Examining the Intersection Between Gaming and Extremism

Examining the Intersection Between Gaming & Violent Extremism 1

Examining the Intersection

Between Gaming and

Violent Extremism

Global Programme on Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism

and Special Projects and Innovation Branch

ACTION RESEARCH

2 Examining the Intersection Between Gaming & Violent Extremism

Examining the Intersection Between Gaming & Violent Extremism 3

1. Introduction ...................................................................................... 4

2. Gaming & Extremism ......................................................................... 6

Gaming & PCVE .................................................................................. 8

3. Key Findings: Phase I & II ................................................................... 9

Gaps in research on gaming and extremism ........................................ 9

How and why gaming spaces may be used by extremists .................... 10

Positive effects of gaming and potential avenues for PCVE ................ 12

4. Survey Results: Phase III .................................................................. 13

Negative aspects of gaming .............................................................. 13

Reactions to negative aspects of gaming ........................................... 16

Positive aspects of gaming................................................................ 18

Reections on trolling ....................................................................... 21

5. Conclusion ...................................................................................... 22

Recommendations and future steps ................................................. 23

Appendix I ........................................................................................... 24

Appendix II .......................................................................................... 25

Appendix III ......................................................................................... 28

Contents

4 Examining the Intersection Between Gaming & Violent Extremism

ith over 3 billion gamers worldwide,

millions of monthly active users on gaming

and gaming-adjacent platforms,

and an

abundance of gaming-related content published

daily, gaming culture is omnipresent in modern life.

It is neither an activity reserved for children and

teenagers – in fact, the average age of players is

– nor limited to males, as over 40% of players

are female.

Rather, it is a widespread leisure-time

activity deeply anchored in popular mainstream

entertainment media. From playing mobile app games

to browser games, speaking to others in massive

multiplayer games or on gaming consoles, to posting

about gaming-related content on social media and

chat forums such as Discord, to watching Let’s Play

videos on livestreaming platforms such as Twitch,

one third of the world’s population is part of an ever-

growing gaming culture.

1. Clement, J. (2021), Number of Video Gamers Worldwide in 2021, By Region. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/293304/number-video-gamers/

2. Gaming (-adjacent) platforms include gaming platforms such as Steam, livestreaming services such as Twitch and DLive, and chat applications such as Discord.

3. Yanev, V. (2022). Video Game Demographics – Who Plays Games in 2022. Techjury. https://techjury.net/blog/video-game-demographics/#gref

4. ibid.

5. Skwarczek, S. (2021). How The Gaming Industry Has Leveled Up During The Pandemic. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2021/06/17/how-the-gaming-

industry-has-leveled-up-during-the-pandemic/?sh=1e9d4d46297c

6. Schlegel, L. (2018). Playing jihad: the gamication of radicalization. The Defense Post. https://www.thedefensepost.com/2018/07/05/gamication-of-radicalization-opinion/

This trend was further accelerated when the

Coronavirus pandemic forced millions of people

to refrain from oine social activities. Digital

communities in gaming spaces became a substitute for

the lack of oine interaction and grew exponentially.

Considering the number of users in gaming spaces and

the appeal of gaming-related content, it is unsurprising

that a range of violent extremist ideologies have

appeared on these platforms and extremists are

seeking to exploit the popularity and attractiveness

of gaming spaces for their own ends. While the use of

video games has been part of propaganda efforts for

twenty years,

the livestreamed attack in Christchurch,

New Zealand, in 2019 ignited a stark increase in

attention from both researchers and policymakers to

the potential nexus between gaming and extremism,

violent or otherwise. This attention only increased after

the 14 May 2022 terrorist attack in Buffalo.

4 Examining the Intersection Between Gaming & Violent Extremism

1. Introduction

Examining the Intersection Between Gaming & Violent Extremism 5Examining the Intersection Between Gaming & Violent Extremism 5

The attacker kept an extensive record of his attack

planning on Discord and later livestreamed his mass

shooting on Twitch.

Extremists seem to exploit

gaming-related content and spaces in various ways,

while growing evidence of the importance of gaming

for extremist propaganda and communication efforts

has been uncovered in the last few years.

While the potential nexus between gaming and violent

extremism has gained considerable attention in

recent times, research ndings are sparse, limited

in scope and largely anecdotal.

At the moment, not

enough in-depth knowledge has been accumulated

to judge the extent and severity of the issue with any

acceptable degree of certainty.

In response, the United Nations Oce of Counter-

Terrorism (UNOCT) has commissioned a pilot study

on gaming and violent extremism aimed at contributing

to this emerging research eld.

Research Methodology

This study explores the scope and nature of the

exploitation of gaming spaces by violent extremists,

scouts potential avenues to react to this exploitation

and provides insights on the possibility to use gaming

in preventing and/or countering violent extremism

(PCVE). This report details the ndings of this pilot

study, conducted between May 2021 and May 2022.

First, the relevant literature is briey reviewed, then

the ndings from expert consultations (Phase I) and

focus groups with gamers (Phase II) are presented.

Finally, the results from a survey disseminated to

over 600 gamers (Phase III) are described.

It is anticipated that the ndings from this

research will inform policy and practice

for more coordinated responses to

gaming and violent extremism.

7. Prokupecz, S. et al. (2022). What we know about Buffalo supermarket shooting suspect Payton Gendron. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/15/us/payton-gendron-buffalo-

shooting-suspect-what-we-know/index.html

8. For a recent review of the literature, see the annotated bibliography published by the Extremism and Gaming Research Network (2021). State of Play: Reviewing the Literature on

Gaming and Extremism. https://drive.google.com/le/d/1AatJSq8vhXenjnvXHFrsPLmxyH4aONRU/view

9. A discussion of the methodological approach and its limitations can be found in appendix I.

3bn

gamers in the

world

average age

of gamers

40%

of gamers

are female

6 Examining the Intersection Between Gaming & Violent Extremism

udology, the study of games and their impact,

is a long-standing research eld. Since the

rise in school shootings during the 1990s, a

considerable body of work discussing the potential

linkages between gaming and violence has been

amassed.

To this day, no nal verdict on the

inuence of gaming on problematic behaviour has

been reached. The assumption that violent games

produce adverse effects has nevertheless coloured

the public discourse on gaming for the past thirty

years and has caused severe backlash from gaming

communities. However, it has become clear that

there is no direct and straightforward causal link

between playing violent games and aggression and/or

violent action.

Gaming does not cause violence and

there is currently no evidence that gamers are more

susceptible to violent inuences than non-gamers.

The fact that extremists seek to exploit gaming and

gaming-related content is not a new phenomenon.

Since the early days of the Internet, extremists

and terrorist groups have developed video games

specically designed to spread their ideology, such

as Al-Qaida’s Quest for Bush, released in 2003,

Hezbollah’s Special Forces series, and the Da’esh

children’s game Huroof.

This trend continues with

the release of Heimatdefender: Rebellion in 2020 by

the German-speaking Identitarian Movement.

10. APA (2020). APA RESOLUTION on Violent Video Games. https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-violent-video-games.pdf

11. Ferguson, C. and Wang, J. (2019). Aggressive Video Games are Not a Risk Factor for Future Aggression in Youth: A Longitudinal Study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 48:

1: pp.439–51. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10964-019-01069-0

12. Schlegel, L. (2020). Jumanji Extremism? How games and gamication could facilitate radicalization processes. Journal for Deradicalization 23: pp.1–44. https://journals.sfu.ca/

jd/index.php/jd/article/view/359; Schlegel. Playing jihad.

13. Schlegel, L. (2020). No Child’s Play: The Identitarian Movement’s ‘Patriotic’ Video Game. GNET Insight. https://gnet-research.org/2020/09/17/no-childs-play-the-identitarian-

movements-patriotic-video-game/

14. Pidd, H. (2012). Anders Breivik ‘trained’ for shooting attacks by playing Call of Duty. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/19/anders-breivik-call-of-duty

15. Macklin, G. (2019). The Christchurch Attacks: Livestream Terror in the Viral Video Age. CTC Sentinel 12 (6). https://ctc.usma.edu/christchurch-attacks-livestream-terror-viral-

video-age/

16. Lee, B. (2021). Only Playing: Extreme-Right Gamication. CREST. https://crestresearch.ac.uk/resources/only-playing-extreme-right-gamication/

17. Lakomy, M. (2019). Let’s Play a Video Game: Jihadi Propaganda in the World of Electronic Entertainment. Studies in Conict & Terrorism 42 (4): pp.383–406. https://www.

tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1057610X.2017.1385903

The perpetrator of the Oslo attack in 2011 even

claimed to have practised for his killings with the

video game Call of Duty.

More recently, the Christchurch and Buffalo attacks

were livestreamed in the manner of popular Let’s Play

videos and replicated the visual style of widely known

rst-person shooter (FPS) games, sparking a stark rise

in attention paid by both researchers and policymakers

to a potential nexus between gaming and extremism.

As of today, the issue of gaming and extremism has

become a major concern for many stakeholders seeking

to understand contemporary (digital) extremism and

explore counter-measures to this ongoing trend.

While recent years have seen increasing evidence

that extremists are using gaming-related content and

are present on gaming or gaming-adjacent platforms,

research on the reasons for and implications of the

gaming–extremism nexus is slim and largely theoretical.

