be evidence required for the investigations. In most cases, a systematic approach may be used to analyse the evidence, which would be presented in the court at the time of the proceedings. At an early stage of the investigation, the Cyber Forensic expert is required to get involved in gathering evidence. Early engagement in the investigation process helps the Cyber Forensic expert to be in a position to restore all the content without causing damage to the integrity (Karie, & Venter, 2015).

There are different types of forensic cases that are handled by the Cyber Forensic experts. Some of the cases deal with intruders getting into the victim’ devices and stealing their data, other cases, are for the crime offenders who launch attacks on several websites or those who try to gain some access to the names of the users and the password so as to engage in identity fraud. A Cyber Forensic expert has the ability to explore the type of fraud committed by analysing the evidence and using the required techniques. Despite the reason behind the investigation, the experts go through the process procedurally to ensure the findings recorded or gathered are sound. After opening a given case, the items that would be seized include the digital devices, software, and other media equipment’s so as to run the investigation. In the retrieval process, the items considered essential will be gathered so as to give the analyst everything that would be required for the testimony (Karie, & Venter, 2015).

Another human-related challenge faced by Cyber Forensics is spoliation (Cavaliere 2001; Mercer 2004). Spoliation occurs when the person handling evidence fails to preserve, alters evidence, or destroys evidence that could be useful in pending ligation (Watson, 2004). Spoliation may be caused by negligent on the part of the party handling the litigation or handling evidence and intentional destroying evidence by the handler.


Elsewhere, in a literature-based study, Karie and Venter (2015) identified and categorized cyber forensic challenges into four: technical challenges, law enforcement or legal system challenges, personal-related challenges and operational challenges.

Technical Challenges were identified as vast volume of data; bandwidth restrictions; encryption; volatility of digital evidence; incompatibility among heterogeneous forensic techniques; the digital media’s limited lifespan; emerging devices and technologies, sophistication of digital crimes; anti-forensics; emerging cloud forensic challenge.

Legal Challenges were identified as jurisdiction, admissibility of digital forensic techniques and tools; prosecuting digital crimes; privacy; ethical issues; lack of sufficient support for civic prosecution or legal criminal prosecution.

Personnel-related Challenges were identified as semantic disparities in Cyber Forensics; insufficient qualified Cyber Forensic personnel; insufficient forensic knowledge and the reuse among personnel; strict Cyber Forensic investigator licensing requirements; and lack of formal unified digital forensic domain knowledge.

Lastly, Operational Challenges were identified as significant manual analysis and intervention; incidence detection, prevention and response; lack of standardized procedures and processes; and trust of Audit Trails (Vaciago, 2012; Mercuri, 2009; Bassett, Bass, & O’Brien, 2006; Liu, & Brown, 2006; Richard, & Roussev, 2006; Arthur, & Hein, 2004; Mohay, 2005).


This paper revealed several challenges faced by Cyber Forensics. These challenges can be categorized into five: hardware, software, cloud, legal and human. They can also be categorized into technical challenges, law enforcement or legal system challenges, personal-related challenges, and operational challenges. While the available literature has sufficient details on the technical aspects of Cyber Forensic investigation, the human element only seems to touch the surface. There is a huge gap in terms of understanding the emotional and cultural aspects of the stakeholders involved in the investigation process. This calls for a review of Cyber Forensics where elements of Emotional Intelligence (EQ), Cultural Intelligence (CQ) and People Intelligence (PQ) are further investigated for a better understanding.


  1. Arthur, K.K., & Hein, S.V. (2004). An investigation into computer forensic tools. Proceedings of the ISSA conference; Midrand, South Africa. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Computer Society Publishers; 1–11.
  2. Bassett, R., Bass, L., & O’Brien, P. (2006). Computer forensics: an essential ingredient for cyber security. J Inform Sci Technol; 3:22–32.
  3. Brown, C. (2015) Investigating and prosecuting cybercrime: Forensic dependencies and Barriers to Justice. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 9 (1): 55-119.
  4. Cichonski, P., Millar, T., Grance, T., & Scarfone, K. (2012). Computer security incident handling guide. Revision 2. National Institute of Standards and Technology; 2012 Aug.; NIST Special Publication 800-61
  5. Cavaliere, F. J. (2001). “The Web-wise Lawyer,” Practical Lawyer; 47(4): 9-10.
  6. Garrie, D. & Morrissy, D. (2014). Digital forensic evidence in the courtroom: Understanding content and quality. Northwest Journal of technology and intellectual property, 12 (2): 121.
  7. Giordano, J & Maciag, C. (2002). Cyber forensic: A military operations perspective. International Journal of digital evidence, 1 (2): 1-13.
  8. Kaur, R & Kaur, A. (2012). Digital Forensics. International Journal of Computer Application, 50(5): 0975-887.
  9. Karie, N.M., & Venter, H.S. (2015). Taxonomy of challenges for digital forensics. Journal Forensics, Sci, 60(4): 885-893.
  10. Liu, V., & Brown, F. (2006). Bleeding-edge anti-forensics. Proceedings of the InfoSec World Conference & Expo; Orlando, FL. Washington, DC: NIST Special Publication; 800–86.
  11. Lopez, E.M. & Moon, S.Y., & Park, H.J. (2016). Scenario-Based Digital Forensics Challenges in Cloud Computing. Symmetry, 8 (107): 2-20.
  12. Lindsey, T. (2006). Challenges in Digital Forensics. Retrieved on 8th May 2017 from
  13. (2008). Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. Retrieved May 23, 2017, from
  14. Mandhai, S. (2017, May 15). Cage activist faces charges for not giving up passwords. Retrieved May 23, 2017, from
  15. Mercer, L. D. (2004). “Characteristics and Preservation of Digital Evidence,” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 73(3): 28-34.
  16. Mercuri, R. (2009). Criminal defense challenges in computer forensics. Proceedings of the Digital Forensics and Cyber Crime Conference, Albany, NY. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg Publishers.
  17. Mohay, G. (2005). Technical Challenges and Directions for Digital Forensics in 1st International Workshop on Systematic Approaches to Digital Forensic Engineering.
  18. National Institute of Justice. (2002). Results from Tools and Technology Working Group, Governors Summit on Cybercrime and Cyber terrorism, Princeton NJ.
  19. Richard, G.G., & Roussev, V. (2006). Digital forensics tools – the next generation.
    Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc; 76–91.
  20. Vaciago, G. (2012). Cloud computing and data jurisdiction: a new challenge for
    digital forensics. Proceedings of the third International Conference on Technical and Legal Aspects of the e-Society; Valencia, Spain. IARIA XPS Press; 7–12.
  21. Spafford E. (2006). Some Challenges in Digital Forensics. In: Olivier M.S., Shenoi S. (eds) Advances in Digital Forensics II. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication, vol 222. Springer, Boston, MA
  22. Watson, L. M. (2004). “Anticipating electronic discovery in commercial cases,” Michigan Bar Journal. 83(31), 23-45.
Translate »