Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2026-2
Social and Organizational Dynamics in Multiplayer Gaming: A Comparative Communication Analysis of Casual and Esports Players’ Interactions in “ Call of Duty: Warzone ”
Multiplayer video games are rich settings for observing complex social and organizational dynamics such as communication, socioemotional exchange, and coordination, yet comparative evidence across player profiles and contexts remains limited. This study aims to quantify and compare in-game communicative functions in Call of Duty: Warzone across player profiles (casual vs. esports) and, within esports, across different contexts (streaming vs. tournament). We conducted a quantitative content analysis of 5,915 utterances from 38 players across 29 gaming sessions. The study results indicate distinct communication styles: Casual players prioritize social interaction and emotional expression, whereas esports players emphasize strategic discourse. In addition, esports players in streaming contexts exhibit greater emotional engagement compared to tournament settings. These results, showing that gaming communication is highly context-sensitive, highlight the psychological impact of competitive play, advancing the understanding of gaming communication dynamics and player behaviors.
WatzlawickP, BavelasJB, JacksonDD. Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. W.W. Norton & Company: New York, NY; 1967.
2.
MarlowSL, LacerenzaCN, SalasE. Communication in virtual teams: A conceptual framework and research agenda. Hum Resour Manag Rev, 2017; 27(4):575–589; doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.005
3.
RappA. An exploration of world of warcraft for the gamification of virtual organizations. Electron Commer Res Appl, 2020; 42:100985; doi: 10.1016/j.elerap.2020.100985
4.
FreemanG, WohnDY. Understanding eSports team formation and coordination. Comput Supported Coop Work, 2019; 28(1–2):95–126; doi: 10.1007/s10606-017-9299-4
5.
HimmelsteinD, LiuY, ShapiroJL. An exploration of mental skills among competitive league of legends players. Int J Gaming Comput-Mediat Simul, 2017; 9(2):1–21; doi: 10.4018/IJGCMS.2017040101
6.
WohnDY, FreemanG. Audience management practices of live streamers on twitch. In: Proc ACM Int Conf Interact Media Exp (IMX ‘20); 2020 Jun; Barcelona, Spain (virtuale). Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY; 2020; pp. 106–116; doi: 10.1145/3391614.3393653
7.
TaylorTL. Raising the stakes: E-sports and the professionalization of computer gaming. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA; 2012.
8.
KaytoueM, SilvaA, CerfL, et al.Watch me playing, I am a professional: A first study on video game live streaming. In: Proc 21st Int Conf World Wide Web (WWW ‘12 Companion); 2012 Apr; Lyon, France. Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY; 2012; pp. 1181–1188; doi: 10.1145/2187980.2188259
9.
PoulusD, CoulterTJ, TrotterMG, et al.Stress and coping in esports and the influence of mental toughness. Front Psychol, 2020; 11:628; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00628
10.
BehnkeM, KosakowskiM, KaczmarekLD. Social challenge and threat predict performance and cardiovascular responses during competitive video gaming. Psychol Sport Exerc, 2020; 46:101584; doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.101584
11.
YuT. The business of Esports: The wild wild west on fire. J Sport Manag, 2021; 35(5):476–477; doi: 10.1123/jsm.2021-0032
12.
RyanRM, RigbyCS, PrzybylskiA. The motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory approach. Motiv Emot, 2006; 30(4):344–360; doi: 10.1007/s11031-006-9051-8
13.
RappA. Social game elements in world of Warcraft: Interpersonal relations, groups and organizations for gamification design. Int J Hum Comput Interact, 2018; 34(8):759–773; doi: 10.1080/10447318.2018.1461760
14.
ZsilaÁ, ShabahangR, ArugueteMS, et al.Toxic behaviors in online multiplayer games: Prevalence, perception, risk factors of victimization, and psychological consequences. Aggress Behav., 2022; 48(3):356–364; doi: 10.1002/ab.22023
15.
GoffmanE. The presentation of self in everyday life. Social Sciences Research Centre, University of Edinburgh: Edinburgh; 1956.
16.
PeñaJ, HancockJT. An analysis of socioemotional and task communication in online multiplayer video games. Commun Res, 2006; 33(1):92–109; doi: 10.1177/0093650205283103
17.