Terrorist groups across the ideological spectrum are

believed to utilize gaming-related content and spaces,

but it remains unclear how they do so, why they do

so and with what degree of success. Research so far

has focused on right-wing extremists’ use of gaming,

mainly because they are more easily identied in

gaming spaces,

but there is also initial evidence of

‘gaming jihad’

and it is likely that extremists of varying

ideological backgrounds seek to exploit the appeal

of gaming.

2. Gaming & Extremism

Examining the Intersection Between Gaming & Violent Extremism 7

The Radicalization Awareness Network (RAN) differentiates six ways extremists

are using gaming-related content:

18. RAN (2020). RAN C&N Extremists’ Use of Video Gaming – Strategies and Narratives. https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/networks/radicalisation-awareness-network-ran/

publications/ran-cn-extremists-use-video-gaming-strategies-and-narratives-online-meeting-15-17-september-2020_en

19. Robinson, N. and Whittaker, J. (2021). Playing for Hate? Extremism, Terrorism, and Videogames. Studies in Conict & Terrorism. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/

abs/10.1080/1057610X.2020.1866740?journalCode=uter20

20. RAN (2021). Digital Grooming Tactics on Video Gaming & Video Gaming Adjacent Platforms: Threats and Opportunities. https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/networks/

radicalisation-awareness-network-ran/publications/ran-cn-digital-grooming-tactics-video-gaming-video-gaming-adjacent-platforms-threats-and_de

21. Davey, J. (2021). Gamers Who Hate: An Introduction to ISD’s Gaming and Extremism Series. https://www.isdglobal.org/isd-publications/gamers-who-hate-an-introduction-

to-isds-gaming-and-extremism-series/; RAN (2021). Extremists’ use of gaming (adjacent) platforms Insights regarding primary and secondary prevention measures. https://

ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/networks/radicalisation-awareness-network-ran/publications/extremists-use-gaming-adjacent-platforms-insights-regarding-primary-and-

secondary-prevention_en

22. Dauber, C., Robinson, M., Baslious, J. and Blair, A. (2019). Call of Duty: Jihad – How the Video Game Motif Has Migrated Downstream from Islamic State Propaganda Videos.

Perspectives on Terrorism 13 (3): pp.17–31. https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/binaries/content/assets/customsites/perspectives-on-terrorism/2019/issue-3/02dauber-et-al..

pdf; Schlegel, L. (2020). Can You Hear Your Call of Duty? The Gamication of Radicalization and Extremist Violence. European Eye on Radicalization. https://eeradicalization.com/

can-you-hear-your-call-of-duty-the-gamication-of-radicalization-and-extremist-violence/

23. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R. and Nacke, L. (2011). From Game Design Elements to Gamefulness: Dening Gamication. https://www.researchgate.net/

publication/230854710_From_Game_Design_Elements_to_Gamefulness_Dening_Gamication

24. RAN (2021). The gamication of violent extremism & lessons for PCVE. https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/networks/radicalisation-awareness-network-ran/publications/

gamication-violent-extremism-lessons-pcve-2021_en; Schlegel, L. (2021). Connecting, Competing, and Trolling: “User Types” in Digital Gamied Radicalization Processes.

Perspectives on Terrorism 15 (4): pp.54–64. https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/binaries/content/assets/customsites/perspectives-on-terrorism/2021/issue-4/schlegel.pdf

■ Production of bespoke video games: Extremists

are producing and launching their own video

games to generate attention, exploit the popularity

of video games and present their ideology in an

entertaining and immersive format.

■ Modication of existing games: Far more

popular than producing bespoke games is the

development by extremists of modications for

popular video games. For example, extremists

have built a map that allows the player to

experience the Christchurch massacre in both

The Sims and Minecraft and created white ethno-

states in Roblox.

■ Use of in-game chats: Extremists are believed

to use in-game communication features

to establish communication channels with

target audiences or, potentially, for grooming

purposes.

■ Presence on gaming-adjacent platforms:

There is considerable evidence that extremists

are utilizing gaming-adjacent platforms such

as Discord, Steam, Twitch and DLive as well as

related platforms such as Reddit and chan boards

to communicate both among each other and with

potential new followers.

Discord, for instance,

was used in the organization of the Unite the Right

rally in 2017 and the Buffalo attacker streamed his

attack via Twitch in 2022.

■ Gaming cultural references: Extremists have

utilized gaming aesthetics or footage from popular

video games such as Call of Duty as well as text-

based references to popular video games in their

propaganda output.

■ Gamication: Gamication is the use of game

design elements outside gaming contexts; this

might include the transfer of points, leaderboards,

badges and other game components to other

circumstances.

Extremists have, for instance,

employed virtual leaderboards to keep ‘high scores’

of body counts from attacks and have used

rankings and badges on Discord servers and

detailed ‘achievements’ in their manifestos.

8 Examining the Intersection Between Gaming & Violent Extremism

Extremist actors make use of gaming-related content

and spaces both strategically and organically.

They

use gaming-related content to generate attention

and increase the familiarity and attractiveness of

their propaganda output in the eyes of the target

audience. Considering both that millions of users

log into gaming-adjacent platforms every day and

the level of content moderation found on many of

these platforms, these spaces provide extremists

with the opportunity to broadcast their messages

widely and relatively undisturbed, especially when

compared to other social media platforms with

stricter content moderation practices. In addition,

gaming communities, in which misogyny, hate

towards minorities, expressions of violence, toxicity

and ‘politically incorrect’ humour are prevalent, offer

extremists the strategic benet of being able to

blend in and build on the problematic atmosphere to

meet audiences where they are and then, potentially,

motivate a deeper engagement with extremist

ideas. Building on existing grievances and modes

of communication of potential new recruits could

possibly facilitate (cognitive) radicalization processes.

25. RAN (2021). Extremists’ use of gaming (adjacent) platforms.

26. For example, https://www.extremismus.info/home-en; https://www.klif-game.nl/ [in Dutch]; https://isistheend.com/#Accueil [in French]

27. See: http://icct.nl/ashpoints-game/

28. For example, https://gamenmetdepolitie.nl/ [in Dutch]

29. Frenett, R. and S., J. (2021). Online Gaming Platforms. In RAN Spotlight: Digital Challenges, pp.20–25. https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/spotlight-digital-challenges_en

30. For example, the Gamers for Peace project by Veterans for Peace, found at https://www.veteransforpeace.org/take-action/gamers-peace; digital youthwork on gaming

-adjacent platforms in the project Good Gaming – Well Played Democracy by the Amadeu Antonio Foundation, found at https://www.amadeu-antonio-stiftung.de/projekte/good-

gaming-well-played-democracy/ [in German]

Gaming spaces are also used in a bottom-up or

organic manner by individuals associated with

extremist beliefs. While there is no evidence

to suggest a causal link between gaming and

radicalization, it is hardly surprising that there

are radicalized individuals among the billions of

gamers worldwide. As gaming spaces now function

like social media platforms, in which users discuss

everything they are interested in, it is reasonable

to assume that some of these individuals take their

political views to gaming spaces without guidance

from extremist organizations. They may simply be in

gaming spaces because they enjoy these platforms

or have been users of these social spaces before

their radicalization. In fact, the Christchurch and

Halle perpetrators obviously understood themselves

to be part of gaming-related online communities

and tailored their livestreams and manifestos

accordingly.

Gaming & PCVE

There are very few PCVE projects that have been

carried out in the gaming space or utilized gaming or

gaming-related content. While some theoretical work

has been brought forward on how PCVE could make

use of gaming-related content and gaming (-adjacent)

platforms, there are only a handful of practical

examples. Video games have been developed

for PCVE purposes:

serious games such as the

International Centre for Counter-Terrorism’s (ICCT)

interactive counter-terrorism game

focusing on the

aftermath of the Norway attack has been debated and

implemented; the Dutch and British police have both

used video gaming to open a communication channel

to young people;

and RAN has discussed the use

of eSports as a prevention measure.

Meanwhile,

some PCVE actors have piloted projects on gaming

(-adjacent) platforms.

Overall, however, gaming has

largely been neglected in PCVE and more theoretical

and practical work needs to be conducted to judge

the potential benets of gaming-related PCVE

approaches with any acceptable degree of certainty.

Gaming & PCVE

There are very few PCVE projects that have been carried out in the

gaming space or utilized gaming or gaming-related content. While

some theoretical work has been brought forward on how PCVE could

make use of gaming-related content and gaming-adjacent platforms,

there are only a handful of practical examples. Video games have

been developed for PCVE purposes:

serious games, such as the

International Centre for Counter-Terrorism’s (ICCT) interactive

counter-terrorism game,

, focusing on the aftermath of the Norway

attack, have been debated and implemented; the Dutch and British

police have both used video gaming to open a communication channel

to young people;

and RAN has discussed the use of eSports as a

prevention measure.

Meanwhile, some PCVE actors have piloted

projects on gaming-adjacent platforms.

Overall, however, gaming

has largely been neglected in PCVE and more theoretical and

practical work needs to be conducted to judge the potential benets

of gaming-related PCVE approaches with any acceptable degree of

certainty.

Examining the Intersection Between Gaming & Violent Extremism 9

3. Key Findings:

Phase I & II

ocus groups with eight of the world’s leading

experts (four men and four women) on virtual

communities and online radicalization were

conducted in Phase I to discuss the state of play of

video games and extremism, the potential negative

impacts of video games and possible avenues for

PCVE. In Phase II, focus groups with six individuals

(four men and two women) were conducted. These

individuals were chosen because they are avid

players of video games and users of gaming-related

platforms, such as Discord and Twitch, who have

also engaged with research on extremism to various

degrees, enabling them to contextualize their

personal experiences with professional knowledge.

