Abstract This study investigates the concept of psychological need frustration within the context of video games. We explore the potential of discrete in-game events, specifically the usage of widely popular ‘stun’ mechanics, to induce feelings of need frustration in players. We designed, developed and experimentally tested a bespoke video game with four conditions: No Stuns, Avoidable Stuns, Unavoidable Stuns and Layered Stuns (a combination of avoidable and unavoidable stuns). Our findings show that Unavoidable Stuns lead to statistically significantly greater autonomy need frustration. This finding has important implications for games research, as psychological need frustration is linked to negative effects on player engagement and wellbeing. Our results also highlight that a variety of stun mechanics can undermine psychological need satisfaction. Taken together, this work makes a meaningful contribution to HCI and games literature, showcasing that game mechanics can be designed in a way that undermines psychological needs. Research Highlights A study was conducted to investigate psychological needs frustration in a video game. Autonomy need frustration scores were higher in the presence of unavoidable stuns This study provides early evidence that psychological need frustration can be induced

When playing competitive video games, players are subject to various pressures that may jeopardise performance outcomes. Prominent among these pressures is spectatorship: that is, the expectation that one maintains high performance under scrutiny by teammates, audience members, or others. In this work, we explore the influence of spectatorship—and the tonality of response—on player performance in a competitive racing video game. We report results from a mixed-methods laboratory experiment (n=85), counter-intuitively finding that supportive spectatorship is more detrimental to performance than critical spectatorship. We contend that performance may be undermined by expectation threat, nervous activation, and presentational concerns, as well as participant trait self-consciousness. This work makes a novel contribution to the empirical investigation of spectatorship influence on video game performance—positing implications for both game developers and high-pressure gaming spaces, such as esports.

Digital games can provide effective recovery from stress, with players turning to a variety of genres-including those with game mechanics that can be considered stressors themselves, i.e., action mechanics. We examine whether action mechanics undermine or facilitate game-based recovery by exposing participants (n=60) to a stress induction, and then having them play a roguelike game in one of three conditions: Combat-Required, Combat-Optional, and Combat-Free. We assess experience through self-report and observed physiological responses. Our findings suggest that gameplay-irrespective of action mechanic intensity-supports the recovery process through the pathways of experienced psychological detachment, control, dominance, and pleasure. Additionally, action mechanics were perceived by participants as particularly promising for mastery recovery experiences-but undermine the recovery pathways of relaxation, as corroborated by experienced arousal and subjective stress. Physiological measures corroborate subjective self-report. We contend that video games featuring action mechanics represent a promising strategy for stress recovery, and may be particularly beneficial in the re-assertion of mastery.

Many videogames require players to perform under pressure; however, not all players respond equivalently to pressure: why are some players more likely to tilt (lose control during play) or choke (perform poorly relative to their ability) whereas others seem to thrive under pressure? Given the importance of both emotion regulation in tilting and optimal arousal in achieving optimal performance, we propose that individual differences in ability to down-regulate negative affect under stress--known as failure-related action-state orientation (fASO)--could explain propensity to choke under pressure. We conducted an online between-subjects experiment (N=144) in which we measured baseline performance in Super Hexagon (day 1), then exposed participants to a stress induction (i.e., PASAT-C) or had them play a low-intensity bubble-popping game before playing again (day 2). Under stress, players higher in fASO performed better relative to their baseline in terms of average time alive and stalled progress; whereas, without stress, players lower in fASO performed better on both measures. Traits reflective of proposed explanations for choking (i.e., reinvestment, attentional control) did not influence performance under pressure. The ability to down-regulate negative affect and overcome setbacks is a useful theoretical lens to explore why some players choke under pressure, whereas others thrive.

Given the ubiquity of videogame play by children, concerns about the impacts of videogames, and increasing evidence of the benefits associated with digital play, it is important to evaluate the player experience (pX) of children. Moreover, it is essential to include children's voices in research about technologies designed for their use. However, eliciting rich, first-hand data on their experiences and perspectives is challenging because it requires children to articulate opinions in a pre-established context of general positivity towards games, alongside potential social desirability bias. In this paper, we present a methodology which uses children's psychophysiology as a prompt for reflective interviews, with two commercial off-the-shelf computer games (Rocket League and LEGO Builder's Journey). We consider the utility, reproducibility, reliability and validity of the method. In assessing the method, we discuss children's experience of wearing the sensors, the insights generated from the psychophysiological data, and the understanding that emerged when prompting children to reflect and comment on their own psychophysiological data.