TanETS, WadeA, KokkinakisAV, et al.Less is more: Analysing communication in teams of strangers. In: Proc HICSS-54; 2021; Kauai, HI, USA (virtuale). University of Hawai’i at Mānoa: Honolulu, HI; 2021; pp. 1–10.
18.
TanETS, RogersK, NackeLE, et al.Communication sequences indicate team cohesion: A mixed-methods study of ad hoc league of legends teams. Proc ACM Hum-Comput Interact, 2022; 6(CHI PLAY):1–27; doi: 10.1145/3549488
19.
BeresNA, KlarkowskiM, MandrykRL. Under pressure: Exploring choke and clutch in competitive video games. Proc ACM Hum-Comput Interact, 2021; 5(CHI PLAY):1–22; doi: 10.1145/3474666
20.
KouY, GuiX. Emotion regulation in eSports gaming: A qualitative study of league of legends. Proc ACM Hum-Comput Interact, 2020; 4(CSCW2):1–25; doi: 10.1145/3415229
21.
SmithMJ, BirchPD, BrightD. Identifying stressors and coping strategies of elite esports competitors. Int J Gaming Comput-Mediat Simul, 2019; 11(2):22–39; doi: 10.4018/IJGCMS.2019040102
22.
TörhönenM, HassanL, SjöblomM, et al.Play, playbour, or labour? The relationships between perception of occupational activity and outcomes among streamers and youtubers. In: Proc HICSS-52; 2019 Jan; Grand Wailea, Maui, HI, USA. University of Hawai’i at Mānoa: Honolulu, HI; 2019; pp. 2558–2567; doi: 10.24251/HICSS.2019.308
23.
ChesneyT, ChuahSH, HoffmannR, et al.Skilled players cooperate less in multi-player games. J Gaming Virtual Worlds, 2014; 6(1):21–31; doi: 10.1386/jgvw.6.1.21_1
24.
DabbishL, KrautR, PattonJ. Communication and commitment in an online game team. In: Proc SIGCHI Conf Hum Factors Comput Syst (CHI ‘12); 2012; Austin, TX, USA. Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY; 2012; pp. 879–888; doi: 10.1145/2207676.2208529
25.
Toups DugasPO, HammerJ, HamiltonWA, et al.A framework for cooperative communication game mechanics from grounded theory. In: Proc 1st ACM SIGCHI Annu Symp Comput-Hum Interact Play; 2014; pp. 257–66; doi: 10.1145/2658537.2658681
26.
LeavittA, KeeganBC, ClarkJ. Ping to win? Non-verbal communication and team performance in competitive online multiplayer games. In: Proc CHI 2016 Conf Hum Factors Comput Syst (CHI ‘16); 2016; San Jose, CA, USA. Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY; 2016; pp. 4337–4350; doi: 10.1145/2858036.2858132
27.
WeberR, BehrKM, TamboriniR, et al.What do we really know about first-person-shooter games? An event-related, high-resolution content analysis. J Comput-Mediat Commun, 2009; 14(4):1016–1037; doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01479.x
28.
AustinJ. “I suppose I’ll be patching you up, as usual”: Women’s roles and normative femininity in a team-based video game. New Media Soc, 2022; 24(5):1116–1132; doi: 10.1177/1461444820972396
29.
SužnjevićM, DobrijevicO, MatijasevicM. Hack, slash, and chat: A study of players’ behavior and communication in MMORPGs. In: 8th Annu Workshop Netw Syst Support Games (NetGames); 2009; pp. 1–6; doi: 10.1109/NETGAMES.2009.5446235
30.
von GillernS. Communication, cooperation, and competition: Examining the literacy practices of esports teams. In: Esports Research and Its Integration in Education. (FerdigRE., eds.) IGI Global: Hershey, PA; 2021; pp. 148–67; doi: 10.4018/978-1-7998-7069-2.ch009
OhnoS. The link between battle royale games and aggressive feelings, addiction, and sense of underachievement: Exploring esports-related genres. Int J Ment Health Addict., 2022; 20(3):1873–1881; doi: 10.1007/s11469-021-00488-0
35.
OrtloffAM, FasslM, PonticelloA, et al.Different researchers, different results? Analyzing the influence of researcher experience and data type during qualitative analysis of an interview and survey study on security advice. In: Proc CHI Conf Hum Factors Comput Syst (CHI ‘23); 2023; Hamburg, Germany. Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY; 2023; pp. 1–21; doi: 10.1145/3544548.3580766
36.