Three main topics emerged in the conversations:

(lack of) research on gaming and extremism, how

and why gaming spaces may be used by extremists,

and how the positive effects of gaming can be used

in PCVE. In the following, the key ndings from the

conversations are detailed:

Gaps in research on gaming and extremism

■ There is a signicant absence of evidence to

substantiate any denitive causal relationship

between exposure to (violent or non-violent) video

games or other (propagandistic) gaming content

and adverse effects, such as radicalization

processes. Simply because extremists seek to

exploit gaming spaces and gaming content does

not automatically mean that they are successful

in doing so or that mere exposure to such content

can contribute to radicalization.

■ It is dicult to contextualize the potential role

and signicance of gaming for radicalization

and extremism because we lack comparative

knowledge of the role and signicance of

other (intensive) hobbies, interests and types

of activities as push or pull factors towards

extremism. Since research has not yet understood

why extremists seek to exploit gaming spaces, it

is dicult to delineate how gaming and extremism

may interlink beyond the fact that gaming may be

a hobby or interest for some extremists.

■ The spaces in which extremist content is easy

to nd may not be the spaces in which it is most

prevalent. Generally speaking, fringe or even

extremist content is “really easy, really fast to

nd” if one is specically looking for it in gaming

spaces. As one participant noted, “every second

Nazi general has a Steam account apparently” and

swastikas and other symbols are highly prevalent

on member proles. However, participants

cautioned that “the places where it’s most visible

[are] not the places where it’s most prominent”.

They assessed that the vast majority of extremist

content is shared in private groups and servers,

out of the sight of researchers and investigators.

It is rare for extremist content to be shared in

public forums. Rather, extremists post ‘soft pill’

memes, GIFs, humorous posts or anti-feminist,

misogynistic or racist content, which is linked

to toxic gaming culture and widely accepted in

some gaming spaces, as an intentional gateway

to catch attention “and then it goes into a kind of

rabbit hole”: individuals who respond positively

to such content are then invited to private

groups. In addition, ‘softer’ extremist content

may blend in with general toxicity pertaining to

racism or misogyny, making it dicult to detect.

It is therefore extremely dicult to determine

in which gaming spaces and on which gaming-

adjacent platforms extremist content is most

prevalent.

10 Examining the Intersection Between Gaming & Violent Extremism

■ It will be necessary for future research to

approach the issue of gaming and extremism with

more nuance:

Video games differ vastly in genre, style,

content and level of violence, all of which

could be potential variables to examine

further (such as which games are used by

which extremist actors and to what effect).

For example, one could ask whether exposure

to far-right, misogynistic or racist content is

more prevalent in games with a higher level

of violence and gaming spaces that revolve

around particular topics of discussion.

There is not a single gaming community or

unied group known as ‘gamers’. Gamers

who play game A may be vastly different

people from gamers who play game B

and the communities they build around or

independently from these games may be just

as heterogeneous. Furthermore, just like

“there’s a difference between a person who

watches Game of Thrones and a person who’s

a fan of Game of Thrones”, being a gamer is

partially contingent upon how important

gaming is perceived to be for one’s identity. In

addition, gamer identity may emerge “separate

from the video games itself ... It’s an identity

built within Discord, within Reddit, even to

a lesser extent within 4chan”, i.e. via social

interaction in gaming-related spaces, not

merely by playing video games. Therefore,

focus group participants advocated for

more nuance in the research on gaming and

extremism.

How and why gaming spaces may be used by

extremists

■ The focus group participants assessed that

there are four main characteristics that make

gaming spaces more prone to being exploited by

extremists: lack of moderation, audience reach,

networking and customization.

■ All interviewees lamented the lack of moderation

in both online games and gaming-adjacent

platforms. This allows extremists to disseminate

their ideas widely through audio conversations

while playing, on livestreams and through chats.

In part, extremists use gaming spaces not

because of their relation to gaming, but simply

due to the lack of resistance they experience

while doing so.

■ Extremists use gaming spaces to reach their

target audience and are drawn to popular

platforms and games frequented by those they

seek to reach. “They go where culture goes.

Games are popular with the demographic they

want to recruit, so they follow the demographic”

into gaming spaces. This too has little to do

with gaming as such and could equally apply

to, for instance, Instagram or TikTok. Being

present in gaming spaces makes strategic

sense for extremists because it allows them to

reach millions of individuals who belong to their

preferred target audience.

■ The better the networking features, the higher

the likelihood that games and gaming-adjacent

platforms are used by extremists. Gaming spaces

provide extremists with excellent networking

opportunities, both among each other and with

their target audience. Private chats or groups allow

interaction with like-minded individuals without

outside interference and are, as participants

explained, probably far more prevalent in gaming

spaces than currently known. Public forums,

livestreams, in-game chats and games that

compel strangers to collaborate with one other are

especially useful to engage with a target audience

and allow for both one-on-one interaction and

one-to-many dissemination of extremist ideas.

Gaming-adjacent platforms, which have become

similar to social media platforms, and games

with high-quality social networking features are

particularly useful to this end.

Examining the Intersection Between Gaming & Violent Extremism 11

■ Participants mentioned the importance of

customization. Since the production of bespoke

video games is expensive and dicult, extremists

have reverted to modifying existing games

or customizing their gaming experience. For

instance, games such as Minecraft, Fortnite and

Roblox allow players to build their own world and

are therefore interesting to extremists, despite

the general assumption that extremists are drawn

to FPS or strategy games.

■ Interviewees also identied four important ways

in which games and gaming culture are used by

extremists: appealing to those with an interest in

extremist ideology, seeking to create an interest

in ideology, building on toxic masculinity and

the potential differences in use by right-wing

extremists, jihadists and other movements.

Gaming can help individuals feel wanted

and heard, and extremists play on these

sentiments to engage young people in

particular in radical ideologies in fun and

subtle ways. One expert participant explained

that throughout their research they often

found that (bespoke or modied) video

games in particular “weren’t being used to

suck people in, target young people, or bring

people in from the cold who weren’t already

ideologically [capable]”; rather, it seems more

likely that “the ideal target audience is people

who have already accepted [the ideology] and

need to be motivated further”. Potentially,

then, games would not necessarily provide an

entry point to radicalization but may further

a commitment to an ideology. However, more

research is needed to support this possibility.

However, some gamers may also 'fall into'

extremist groups through gaming spaces

frequented by radicalized individuals or by

being attracted to gaming-related propaganda

content, which may not be immediately

identiable as extremist in nature. Such

content can then bring gamers “down the

rabbit hole”, e.g. because it is displayed in

public forums, linked to certain (private)

groups and chats, and shared with hyperlinks

or reading suggestions for further information.

How often such a trajectory occurs and how

often individuals have to search for extremist

content in gaming spaces in order to come into

contact with such actors are questions that

currently remain unanswered.

European and North American gamer

identity is sometimes linked to a very

specic type of identity: young, white, male

and heterosexual. This may be facilitated

by some gaming companies, who use this

specic type of masculine identity as the sole

conceptualization of what a gamer is. In the

words of one participant, those marketing

these games “did intend to make a boys’

club and they did make a boys’ club”, which

contributed to the link between masculinity

– toxic or otherwise – and gaming. To protect

this narrow understanding of who qualies

as a gamer, certain gaming communities

ringfence their identities by not just excluding

women, minorities and LGBTQ+ people, but

by facilitating a culture in which misogyny,

toxicity, racism and hate can ourish. Since

‘gamer’ is an identity marker certain groups

wish to keep exclusive, the hateful atmosphere

in certain gaming communities can be partially

explained by the wish for clear boundary-

maintenance of an important identity marker

and the protection of an identity seen as

‘under threat’ by women and minorities. The

toxic culture that emerged in response is now

further facilitated and exploited by extremists.

The focus group participants hypothesized

that extremists adhering to varying ideologies

exploit gaming spaces slightly differently.

Jihadists, they noted, have adopted video-

game aesthetics to make their propaganda

more appealing to young Western audiences

(even as games like Call of Duty are popular

in the Middle East and North Africa). It was

a strategic choice to use a medium popular

with young men aged between 16 and 34 whom

jihadists sought to appeal to and recruit. The

fact that video games, especially FPS games,

were based on violence was an additional

benet as jihadist violence could be framed

through a ‘cool’, attractive and familiar gaming

lens. This is the reason propaganda videos

sometimes mirrored the visual style of FPS

games and made the use of gaming “really

useful” for jihadist recruiters. Right-wing

extremists may “do the exact same thing”

for the same reasons, i.e. to appeal to young

men and strategically utilize game content

due to its popularity with the target audience.

However, for them the “boys’ club” gamer

identity and the misogynistic and toxic parts

12 Examining the Intersection Between Gaming & Violent Extremism

of gaming culture may be inherently appealing

and may match their ideological beliefs.

Therefore, gaming may not only be used

strategically but may also be part of some

right-wing extremist identity-building.

Positive effects of gaming and potential avenues

for PCVE

■ By and large, focus group participants

emphasized the positive outcomes of gaming.

The positive effect mentioned most regularly

was that games can provide a strong sense

of community, a sense of belonging and

acceptance, and encourage social interaction.