The massive growth of esports has vitalized the need to study human performance in competitive video gaming. The pressure of competitive play elicits a range of emotional experiences, which can affect players during and beyond a gaming session. In this work, we review the state of the literature concerning the role emotions play in esports performance as well as highlight coping strategies players use to regulate emotions during competitive play. We review the findings of N=32 peer-reviewed articles pertaining to emotions and esports, finding that the emotional experiences elicited by competitive play affect esports performance. In response, players attempt to regulate their emotions to maintain performance; however, efforts to do so vary, as they currently lack effective coping strategies. Lastly, we review the potential of technical interventions in esports training for improving emotion regulation among players. Our findings support knowledge development in esports, and present avenues towards promoting the emotional wellbeing of competitive gamers.

Toxicity in multiplayer gaming is an ongoing problem that threatens the well-being of players, gaming communities, and game developers. Meanwhile, interventions that promote positive interactions and proactively create positive gaming spaces are still in their infancy; little is known about how players respond to positivity. In our study, 959 League of Legends players were presented with either 10 positive chat logs or 10 negative chat logs, and asked to reflect on the content and how representative such communication is of their own gaming experiences. We thematically coded participants' free-form answers (identifying the themes normalize, acknowledge, downplay, cope, blame, and make personal), and compared the positive and negative conditions in terms of theme prevalence. Our findings show that participants were more likely to normalize and acknowledge toxic negativity than positivity. Furthermore, the dominant response to positivity consisted of downplaying messages as not representative and rare, and even expressing suspicion that messages must have been fabricated or intended as sarcasm. Participants overwhelmingly cope by muting chat, protecting them from toxic interactions, but leaving them unexposed to positive communication and other beneficial social interactions within play.

Many interactive systems are susceptible to misinterpreting the user’s input actions or gestures. Interpretation errors are common when systems gather a series of signals from the user and then attempt to interpret the user’s intention based on those signals – e.g., gesture identification from a touchscreen, camera, or body-worn electrodes – and previous work has shown that interpretation error can cause significant problems for learning new input commands. Error-reduction strategies from telecommunications, such as repeating a command or increasing the length of the input while reducing its expressiveness, could improve these input mechanisms – but little is known about whether longer command sequences will cause problems for users (e.g., increased effort or reduced learning). We tested performance, learning, and perceived effort in a crowd-sourced study where participants learned and used input mechanisms with different error-reduction techniques. We found that error reduction techniques are feasible, can outperform error-prone ordinary input, and do not negatively affect learning or perceived effort.

Now more than ever, people are using online platforms to communicate. Twitch, the foremost platform for live game streaming, offers many communication modalities. However, the platform lacks representation of social cues and signals of the audience experience, which are innately present in live events. To address this, we present a technology probe that captures the audience energy and response in a game streaming context. We designed a game and integrated a custom-communication modality—Commons Sense—in which the audience members’ heart rates are sensed via webcam, averaged, and fed into a video game to affect sound, lighting, and difficulty. We conducted an ‘in-the-wild’ evaluation with four Twitch streamers and their audience members (N=55) to understand how these groups interacted through Commons Sense. Audience members and streamers indicated high levels of enjoyment and engagement with Commons Sense, suggesting the potential of physiological interaction as a beneficial communication tool in live streaming.

This work explores perceptions of performance enhancer usage in esports. Specifically, we explored the perception of: food and food supplements; non-medical use of prescription drugs; drugs with some social acceptance (e.g. alcohol, nicotine, cannabis); drugs with lower social acceptance (e.g., psychedelics, opioids); and non-invasive brain stimulation (e.g. transcranial direct current stimulation). A mixed-methods approach was used to triangulate findings around three data sets, including both prompted and unprompted online forum comments, as well as survey data. The studies evidence that players are willing to use or are already using enhancers to increase their in-game performance, and that players are generally concerned about the use of enhancers in professional esports contexts. Furthermore, the community perceives that a substantial number of e-athletes use enhancers. The core contribution of this work is a comprehensive investigation into perspectives of esports performance enhancement, which highlights the urgent need for further research, as well as regulation by esports leagues.

This work explores the use of functional Near Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) to assess cognitive activity during videogame play, and compare it to cognitive activity during cognitive tasks that assess executive control. To this end, we assessed haemodynamic response to videogame and cognitive tasks in the prefrontal cortex, each manipulated on a spectrum of difficulty. In our study (n = 37), we find that mental effort expended during videogame play did not differ from mental effort expended during cognitive tasks---and speculate that regional cognitive activity during gameplay is indicative of functions pertaining to memory encoding and retrieval, planning, and sustainment of attention. Our findings suggest the utility of fNIRS as a means to understand challenge as part of the player experience, and contest the popular conception of videogame play as cognitively undemanding entertainment. Further, we were successful in distinguishing between difficulty levels in the gameplay tasks, situating fNIRS as broadly useful for granular assessment of gameplay difficulty. As such, we contend that fNIRS is an effective and useful tool for generating high-resolution insights regarding cognition (and particularly the experience of difficulty) during gameplay.