BruckmanA. Studying the amateur artist: A perspective on disguising data collected in human subjects research on the Internet. Ethics Inf Technol, 2002; 4(3):217–231; doi: 10.1023/A:1021316409277
37.
RappA. Time, engagement and video games: How game design elements shape the temporalities of play in massively multiplayer online role‐playing games. Inf Syst J., 2022; 32(1):5–32; doi: 10.1111/isj.12328
38.
PerlaPP, MarkowitzM, NofiA, et al.Gaming and shared situation awareness. Center for Naval Analyses: Alexandria, VA; 2000.
39.
Baldauf-QuilliatreH, Colón de CarvajalI. Encouragement in videogame interactions. SI, 2020; 2(2); doi: 10.7146/si.v2i2.118041
40.
RicoR, Sánchez-ManzanaresM, GilF, et al.Team implicit coordination processes: A team knowledge–based approach. Acad Manage Rev. 2008; 33(1):163–184; doi: 10.5465/AMR.2008.27751276
41.
BehnkeM, StefanczykMM, ŻurekG, et al.Esports players are less extroverted and conscientious than athletes. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw., 2023; 26(1):50–56; doi: 10.1089/cyber.2022.0067
42.
DriskellJE, SalasE, JohnstonJ. Does stress lead to a loss of team perspective? Group Dyn Theory Res Pract, 1999; 3(4):291–302; doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.3.4.291
43.
CsikszentmihalyiM. The flow experience and its significance for human psychology. In: Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness. (CsikszentmihalyiM., eds.) Cambridge University Press: Cambridge; 1988; pp. 15–35; doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511621956.002
44.
CairnsP, CoxA, NordinAI. Immersion in digital games: Review of gaming experience research. In: Handb Digit Games. (AngelidesM, AgiusH., eds.) Wiley: Hoboken, NJ; 2014; pp. 337–61; doi: 10.1002/9781118796443.ch12
45.
HamariJ, SjöblomM. What is eSports and why do people watch it? INTR, 2017; 27(2):211–232; doi: 10.1108/IntR-04-2016-0085
46.
HamiltonWA, GarretsonO, KerneA. Streaming on twitch: Fostering participatory communities of play within live mixed media. In: Proc SIGCHI Conf Hum Factors Comput Syst (CHI ‘14); 2014; Toronto, ON, Canada. Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY; 2014; pp. 1315–1324; doi: 10.1145/2556288.2557048
ZimmerF, ScheibeK. What drives streamers? Users’ characteristics and motivations on social live streaming services. In: Proc HICSS-52; 2019 Jan; Grand Wailea, Maui, HI, USA. University of Hawai’i at Mānoa: Honolulu, HI; 2019; pp. 2538–2547.
49.
WoodcockA, JohnsonMR. The affective labor and performance of live streaming on twitch.tv. Televis New Media, 2019; 20(8):813–823; doi: 10.1177/1527476419851077
50.
ValladãoSP, MiddletonJ, AndreTL. Esport: Fortnite acutely increases heart rate of young men. Int J Exerc Sci, 2020; 13(6):1217–1224.
51.
IshakAW. Communicating in sports teams. In: Emerald Handb Group Team Commun Res. (BeckSJ, KeytonJ, PooleMS., eds.) Emerald Publishing: Bingley; 2022; pp. 505–18.
52.
CampoM, MellalieuS, FerrandC, et al.Emotions in team contact sports: A systematic review. Sport Psychol, 2012; 26(1):62–97; doi: 10.1123/tsp.26.1.62
53.
BoldiA, RappA, BirkMV. Stress in esports: A qualitative study on the interplay of player experiences and organizational systems. Int J Hum Comput Interact, 2025; 41(15):9224–9247; doi: 10.1080/10447318.2024.2423343
54.
RappA, BoldiA. The quantification of the gaming experience: Self-tracking practices and game metrics among casual players, esports players, and streamers. Comput Human Behav, 2026; 174:108826; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2025.108826
55.
BoldiA, RappA. Unregulated authorities: An ethnographic study on how streamers impact cheating dynamics in online gaming. In: Proceedings of the 9th International GamiFIN Conference. CEUR Workshop Proceedings; 2025; 179–192. Available from: https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-4012/