The bonds forged during gaming may be strong,

as one participant argued that current research

“underpins the strength of interpersonal

relationships built during times of heightened

adrenaline” and theorized that violent games in

particular could provide gamers with a unique

opportunity to form strong social connections

with other players. The social aspect of playing

games and interacting with others in gaming

spaces became immensely important during the

Coronavirus pandemic and provided substantial

mental health benets in trying times.

■ Focus group participants signalled a general

openness to implement PCVE measures in

gaming spaces in addition to the classical safety-

by-design measures (methods to minimize

risks through design choices with an emphasis

on protecting users), stronger community

management and digital literacy campaigns

aimed specically at gaming (content). While

extremists are likely to exploit these positive

outcomes of gaming communities, “we [would]

get the same benets that the bad guys get”,

with regard to

the design of PCVE measures

incorporating gaming components and should

seek to strengthen the positive effects gaming

and gaming-related spaces can have on users.

However, participants lamented that “none of

the good people are taking advantage of the

benets” of gaming-related content and “only

the bad people” are seeking to use gaming,

which affords extremists a crucial advantage.

■ Most interviewees identied the need for

PCVE to approach and collaborate with gaming

communities. These approaches should avoid

reproducing the stereotypes from the 1990s and

early 2000s about gaming and violence, which

arose after some school shootings, or about

gaming as a ‘weird’, inferior leisure-time activity.

Rather, the potential for gaming to make a

positive impact on players’ lives should be

emphasized. In addition, one of the participants

suggested approaching gamers by offering

initiatives to combat the misconception that

gaming is causally linked to extremism, because

“they hate that it makes them look bad ... They

hate the idea that people think they’re Nazis”.

Gamers instead would largely want to support

efforts against this assumption.

■ Although participants welcomed discussions

on PCVE in gaming-related spaces, they also

cautioned that the likelihood that such efforts

create backlash is high. Multiple interviewees

personally experienced such backlash due to

their involvement in activism, including their

removal from groups, death threats and doxing

attempts. The toxicity found in certain parts

of gaming communities and the desire felt by

some to protect gaming spaces as a refuge

against progressive inuences, as spaces in

which political incorrectness, misogyny and ‘dark

humour’ are championed, means that resistance

must be expected. Therefore, similar to other

PCVE projects, implementing prevention or

intervention campaigns in gaming-related spaces

will require substantial subcultural knowledge,

care not to be perceived as ‘invaders’, thorough

risk assessments and digital safety protocols.

Examining the Intersection Between Gaming & Violent Extremism 13

pon completion of the literature review and the

Phase I and Phase II focus group discussions,

insights from these phases were built into an

English-language survey questionnaire. The survey

sought to include gamers’ own voices in this study and

examine, among other things, the experiences they

have in gaming spaces and the types of content they are

exposed to, as well as how they and their peers in these

spaces react to and possibly push back against hateful

or extremist speech.

Some 622 gamers took part in the

survey: 74% males, 15% females, 11% other (where male

or female were not selected); 84% were aged between

16 and 35; most were located in North America (54%) and

Europe (29%) (Figures 1-3). Therefore, this survey is not

generalizable across all gaming communities, is skewed

towards certain geographical areas and does not reect

the fact that around 40% of gamers are female.

Survey participants spend vastly different amounts

of hours per week on gaming, with 39% spending fewer

than 10 hours and 28% spending more than 21 hours

(Figure 4), suggesting that our sample included both

casual gamers and individuals for whom gaming is a

daily activity.

Some 51% of the survey sample play

exclusively alone as single players, 35% play mainly

with others, and 14% said they do both (Figure 5).

31. See appendix I for more information on the survey methodology and its limitations.

32. Yanev, V. (2022) Video Game Demographics – Who Plays Games in 2022. Techjury. https://techjury.net/blog/video-game-demographics/#gref

33. Some open-ended responses to other questions suggest that a few respondents play more than 55 hours a week and have the feeling that it is a second job.

34. The remaining 15% spend anywhere between $101 and over $500 per month.

Respondents named a wide variety of games

they like

to play, most prominently roleplaying, shooter

and

strategy games (Figure 6). This suggests that the

survey results are not skewed towards a particular type

of game genre. Spending was more evenly distributed,

with 85% of respondents stating that they spend

between 0 and $100 per month (Figure 7).

The focus groups indicated that many gamers choose

to play alone to avoid toxicity, which could explain

why just over half the respondents indicated that they

play by themselves. However, this still leaves 43% of

gamers in our sample engaging with other players at

least sometimes and, consequently, potentially being

exposed to hateful, toxic and/or extremist content.

Since gaming culture extends far beyond the

immediate context of playing the games themselves,

respondents were also asked to provide information

on the additional gaming-adjacent platforms they use

to speak to other gamers, consume gaming-related

content and read about gaming-related activities.

Participants generally use more than one platform,

including Discord (83%), Twitch (45%), YouTube

(39%) and Reddit (24%). Twitter, Steam, Facebook

and general Internet forums were also mentioned

frequently. A small percentage (less than 1%) uses

4chan, Instagram, Slack, Skype and Snapchat,

indicating that these spaces are generally not of

interest for most gaming-related activities.

Negative aspects of gaming

When asked to elaborate on the negative aspects

of gaming and gaming-adjacent platforms, some

participants unsurprisingly highlighted problems with

the games themselves (e.g. bugs or the increasing

4. Survey Results:

Phase III

Male

Female

Other

74%

11%

15%

Gender breakdown of survey participants

14 Examining the Intersection Between Gaming & Violent Extremism

monetization of online gaming) as well as sometimes

being distracted from the real world by spending (too

much) time on games: for example, feeling that it is

a “waste of time”, “that it keeps me from doing more

important things sometimes since I can use it as an

escape so easily”, that it “can be mind numbing” and

make one feel “disconnected from the real world”

or even that it can feel “almost [like] another job”.

Some also mentioned the stigma still associated with

gaming: “Society makes me feel like I’m wasting time

doing this activity and that I should be ashamed.”

However, the toxicity found in gaming communities

was by far the respondents’ most prominent

complaint about both games and gaming-adjacent

platforms. They lamented that there are “so many

toxic people” who engage in the targeting of female,

PoC or LGBTQ+ gamers and the “dehumanization”

of others, “which has deterred [some] from playing

certain popular games or entire genres of games

despite a desire to”. Several participants suggested

that the “frequent cases of people being rude and

inconsiderate” have increased since the start of the

Coronavirus pandemic since “more people are inside”

and gaming-adjacent platforms became “one of my

main sources of social interaction since COVID-19

started”. In line with this general observation, when

asked whether they had witnessed any toxic or

problematic behaviour while playing video games or

spending time on gaming platforms, 85% answered in

the armative (Figure 8).

Most respondents reported that such comments

were primarily verbal, either using in-game chats

or voice-based communication. When participants

were asked to provide examples they had personally

encountered, they noted instances of misogyny,

racism, xenophobia, antisemitism, homophobia and

transphobia, as well as some examples of ableism. In

relation to these, there were also answers mentioning

death threats, threats of violence (“I hate [minority

group] so I’m gonna shoot you in the head”), doxing,

DDoS-ing and threatening or executing real life

actions (such as calling the police on or stalking

other players). Frequently, participants reported

that they were told to kill themselves. In many cases,

respondents note the casual use of slurs, name-

calling and comments meant to be offensive by

reinforcing negative stereotypes, such as “ur gay”,

“you play like a girl”, and frequent use of the N-word.

35. This could indicate that participants from the Phase II focus groups were correct in their assessment that extremist content in particular is found mostly in closed and private

gaming-related spaces, whereas more ‘soft pill’ content is found publicly.

Respondents who noted examples of misogyny,

ranging from “women belong in the kitchen” and

instances of catcalling on voice chats to name-calling

(“b****”), rape threats and porn sprays on community

servers. A handful of respondents also mentioned

that they had seen Nazi and antisemitic content in

avatar names.

Quite surprisingly, however, when asked how often

they have been exposed to content they would

deem hateful or violent, 62% said “a little” or “none

at all”, while only 14% said “a great deal” or “a lot”

(Figure 10). The reason for this apparent imbalance

between the types of discriminatory and toxic

content participants have seen and the reply to this

particular question remains opaque. It is possible

that respondents did not deem the misogyny, racism,

antisemitism or gender-based insults they reported

witnessing as hateful and violent. It is also possible

that the question was misunderstood by some of the

participants. Further research into which types of

content, slurs or threats are perceived to cross the

threshold into violence and hate may be useful to

contextualize this result.

Next, participants were asked specically about

how often they encounter misogyny, xenophobia,

extremist content, antisemitism, Islamophobia

and homophobia. The answers were quite revealing

(Figures 11–17): while 30% to 34% of respondents

noted that they had witnessed “a great deal” or “a lot”

of misogyny, racism/xenophobia or homophobia,

only 15% to 16% noted that they had witnessed similar

levels of extremism, antisemitism or Islamophobia.

This might suggest – and would conrm some

of the thoughts expressed by the focus group

participants in Phases I and II – that casually racist,

heteronormative and misogynistic language often

appears in open and public gaming spaces, but rarely

targets individuals based on religious identity or is

explicitly extremist in nature.

It also underlines,

however, that misogyny, racism/xenophobia and

homophobia are regular occurrences in gaming

spaces and, as the focus group participants argued,

may be used as a springboard for right-wing

extremist actors.

At this point, respondents were asked explicitly

to provide an example of misogyny, xenophobia,

extremist content, antisemitism, Islamophobia

or homophobia that has remained with them.