Game developers, researchers, and players recognize the harm of toxic behaviour in online games-yet toxicity persists. Players' coping strategies are limited to tools that focus on punishing toxic players (e.g., muting, blocking, reporting), which are inadequate and often misused. To address the needs of players experiencing toxicity, we took inspiration from research in other online spaces that provide support tools for targets of harassment. We iteratively designed and evaluated in-game tools to support targets of toxicity. While we found that most players prefer tools that explicitly address toxicity and increase feelings of control, we also found that tools that solely provide social or emotional support also decrease stress, increase feelings of control, and increase positive affect. Our findings suggest that players may benefit from variety in toxicity support tools that both explicitly address toxicity in the moment and help players cope after it has occurred.

Toxicity in online gaming is a problem that causes harm to players, developers, and gaming communities. Toxic behaviors persist in online multiplayer games for a number of reasons, and continue to go unchecked due in large part to a lack of reliable methods to accurately detect toxicity online, in real-time, and at scale. In this article, we present a modeling approach that uses features derived from in-game verbal communication and game metadata to predict ifOverwatchgames are toxic. With logistic regression models, we achieve accuracy scores of 86.3% for binary (high vs. low toxicity) predictions. We discuss which features were most salient, potential application of our predictive model, and implications for toxicity detection in games. Our approach is a low-cost, low-effort, and noninvasive contribution to holistic efforts in combating toxicity in games.

Video game toxicity, endemic to online play, represents a pervasive and complex problem. Antisocial behaviours in online play directly harm player wellbeing, enjoyment, and retention—but research has also revealed that some players normalize toxicity as an inextricable and acceptable element of the competitive video game experience. In this work, we explore perceptions of toxicity and how they are predicted by player traits, demonstrating that participants reporting a higher tendency towards Conduct Reconstrual, Distorting Consequences, Dehumanization, and Toxic Online Disinhibition perceive online game interactions as less toxic. Through a thematic analysis on willingness to report, we also demonstrate that players abstain from reporting toxic content because they view it as acceptable, typical of games, as banter, or as not their concern. We propose that these traits and themes represent contributing factors to the cyclical normalization of toxicity. These findings further highlight the multifaceted nature of toxicity in online video games.

Input mechanisms can produce noisy signals that computers must interpret, and this interpretation can misconstrue the user’s intention. Researchers have studied how interpretation errors can affect users’ task performance, but little is known about how these errors affect learning, and whether they help or hinder the transition to expertise. Previous findings suggest that increasing the user’s attention can facilitate learning, so frequent interpretation errors may increase attention and learning; alternatively, however, interpretation errors may negatively interfere with skill development. To explore these potentially important effects, we conducted studies where participants learned commands with various rates of artificially injected interpretation errors. Our results showed that higher rates of interpretation error led to worse memory retention, higher completion times, higher occurrences of user error (beyond those injected by the system), and greater perceived effort. These findings indicate that when input mechanisms must interpret the user’s input, interpretation errors cause problems for user learning.

Experiencing the thrill of success is one of digital gaming’s pleasures, but often also involves the crush of repeated failure. To explore success and failure in play, we conducted a mixed-methods study in which 182 participants described scenarios of success and failure and their experiences therein. Our results suggest that success and failure should be considered in relation to the players’ goals, that failure should be differentiated into temporary and perpetual failure, and that temporary failure (the struggle) is integral to the experience of success (overcoming the struggle). We further show that although success is generally more enjoyable than failure, players who enjoy a challenge are more likely to experience competence and find enjoyment within experiences of failure. Our findings contextualize what players perceive as failure and success, and that, for many players, success is overcoming the struggle of failure.

Video games frequently invoke high-pressure circumstances in which player performance is crucial. These high-pressure circumstances are incubators for 'choking' and 'clutching'-phenomena that broadly address critical failures and successes in performance, respectively. The eruption of esports into the mainstream has vitalized the need to understand performance in video games, and particularly in competitive games spaces. In this work, we explore the potential mechanisms behind choking and clutching and how they are related to player traits and tendencies. We report the results of multiple regression analyses, finding that the propensity to choke is positively correlated with Reinvestment, Obsessive Passion, and Public Self-Consciousness, as well as Approach and Avoidance coping styles. Likewise, we find that the propensity to clutch is negatively correlated with Social Anxiety, and positively with Private Self-Consciousness and player experience with competitive gaming. We propose that these findings can be utilized to scaffold and support performance in high-pressure gaming spaces, such as esports. This work represents an initial step in the empirical exploration of choking and clutching in competitive video game contexts.