Examining the Intersection Between Gaming & Violent Extremism 15

Some respondents could not cite a specic example,

either explaining that the comments were so common

and used so casually that no specic instance stuck

out or because they had all blended together. For

example, one respondent explained that they “don’t

have specic examples ... because years upon years

of time blend together into a never ending stream of

indistinct memories”. Others, however, remembered

examples that stuck with them:

■ Misogyny: “One of my ‘friends’ threatened to kill a

female we were gaming with because she messed

up in game”; players talking “inappropriately [and]

asking for explicit pictures of them in Discord

direct messages”, such as “show us your b**bs!”

■ Transphobia and homophobia: “Every single

stream, a trans streamer I watch gets multiple

trolls in chat who ask things like ... ‘are you going

to ch*p off your p*nis?’”; the use of ‘gay’ as a

synonym for ‘bad’; “Some guy on Discord telling

lgbtq people to commit suicide.”

■ Racism and xenophobia: “Repeatedly hearing

‘N****** you should kill yourself’”; “A person

advocating the ‘superiority of white people’ and the

‘inferiority of other races’ in an in-game chat”; “A

high end WoW [World of Warcraft] guild removing a

player after nding out they are black in real life.”

■ Antisemitism: On a massive multiplayer online

game, “I ran across a clean [sic, for clan] whose

name was 'Hitler Was Right', with members whose

names were '1488', 'K***Hater', ... and similar

names, who were going around and ooding

voice comms with mostly anti-Semitic rhetoric”;

discussions of “Jewish conspiracies to destroy

the white race”; references to Jewish people as

“degenerates spreading Cultural Marxism”.

Interestingly, some respondents suggested that

things have improved in the gaming community in the

past decade, with the N-word and homophobic slurs

used signicantly less frequently. If they are used,

then such behaviour is called out by other players.

Other respondents, however, particularly those

discussing examples of antisemitism, suggested

that things have become worse in recent years.

For example, a respondent explained a situation

where a developer made a negative comment about

Nazis “but unlike 6-12 years ago, suddenly there were

A LOT more people that turned it into a ‘two sided’

36. In PvP (Player vs. Player) games humans play against other humans, whereas in PvE (Player vs Environment) games, opponents are controlled by the game.

thing, saying they’re sick of hearing about it, that

Jews should just shut up already, it wasn’t a big deal”.

While these are both anecdotal examples, it certainly

raises questions regarding the change in prevalence

of different types of hateful behaviour and what

audiences are witnessing them.

When prompted to report where they had encountered

toxic, hateful or violent content, 30% reported

witnessing it mostly in in-game chats, while 41%

selected the “all of the above” option, which included

in-game chats, live audio conversations and streams, as

well as Discord servers (Figure 9). Participants were also

asked which gaming spaces they deemed most prone

to toxicity (see Appendix III). While some mentioned

specic games and platforms, with League of Legends,

rst-person shooters, Discord and Twitch featuring

most prominently, the majority of respondents spoke

about general characteristics that, in their opinion,

make it more likely that toxicity and hateful language

occur. The more boxes one can tick for a particular

video game on the following list, the more likely it is that

the video game harbours toxic and hateful content:

■ The video game has active in-game communication

features such as voice- or text-based in-game chats.

■ Interacting with others via chat is necessary

or useful to coordinate and win.

■ It is a popular game with a large player base.

■ The game is highly competitive.

■ It involves ghting and violence.

■ It is an online multiplayer game.

■ It is a PvP game.

■ Players are assigned into teams with strangers.

■ Failure can be attributed to individual team

members.

■ There is little moderation or regulation.

■ There are no real consequences for breaking

the rules and using hateful language.

Considering that in-game chats have rarely been

included in the analysis of how extremists seek to

exploit video-game communication features, these

characteristics present a valuable starting point for an

in-depth look at in-game chats in relation to extremism.

PCVE actors seeking to pilot the use of in-game chats

in counter-extremism projects may also benet from

this list, especially in deciding which games may be

worth focusing their efforts on.

16 Examining the Intersection Between Gaming & Violent Extremism

Reactions to negative aspects of gaming

Participants were asked how they or others

reacted to toxic, hateful or extremist content they

encountered in gaming spaces. The most-named

reactions in order of prominence were: ignoring it,

blocking the user, reporting the behaviour, leaving

the space and, nally, reacting to it.

■ Ignoring: By far the most common reaction

reported in the survey was that users ignored

the behaviour. This is because most respondents

felt that there was “no point in arguing online”,

because “reacting gives attention”, which will

“only encourage more of it” as it gives these users

satisfaction in knowing that they upset someone.

Most respondents felt that these users want a

reaction, therefore ignoring it is the best course

of action. In addition, participants believed that

“there’s not a lot you can say that’s constructive”

and they “feel nothing … will convince them to stop”.

■ Blocking: Many respondents made use of in-

game mute or block functions. Some went as

far as disabling chats completely to avoid any

engagement with other players. Others said

that they not only blocked and removed abusive

players from their own Twitch channels and

Discord servers, but “informed other server

owners and Twitch streamers of them and added

them to community ban lists”, implementing “bots

to automatically ban such users in batches”.

■ Reporting: Some participants reported hateful

content to moderators or platform providers.

“Mute, report is [the] default action”, they

explained. Such reports were not always

successful: sometimes they resulted in the ban

of the user(s) who had posted the toxic content

but on other occasions seemed to have no

consequences.

■ Leaving: A number of respondents explained

that they had simply left the spaces and games

or discontinued watching a streamer’s channel in

which such behaviour occurs, because “you can’t

x people” and therefore they “stopped playing

those games or left those communities”.

■ Reacting: Only very few participants reported

that they had reacted when encountering hateful

content. Some said they retaliated by “insulting

them back” or “called them something much

worse” because they “have no patience for that

stuff”. Others tried to speak up and confront the

users in question by “calling them out on what

they said”, replying with a sarcastic comment, or

“explaining to them why they are wrong ... in baby

language ... to make them feel like idiots”.

In addition, respondents were asked what, if anything,

should be done about abuse in gaming spaces and

by whom, as well as how their personal experience

in gaming spaces could be improved. Participants

believed a range of actors need to address hateful

content to improve the gamers’ experiences in

gaming spaces: a) gaming platforms and companies,

b) moderators, c) the gaming community as a whole

and d) oine entities, such as schools and parents.

a) Many open-ended replies called for gaming

platforms and companies to address problematic

content in their spaces. “I think the platforms have

a responsibility to create open, inclusive spaces for

groups to be able to communicate” by sanctioning

users who display hateful conduct. Participants

advocated for a greater level of accountability

and clear consequences such as warnings, in-

game penalties, bans, IP-bans, deplatforming

or, if appropriate, escalating individual cases to

law enforcement agencies. “Game companies

are way too shy with the rod”, some complained.

If necessary, some participants explained,

the platforms and companies should be held

accountable by “independent third party oversight”

or stricter laws and legislation.

Some participants lamented that reporting

problematic content and user behaviour can be

dicult and lacks transparency. Gaming platforms

and game developers should “empower me to

report toxicity better” was a sentiment shared by

multiple respondents. There is little reporting,

some argued, because “people are too used

to reporting not working” due to certain users

mysteriously having “impunity” in some spaces.

“There is a reporting feature on games but it’s

unclear how much they actually do to help,” said

others who felt that the reports were not being

taken seriously and offenders not (adequately)

punished. Some complained, for example, that in

many instances of sexism administrators tolerate

too much and “users are often expected to ignore

... someone who harasses them.” There should

be “strict no-bullying policies”, which are actually

enforced when reported.

Interestingly, a minority of participants also

suggested rewarding kind behaviour instead of

or in addition to punishing unwanted, hateful

behaviour. Players and users would receive

Examining the Intersection Between Gaming & Violent Extremism 17

rewards and recognition for positive interactions.

Others spoke about how games are designed and

suggested more elements of sportsmanship “like

characters clapping for the victor at the end of a

Smash Bros match”, viable options not to kill and

still win and engaging players in questions such as

“is there a moral binary, encouraging black-and-

white thinking so we can justify the violence, or is

there complexity, gray areas, and acknowledgment

that nobody is fundamentally evil? ... Are we

romanticizing, glorifying, or trivializing war and

violence, or are we acknowledging it for the

tragedy that it is?” This, some argued, would make

for better games and encourage less toxicity.

Participants also advocated for better options to

curate gaming experiences, including by always

being able to mute and block as well as better

lters. “All platforms need to have an easy way for

users to control who can contact them, to block

users, and to report issues. Many of them still don’t

have this, or these features are only implemented

partially.” Some complained that chats are

sometimes automatically re-enabled or users are

not muted on all servers and they have to mute

them on every single server individually.

b) In line with the general wish for more moderation,

a number of respondents believe that dedicated

(community) moderators, the owners of servers, in

particular Discord servers, and content creators/

streamers should enforce stricter rules in their

communities. Not every ‘offence’ needs to be

escalated to the platform or company level; more

‘casual’ and less severe breaches of community

standards can often be taken care of by dedicated

moderators, said multiple respondents. Teams

of moderators need to be trained not only on the

rules of interaction but in communication and de-

escalation techniques. Participants also advocated

for moderators to be paid, work in teams, be

adequately staffed, and that such roles should

only be lled by adults rather than teenagers. As

explained by one respondent, “moderating is a

stressful job” and it should be done by people “who

are trained and are positively rewarded for such

effort”. Ideally, such moderation efforts should

be available swiftly, especially in spaces such as

in-game chats during play or livestreams, in which

real-time communication is the norm.

c) Participants believed that ultimately it is the

gaming community and the users/players who

need to take action if lasting change is to be

realized, because “the part that needs the most

improvement is the people”. Change needs “to

occur culturally within the gaming community”,

because “a systemic problem requires systemic

change”. Many explained that gaming communities

need to do a better job of policing themselves,

bystanders should speak up more often, “gamers

should set strong boundaries and hold others

accountable for crossing boundaries” and “make it

a social norm to not act inappropriately in game”.

Ideally, players would display “more sportsmanship

and have fun while mutually respecting each

other”, which requires a change in the gamers’

attitude. This type of cultural change, respondents

cautioned, cannot be brought about externally,

it needs to emerge organically from gaming

communities themselves. Some worried that “any

attempt to restrict this behaviour from outside

of these communities themselves will inevitably

be met with more hostility” and that, therefore,

change from within is the only viable option.

Ultimately, “as the community as a whole improves,

all gaming and related experiences will improve”.

d) Since many respondents believe that toxicity

and hateful conduct is a society-wide issue

and originates oine, because, for example,

individuals are angry and frustrated, have mental

health issues, are unaware of the negative

consequences of online hate or feel the need to

provoke in order to receive the attention they

crave, some advocated for addressing this issue

in oine contexts. Some suggested that “it’s

always good to remember that the issues we see

in gaming stem from issues in real life. No one

has the issues they have in-game or gaming-

related platforms only because of the games

they play or the communities they interact with.”

Another stated that “the games or the platforms

are not the problem. They are just places where

people show their true faces, be that good or

bad.” Punishing players in a game is therefore an

approach that may counter symptoms but leaves

the cause of this anger and hatred unaddressed.

Educational institutions, parents and mental

health professionals were named as potential allies

to address the root causes of oine hate.

In addition, anonymity emerged as an often-

discussed topic with much disagreement between

respondents. On the one hand, many expressed

the assumption that toxicity is causally linked

to anonymity, because offenders feel safe and

protected to say whatever they want.

18 Examining the Intersection Between Gaming & Violent Extremism

“Anonymity breeds a**hole and troll behavior” and

makes holding

users accountable extremely dicult

as banned users usually simply re-join with new

accounts.

This prompted some to advocate for less

anonymity in gaming spaces. “I think when playing

online you should have to register with your ID or

driver’s license. So that people will be more aware

that online actions

have real consequences,” said

one participant.

However, many also acknowledged

that anonymity

has positive effects, because it

also protects

potential victims of harassment and

“allows users to feel a sense of security that whoever

is behind the conduct cannot actually do anything to

them outside of the game or platform”. In addition,

anonymity may be crucial for some users, such

as those who wish to change or hide their sexual

or gender identity. One respondent, for instance,

explained that they are not out as trans and non-

binary in the oine world, but in the anonymity of the

online world they can be whoever they want to be.

Another participant said that anonymity allows them

to “separate my online identity from my oine one

… which makes me feel safer.” Therefore, anonymity

remains a contentious issue.

A number of participants also expressed cautions

and caveats, because “doing something about it in

the wrong way could very possibly make it worse

and/or bring up other issues”. Over-regulation could

cause backlash from many gamers and create more

problems, multiple participants feared. Because

“different people have different limits”, individual

solutions such as blocking and muting certain terms

may sometimes be more appropriate tools than

blanket solutions.

A delicate balance must be struck between top-down

regulation and allowing communities to develop

themselves independently, because “a certain level

of trash talking should be allowed since that is also

a part of the fun.” Therefore, participants believe

that there is a need to allow (dark) humour, rudeness,

bantering and possibly even a certain level of trolling,

which are “a big part of video games” and form a part

of gaming culture, in order not to over-police gaming

spaces and turn gamers against these measures.

Positive aspects of gaming

As anticipated in the survey, gamers stressed the

positive aspects of gaming. If gaming consisted only

of the negative experiences discussed above, few

people would be willing to spend time in gaming

spaces. Generally speaking, participants emphasized

in their open-ended replies that gaming is a positive

experience and yields a range of benets for those

who play. One of the most common themes in the open

answers was that “video games aren’t the problem”

and should not be blamed for violent or hateful

conduct, because “it’s not the game, it’s the gamers“

who choose such behaviour. In fact, causally linking

gaming to extremism or toxicity “would be like thinking

that cars existing is part of the problem of drunk

driving accidents”. This is because “the vast majority

of gamers are ordinary people. The hate I’ve seen is

a small, vocal minority that is effective because it is

loud and shocking, but most gamers I’ve met have

been great people from all walks of life.” Overall, video

games can be a tremendous “force of good” for those

who play and, despite the problems outlined above,

should not be subjected to a “witch hunt” but treated

like other hobbies are treated: as places of interaction

with like-minded individuals, which may sometimes

be hacked by extremists, but which generally yield

positive outcomes for those involved.

Examining the Intersection Between Gaming & Violent Extremism 19

What do you like about playing

video games?

■ Challenge/competition 35%

■ Escapism 21%

■ Community 16%

■ Relaxation 14%

If someone asked you why you

play, what would you say?

■ Entertainment 42%

■ Community 25%

■ Relaxation 17%

■ Escapism 13%

In your opinion, what are positive

outcomes of playing?

■ Community 36%

■ Skill development 24%

■ Relaxation 16%

■ Entertainment 15%

As illustrated above, when asked about the positive

aspects of video gaming on three separate occasions

in the survey, participants were largely in agreement

on the key positive outcomes of gaming (see also

Appendix III).

■ Community: Connecting with others, socializing

with like-minded individuals and being part of a

community were the most-often named positive

outcomes of gaming. “You can build such an

amazing community and have so much fun w

[sic] friends and people you never met” describes

the general tenor of most answers. Some

participants explained that they had met the “best

friends of my life” or even their spouses through

gaming. Others emphasized the chance to make

friends all over the world, which would have not

been possible otherwise, and praised the “ability

to connect across borders and cultures” that

video games provide. Others described a feeling

of belonging in a “collective culture” and a “feeling

of acceptance” that they did not receive in real

life. Video games also help to sustain friendships

originating in the oine world: “I ... have many

friends that no longer live near me and video

games help us stay in contact with each other

through a shared interest.”

■ Entertainment: Unsurprisingly, many participants

play video games because it is their hobby, a

fun and entertaining activity. One participant

suggested that games are “fun [and the] brain

chemicals go brrrr”; another explained that “it’s

fun and stress-free of my worries. I don’t have

to worry about this and that person, I don’t have

to worry about the competition in the real world,

society, and in the classroom. It’s just the game

and my mind is free to enjoy it.” “The highs of

video games are incredibly high, nothing can

make you feel much better on a consistent basis”,

added another participant. For many, gaming is

a leisure activity and hobby that brings joy and

entertainment.

■ Escapism: Many participants relayed that

they use gaming to escape and cope with their

everyday life. “Playing a game is like traveling to

another existence. It helps me cope with life in

this world,” said one respondent. Multiple others

described the need to “disconnect”, “distance”

and “distract” themselves from their worries,

describing games as “a place to take solace” from

the realities of their existence. Some respondents

also explained that gaming provides a temporary

relief from anxieties and mental illnesses such

as depression and even PTSD. It was mentioned

often that gaming is a positive and productive

escape from reality, because gamers are “able to

live out fantasies that real life can’t provide” and

games provide them with the “ability to create

something more stable and wonderful than

what I see in the world”. Games, one participant

explained, “allow me to do [and] see things that

are impossible, impractical, or stressful in real

life. I can go to space, be a lawyer, use magic, y

planes, and manage countries without worrying

about messing up.” This can go as far as living out

one’s true identity in games.

■ Relaxation: Like other hobbies, games provide

relaxation. They “allow me to slow down,

somewhat, after my mentally demanding job”,

help to “unwind”, provide an outlet to “release

pent up frustration without bothering or

hurting someone” and may put players in a “zen

state of mind”. Gaming can be “therapeutic,

meditative, relaxing [and] inspiring”, according

to respondents. In a similar vein to escapism,

multiple participants stressed that the relaxing

effects of video games support the management

of their mental health, because it can “calm down

strong negative emotions” and “shuts off the

amygdala (the part of the brain that processes

strong emotions like fear) so it helps with my

anxiety in an otherwise panic-inducing situation”.

20 Examining the Intersection Between Gaming & Violent Extremism

■ Challenge/competition: Multiple respondents

stated that they play because they like competing

with others and enjoy being constantly challenged.

Some relish the feeling “that I am better than

other people in a competitive environment” and

“like kicking a** and feeling powerful”. Others

emphasize the desire to be challenged: “Games

challenge me perfectly, they match my skill so that

I’m always challenged but not too dicultly,” said

one participant, echoing the argument that Jane

McGonigal,

among others, has made that games

provide a more satisfactory experience than

many real life situations because they create ow

experiences, perfectly match the challenge to the

skill level of the player and provide clear goals and

pathways to succeed.