While evidence supports that some commercial off-the-shelf video games may promote mental wellbeing, it is an extensive time investment to experimentally identify games that benefit players. The time delay between commercial games research and commercial game development can render such research out-of-date. In this work, we explore player-written game reviews as a way to expeditiously identifying games with potential benefits for mental wellbeing. Through a content analysis of review data, we found that players publicly disclose experiences consistent with self-care. Our analysis generated categories related to coping and recovery, emotional regulation, social connectedness, and obsessive play. Through this process, we identified several games as strong candidates for further research. Our work contributes to an emerging research agenda of commercial video games as therapy (VGTx), by providing a technique for rapidly identifying games with therapeutic potential. Further, we demonstrate that Steam user reviews are a valuable source of affective player experience data-a contribution with broad implications for player experience research.

While online multiplayer games provide an opportunity for players to both maintain and establish new connections, male and female players have been found to experience these environments differently. Interviews (n = 22) and focus groups (n = 14) were used to explore these differences as they impact on creating new social connections, as well as to provide recommendations for the development of new social tools and features that account for these differences. While all participants experienced toxicity and performance pressure as barriers to forming new connections, female players uniquely reported the impacts of misogynistic targeting and stereotype threat. In turn, female players wishing to avoid these stresses would often mask their gender. The common practice of gender misrepresentation by both male and female players impacted female players’ ability to create social connections through voice technology, as well as building their distrust of unknown others. Recommendations are made to build social connectedness between players taking into account the specific constraints faced by female players. These include establishing mentoring opportunities as well as profiling players beyond their immediate skill or rank. Additionally, the desire for control of one’s online identity presents practical challenges that may be overcome through thoughtful design.

Videogames are complex stimuli, and selecting games that consistently induce a desired player experience (PX) in an experimental setting can be challenging. The number of relatively high-quality games being released each year continues to increase, which makes deriving a shortlist of plausible candidate games from this pool increasingly problematic. Despite this, guidance for structuring and reporting on the game selection process remains limited. This paper therefore proposes two approaches to game selection: the first leverages online videogame databases and existing PX research, and is structured with respect to widely-applicable videogame metadata. The second process applies established game design theory to serve researchers when insufficient connections between desired PX outcomes and recognisable game elements exist. Both methods are accompanied by example reports of their application. The present work aims to assist experimental researchers in selecting videogames likely to meet their needs, while encouraging more rigorous standards of reporting in the field.

People who play video games do so in a range of social contexts: alone, with people they know and don't know, in cooperative and competitive settings. However, little is known about what people enjoy or dislike about these contexts of play, or how to best design games to support player preferences. Using open-ended responses from an online survey (N = 326) and a series of interviews (N = 16) this study shows that the solitary context offers immersive, relaxing, autonomous play, as well as the avoidance of unwanted social interactions. Social play, however, provides competence-enhancing experiences (via competition or teamwork or both) via interactions with others. What was disliked about these contexts indicates where design improvements to both the solitary and social play experiences can be made.

The study examines the relationship of challenge-skill balance and the player experience through evaluation of competence, autonomy, presence, interest/enjoyment, and positive and negative affect states. To manipulate challenge-skill balance, three video game modes -- boredom (low challenge), balance (medium challenge), and overload (high challenge) -- were developed and experimentally tested (n = 45). The study showed that self-reported positive affect, autonomy, presence, and interest/enjoyment differed between the levels. The balance condition generally performed well in terms of positive player experiences, confirming the key role challenge-skill balance plays in designing for optimal play experiences. Interestingly, the study found significantly lower negative affect scores when playing the boredom condition. Greater feelings of competence were also reported for the boredom condition than the balance and overload conditions. Finally, some measures point to overload as a more enjoyable experience than boredom, suggesting possible player preference for challenge > skill imbalance over skill > challenge imbalance. Implications for design and future research are presented.

The current study sought to identify the impact of whether teammates in a cooperative videogame were controlled by other humans (avatars) or by the game (agents). The impact on player experience was explored through both subjective questionnaire measures and brain wave activity measurement (electroencephalography). Play with human teammates was associated with a greater sense of relatedness, but less competence and flow than play with other computer-controlled teammates. In terms of brain activity, play with human teammates was associated with greater activity in the alpha, theta and beta power bands than play with computer-controlled teammates. Overall, the results suggest that play with human teammates involves greater cognitive activity in terms of 'mentalising' than play with computer-controlled teammates. Additionally, the associations between subjective measures of player experience and brain activity are described. Limitations of the current study are identified and key directions for future research are discussed.