■ Skill development: When asked about the

positive outcomes of video games, many

participants stressed that games teach players

a range of useful skills, because gaming is

“exercise for the brain”. The list of skills they

provided is long and includes (foreign) language

development and communication skills, improved

concentration, better reexes, hand–eye

coordination and dexterity, increased spatial

awareness, teamwork, empathy, resource

management, pattern recognition, dealing with

losing/frustration and strategic thinking. Some

also mentioned learning about stock markets,

history, geography and different cultures, as

well as programming, software development,

linguistics and product management. Overall,

one participant explained, “gamers intuitively

understand that they can learn new things,

change and evolve. The majority of games are

based on the assumption that the player will

learn new skills to progress. That’s a valuable life

lesson that some people around me are missing:

That things can change and effort pays off and

people can get better by practicing.”

37. McGonigal, J. (2012). Reality is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World. Vintage Books: London

Other important reasons for and positive outcomes

of playing respondents relayed included that:

■ Games are works of art and offer high-quality

storytelling – games tell “amazing stories and

showcase unique and beautiful art”

■ Playing provides gamers with a sense of

accomplishment and the feeling that they are able

to overcome obstacles through determination

and practice – games “teach you how to overcome

seemingly-insurmountable problems” and provide

the opportunity to “enjoy ... watching myself

improve”

■ Video games offer unique immersive experiences

– they provide the opportunity to experience

“stories in a way that one can’t through books or

lm” because “I get to change what happens. I can

actively participate in them.”

■ Video games can serve as educational tools –

“video games are a great source of ... knowledge.

I know a lot of people who, when asked where they

learned about how something related to physics,

metallurgy, or English vocabulary, they would

respond that they learned it in a video game.”

In addition, participants were asked what they enjoy

about spending time on gaming-adjacent platforms.

The overwhelming majority emphasized the social

and community aspects of these spaces, which

allow them to interact with like-minded individuals

across borders and have become, especially during

the pandemic, an increasingly important way of

socializing. Several participants also explained that

they enjoy watching other players (e.g. streamers on

Twitch), either to learn more about different games or

because they enjoy the streamers’ personalities.

Examining the Intersection Between Gaming & Violent Extremism 21

Overall, participants stressed time and time again

that “games can do so much”, that they have a range

of positive effects for players and that gaming is

not a problem to be solved but a hobby enjoyed by

many. Gaming is not inherently linked to problematic

behaviour, they “are not evil or good. It’s what we make

of them.” Toxicity and extremism can and do occur

in many other communities and some respondents

explained that they “heard more extremist language

and viewpoints from the people in [their] town’s local

pickleball club than a video game in-game chat”. In

fact, many participants explained that video games

and the social connections they have made through

gaming have helped them through dicult times, are

a source of joy, provide a feeling of belonging, and are

relaxing and entertaining. Therefore “it’s high time we

switch the narrative” from an emphasis on the negative

aspects of gaming and its related culture to how it can

be used as a “force of good”, including in PCVE.

Reections on trolling

As per the feedback from the focus groups, we

did not post the survey to any public forum such

as Facebook, Twitter or Reddit, because it was

suggested that the survey data would potentially

become tainted by online trolling. Despite this, the

survey still received several responses that were

evidently examples of trolling. There were a number

of sexual trolling responses, e.g. about (large) male

genitalia and “your mother” jokes. Some trolling

attempts reproduced memes and lm references,

some were silly such as “I’ve got over 14000 hours

in a roguelike. Bet you don’t. Neener neener

neener”, whereas others amounted to rants against

‘the system’ such as “‘Good and evil’ is relative.

Same with ‘education’ and ‘propaganda.’ There is

no radicalization going on. Just common people

that disagree with your totalitarian nonsense and

challenge your authority. It wasn’t video games or

‘far-right’ propaganda that ‘radicalized’ me. It was

public school, your ‘trusted sources’ and government

ocials. Their moral grandstanding, hypocrisy, and

lies. UN boomers are cringe and gay.”

38. ADL (n.d.) “109/110”. https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/109110

Other examples were signicantly more offensive,

using slurs, derogatory terms and hateful language,

including towards certain sexual and ethnic

minority groups. Antisemitism, transphobia and

racism were the most common themes in these

responses and included calls for violence and denial

of the Holocaust. A minority of trolls went as far as

reproducing far-right memes and phrases, such as

“If I were to get kicked out of 109 bars, I don’t think I’d

be entitled to blame the bartenders”, which alludes

to the antisemitic narrative that Jews being expelled

from 109 countries is evidence that they are a

problem for societies.

The motive for such trolling replies reproducing

far-right narratives remains unclear. There are

three possible explanations for this behaviour: a)

respondents unknowingly reproduced ideological

narratives, b) the sample included radicalized

individuals, or, c) the main goal of these respondents

was to upset readers and they chose whichever

hateful comments they believed would produce

the most outrage. In other contexts, many survey

participants explained that they believe toxicity

is motivated by the wish to provoke, which is an

indication that c) might be the most likely explanation.

However, without follow-up interviews of these

trolls, there is no way to be sure of this. These trolling

examples illustrate how dicult it can be to research

gaming communities and gain insights into the true

experiences of gamers. If surveys conducted within

trusted networks can be disrupted by some trolls, it is

likely to be substantially more dicult to administer

surveys among wider gaming communities without

signicant disruptions.

22 Examining the Intersection Between Gaming & Violent Extremism

t is apparent from the above discussion that

gaming, gaming-related content and gaming-

adjacent platforms are used for the dissemination

of hateful, toxic and potentially extremist content

– and gamers are very aware of this fact. However, it

is also abundantly clear that gaming has tremendous

positive outcomes for those who engage in it.

The

focus group participants and survey data suggest that

gamers and users of gaming

-adjacent platforms are

exposed to toxic content on a regular basis, although

‘hardcore’ extremist content

is less likely to appear in

open and public spaces.

However, it remains unclear

whether there is a causal relationship between gaming-

related content and radicalization and how such a

relationship interacts with or amplies other drivers

of radicalization, if at all. The presence of hateful and

extremist speech on gaming platforms could both

familiarize and desensitize individuals to hateful content

and afford extremists the opportunity to build upon

misogynistic or racist ideas to facilitate engagement

with their ideology. While all gaming-related spaces

are in need of further examination, in-game chats in

particular stand out as the space where toxic content

is encountered most prominently and, therefore, merit

special attention in further research efforts.

39. This study conrmed and expanded upon two recent ADL studies on positive and negative experiences of gamers: ADL (2019). Free to Play? Hate, Harassment, and Positive

Social Experiences in Online Games. https://www.adl.org/free-to-play; ADL (2020). Free to Play? Hate, Harassment and Positive Social Experience in Online Games 2020. https://

www.adl.org/free-to-play-2020

However, we have also seen throughout this report

that gaming can yield a number of positive effects,

most prominently by supporting social connections

and the building of communities, but also by facilitating

relaxation, escapism and entertainment. In addition,

video games can serve as tools for skill development,

education and overcoming challenges. For many,

these positive outcomes of playing video games and

spending time on gaming-adjacent platforms draw

them to gaming despite the toxicity.

While certain problematic behaviours cannot be

denied, gaming communities are not simply places

of hate. They are also places of belonging and should

be treated as such; it is of crucial importance to

acknowledge gaming not only as not inherently

linked to negative outcomes but as a force for good

in people’s lives. Any discussion of toxicity, hate and

extremism in gaming spaces should be grounded in

the knowledge that gaming offers the opportunity for

positive experiences and connections. In the future,

therefore, exploring how gaming can support political

education and PCVE projects and collaborating with

gaming communities to empower them to take charge

of their gaming experiences and counter hateful

conduct will be essential.

5. Conclusion

Examining the Intersection Between Gaming & Violent Extremism 23

Overall, there seems to be little doubt that extremists

seek to exploit the attractiveness and popularity of

video games, gaming-related content and gaming

-adjacent platforms, albeit sometimes not as openly

as one might expect. While the effects and ‘success’

of this exploitation remain unknown, the presence

of extremist actors and toxic, hateful, sometimes

extremist content in gaming-related spaces suggests

that PCVE actors are well advised to engage with the

topic of gaming and extremism to gauge whether and

how measures in these spaces should be designed and

implemented.

Recommendations and future steps

■ When discussing the issue of gaming and

extremism, all actors involved should take care

not to suggest that gaming as such is a problem

to be solved, either explicitly or implicitly. They

should take into consideration that there is

currently no evidence that being a gamer or

frequenting gaming spaces makes individuals

more susceptible to radicalization processes.

On the contrary, it should be recognized and

emphasized that gaming provides many positive

outcomes and any discussion of gaming and

extremism should be anchored in this knowledge.

■ More evidence-based research into extremists’

use of gaming spaces and gaming content is

needed to delineate the scope and prevalence

of the issue. It is also crucial to understand

more about how different gaming spaces are

used by extremists, whether certain spaces are

more prone to being exploited than others, the

differences between the exploitation of gaming

by right-wing or jihadist extremists, and whether

(and how) extremists target individuals differently

based on their age, gender or background. In

addition, a deeper understanding of the reasons

for extremists’ presence in gaming spaces and

the potential consequences of this presence,

especially on radicalization processes, is needed.

Special emphasis, as this study demonstrates,

should be placed on in-game chats and on

communication platforms as a large part of

hateful content seems to appear in these

spaces. Overall, it will be crucial that researchers

continue to speak to the gaming community,

rather than only about it, in their efforts to

understand more about how extremists act in

gaming spaces.

40. The roundtable is available on UN WebTV: https://media.un.org/en/asset/k14/k14g6o92

■ While moderation efforts differ widely between

platforms and many are already taking action, it

will nevertheless be necessary for PCVE actors,

policymakers and researchers to work closely

with platforms to curb extremists’ exploitation of

gaming spaces, such as by devising programmes

to train moderators in identifying fringe and

extremist content and to ensure that users are

held accountable for their actions. However, a

balance must be struck. Gaming and gaming

spaces should not be over-policed and efforts to

moderate and regulate should include input from

the gaming communities affected.

■ The exploitation of gaming spaces and content

by extremist actors is not an issue that can be

addressed by a single entity but represents a

multi-stakeholder problem. To commence this

work, UNOCT hosted an expert roundtable on

the intersection of video games and violent

extremism and invited speakers and panelists

from across sectors to discuss the research

ndings and to explore innovative ways to use

gaming in PCVE projects. The discussion was

centred on the misuse of gaming exploitation

as well as a multi-stakeholder exploration of

opportunities for innovative PCVE policy and

programming support.

In the future, UNOCT will

continue to support networking and knowledge-

exchange formats between gamers, video game

and tech companies, GIFCT and related entities,

policymakers, governments, law enforcement,

international organizations, PCVE actors,

researchers and other relevant stakeholders.

Through continuous dialogue, it can be ensured

that relevant voices are heard and cooperation is

strengthened.

■ So far, PCVE interventions in gaming spaces

have been rare. Therefore, it is necessary

to communicate how extremists seek to use

gaming spaces to PCVE practitioners and raise

awareness on the various dimensions of this

exploitation, including video games, gaming

-adjacent platforms and the use of gaming

content in propaganda material. If future PCVE

efforts in gaming spaces are to be successful,

practitioners also need to develop subcultural

knowledge of gaming spaces and learn to

navigate gaming platforms. This is a necessary

precondition to develop effective PCVE

campaigns with a gaming dimension.

24 Examining the Intersection Between Gaming & Violent Extremism

■ As the focus group participants suggested,

PCVE actors should encourage and support

positive, bottom-up initiatives by gamers and

for gamers aimed at reducing the prevalence of

hateful content in gaming spaces. This will ensure

that the positive voices within the community

are strengthened and empowered to facilitate

change from within rather than seeking to drive

change through external intervention.

■ Given the popularity and reach of video games,

gaming-adjacent platforms and related content,

and considering the positive outcomes of

engaging with gaming content and spaces,

it is advisable that PCVE actors delineate

the possibilities of including gaming content

in counter-extremism efforts or positive

intervention campaigns and transfer existing

digital PCVE measures to gaming spaces. At this

point in time, it is not feasible to deduce best

practices for PCVE regarding the use of gaming

content and platforms. Rather, PCVE actors

need to engage in trial and error to accumulate

more practical experience regarding gaming

in counter-extremism projects. Through the

Extremism and Gaming Research Network,

UNOCT will be involved in the design and

implementation of innovative projects, support

research efforts to gather more evidence and,

subsequently, extrapolate recommendations for

PCVE interventions using gaming.

APPENDIX I

Methodology and Limitations

Insights from the literature review as well as Phase I

and II of the research project were incorporated into

the design of an online survey, which was delivered

via SurveyMonkey and was live from 29 November

2021 to 10 March 2022. The survey link was distributed

through

trusted networks, including networks that

UNOCT had already established with gaming-adjacent

organizations, through the networks of our focus

group participants and through additional contacts

from the authors’ personal and professional networks.

From these trusted networks, 622 participants lled

out the survey.

On the advice of several of our focus group

participants, we did not post the survey to any public

forum such as Facebook, Twitter, Steam or Reddit,

because it was suggested that the survey data would

quite quickly become tainted by online trolling. As

such, UNOCT distributed the survey strictly within the

network of trusted colleagues and organizations. It is

likely that this skewed the survey replies. The trusted

networks were not only limited geographically and

linguistically – preventing a generalization to gaming

communities in other geographical locations and/

or communicating in languages other than English –

but may not even be indicative of the attitudes and

perceptions of the gaming communities in North

America and Europe, as the trusted networks are

likely to include many individuals with a more left-

leaning, liberal, pro-democratic political worldview.

Consequently, their responses on, for instance,

hateful comments they encounter during gaming,

may partially be coloured by their political

convictions. This is an important limitation and

should be taken into account when judging the survey

results presented above. While the trusted network

approach kept trolling to a minimum, it also means

that the ndings are perhaps less generalizable than

they would have been with a more open approach.

The survey contained 39 questions, with over 20 of

these being open-ended questions, which allowed

gamers to express their experiences and feelings in

their own words. This ensured that the participants

were given ample opportunities to relay personal

experiences and opinions, including on issues not

specically asked about in the closed questions.

Many participants gave elaborate responses to

the open-ended questions, which enabled the

researchers to take a deep look into both the

challenges and benets users experience from

playing video games and from being present in

gaming-related spaces such as gaming platforms.

The replies to the open-ended questions were coded

inductively according to the main themes discussed

by respondents. Overall, this approach ensured

that the report above is rmly anchored in gamers’

personal experiences and gives gamers a voice,

which has been largely absent in the literature on

gaming and extremism so far.

Examining the Intersection Between Gaming & Violent Extremism 25

APPENDIX II

Quantitative Survey Data

Figure 1 Locations of survey respondents Figure 2 Age range of survey respondents

Figure 3 Gender breakdown of survey respondents

Figure 5 Survey responses to “Do you usually play alone

or with others?”

Figure 4 Survey responses to “How many hours do you

spend gaming per week?”

Figure 6 Top 5 survey responses to the question “What

genres of games do you most often play?”

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

80%

60%

40%

20%

Female Male Other/Non-binary

Other (please

specify)

Australia

& Oceania

Asia

Africa

North America

Europe

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

0-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 50+

0-5 hours

6-10 hours

11-15 hours

16-20 hours

21 hours+

100

200

300

Roleplaying

Game

Shooter Strategy Adventure Massively

Multiplayer

Online Game

10% 20% 30%

Alone

With others

Other (please

specify)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

26 Examining the Intersection Between Gaming & Violent Extremism

Figure 7 Survey responses to “How much money do you

spend on gaming every month?”

Figure 9 Survey responses to a question related to where

a respondent witnessed hateful or violent

content while gaming

Figure 11 Survey responses when asked how much

misogyny they see

Figure 8 Survey responses to a question related to whether

the respondent has seen any hateful or violent

behaviour while playing video games or on gaming

platforms

Figure 10 Survey responses to how often a respondent is

exposed to hateful or violent content while gaming

Figure 12 Survey responses when asked how much racism/

xenophobia they see

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 10% 20% 30% 40%0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

10%

Yes No

20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

$0-100

In-game chats

A great deal

A lot

A moderate

amount

A moderate

amount

A little

None at all

A lot

A moderate

amount

A little

None at all

Live

conversation...

By streamers

In chats

during streams

On Discord

servers and...

All of the

above

Other (please

specify)

$101-200

$201-300

$301-400

$401-500

Over $500

Examining the Intersection Between Gaming & Violent Extremism 27

Figure 13 Survey responses when asked how much

extremist content they see

Figure 15 Survey responses when asked how much

Islamophobia they see

Figure 17 Summary of gures 11-16 – survey responses to questions related to the frequency of exposure to different kinds

of hateful or extremist content

Figure 14 Survey responses when asked how much

antisemitism they see

Figure 16 Survey responses when asked how much

homophobia they see

A great deal A lot

A moderate

amount

A little None at all

Misogynistic

16% 15% 23% 28% 18%

Racist/Xenophobic

14% 16% 26% 30% 14%

Extremist

9% 7% 16% 34% 33%

Antisemitic

9% 6% 13% 34% 38%

Islamophobic

9% 7% 14% 34% 36%

Homophobic

17% 17% 21% 28% 18%

10% 20% 30% 40%

A great deal

A lot

A moderate

amount

A moderate

amount

A moderate

amount

A moderate

amount

A little

None at all

28 Examining the Intersection Between Gaming & Violent Extremism

APPENDIX III

Additional Details of Survey Responses

On which platforms and

in which games does toxic

behaviour occur most often?

Everywhere 7.4%

Platforms

Discord 16.5%

Twitch 11.1%

Reddit 5.7%

Twitter 5.7%

YouTube 3.4%

Steam 2.2%

Other 3.4%

Types of Games

League of Legends 17%

Call of Duty 6.9%

Other Shooters 15.5%

Other Multiplayer

Online Battle Arena 7.6%

Massively Multiplayer

Online Game 3%

Other 3.7%

Which platforms (Steam etc)

do you use to play video games?

Steam 80.5%

Nintendo, esp. Switch 23%

PC 16.5%

Epic Games 14.6%

Phone/mobile 9.4%

Playstation 9.4%

GoG 9.4%

Xbox 9.0%

Riot 7.7%

Origin 6.0%

Battle.net 5.2%

Itch < 3%

Minecraft < 3%

Blizzard < 3%

Roblox < 3%

Ubisoft Connect < 3%

Wii < 3%

Amazon Games < 3%

League of Legends < 3%

Humble Bundle < 3%

Oculus < 3%

Emulation < 3%

Thunderspygaming < 3%

Mojang < 3%

Byond < 3%

Discord < 3%

Twitch < 3%

World of Warcraft < 3%

Other < 3%

In your opinion, what are the

positive outcomes of playing

video games?

Community/Socializing/

Friendships 36%

Skill development 24%

Relaxation 16%

Entertainment 15%