Author: Charles Shang
Introduction
Millions of people return to video games after a day of work or school. Most of them replay the same game over and over, even after they’ve “finished” it or reached a high level. According to the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), 61% of the U.S. population (ages 5–90) plays video games at least one hour per week. Among many reasons, one of the main things that makes video games so popular is the competitive system behind them. These systems can take forms like ranked ladders, leaderboards, or PvP (player versus player) matches. They turn gaming from a solo hobby into a social competition. Competitive systems give players goals, opponents, and recognition, and because of this, they hold attention more than other hobbies.
Take League of Legends as an example. The game builds everything around competition. Players team up with four others and face another team of five. After each match, a player’s rank points go up or down based on whether they win or lose, which places them in tiers from “Iron” all the way to “Challenger.” This system gives players a clear goal to work toward and a platform to prove themselves. When players improve, they see it directly in their rank. They also get matched with others at similar skill levels. These features help explain why League of Legends has stayed popular for so long.
Studying how competition keeps people engaged in games can help us build healthier systems: not just in video games, but in companies, schools, and other real-world situations. Competition becomes toxic when it increases hostile behavior, stress, and frustration, or when it pushes players toward unhealthy addiction. Research on online multiplayer communities shows that unclear feedback and harsh punishment systems lead to more hostility and verbal aggression (Kordyaka, Jahn, & Niehaves, 2020; Kou & Nardi, 2014). A healthy competitive system, on the other hand, offers fair challenges, clear rewards, and chances to cooperate. These features tend to build intrinsic motivation and teamwork, helping players stay engaged in positive ways (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Hamari & Keronen, 2017). By understanding what keeps people playing, we also learn what pushes them away. Knowing how competition works in games can help us create environments where people grow under pressure instead of getting hurt by it.
The results show that different competitive systems create different patterns of engagement. PvP attracts the most players, while Ranking leads to the highest time and money investment. Systems that emphasize status pull players in deep, but they also raise emotional pressure: stress, burnout, and addictive behaviors are clearly higher in Ranking and PvP. Timing-based and achievement systems draw smaller but dedicated groups who care about self-improvement and finishing goals, though they struggle with repetition and quitting tied to cost. Non-competitive systems, while showing the lowest engagement levels, give casual players important spaces without pressure. Getting the right mix between these systems matters, and choosing the right combination could encourage sustainable, healthy engagement in competitive environments.
This study used an anonymous online survey distributed through social media. The survey included structured questions designed to capture participants’ gaming behaviors, preferences, and motivations. To measure gaming intensity, the survey asked about weekly playtime. Genre preference came from asking participants to name their most-played game type. Financial investment was measured through a question about average monthly spending on games and in-game purchases.
To understand competitive orientation, the survey asked whether participants preferred games with strong competitive features like ranked ladders, leaderboards, or PvP modes. Game attachment was measured by asking how often players replay the same game instead of switching to new ones. Motivational factors came from asking respondents to pick their main reason for playing: competition, story immersion, social interaction, or relaxation. The survey also included questions about emotional responses to winning and losing, capturing how competitive play affects players emotionally. Another question asked about how much players value visible recognition systems like rankings, badges, or achievements. Finally, the survey collected demographic information: age group, gender, and participation in other activities: to use as control variables. The whole survey took about three minutes to finish.
Participants came from a Chinese college population. Recruitment happened mostly through online channels commonly used for campus surveys, including student social media groups and course-related platforms. In total, the study collected 1,114 valid responses. The sample was 60.14% female (n = 670) and 39.86% male (n = 444). Age skewed young: 58.89% were 18–25, followed by 17.06% under 18, and 9.96% aged 26–30. The rest were spread across older groups. Education levels matched the college setting: 44.34% were undergrads, 23.25% had associate degrees, and smaller groups reported junior high or below (10.68%), high school or technical school (7.56%), or graduate degrees and above (12.39%). This makes the sample mostly young, educated, and slightly more female, which fits what you’d expect in Chinese universities today.
Literature Review
To better understand whether my observations about competitive games are shared by researchers, it is helpful to look at how previous studies have examined competition, motivation, and gaming behavior.
Previous research has shown that competition plays an important role in shaping player behavior in digital games. Studies on online multiplayer communities suggest that competition system can significantly increase player engagement, but may also lead to negative outcomes such as stress, frustration, and hostile interactions when design elements are unclear or overly punitive (Kou & Nardi, 2014; Kordyaka, Jahn, & Niehaves, 2020). These findings indicate that competition itself is not inherently harmful, but its effects depend largely on how it is structured and experienced by players.
From a motivational perspective, research has emphasized that players are driven by more than simple external rewards. According to self-determination theory, motivation in games can be supported when players experience autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Building on this idea, studies on game engagement and gamification suggest that transparent feedback, achievable challenges, and meaningful recognition systems are more likely to promote sustained and positive participation (Hamari & Keronen, 2017). In contrast, competitive environments that focus excessively on ranking, punishment, or exclusion may undermine intrinsic motivation and increase emotional pressure.
Research on adolescents and online games further highlights the complexity of game engagement. Large-scale studies in China have shown that online games have both positive and negative impacts on minors. On the one hand, games can provide enjoyment, stress relief, and opportunities for social interaction; on the other hand, a proportion of adolescents display signs of excessive use and difficulty disengaging from games (Tian & Wang, 2022). Importantly, this research suggests that problematic gaming behavior cannot be explained by a single factor, but is related to a combination of individual experience and game structure.
While existing studies have examined gaming addiction, motivation, and social effects separately, fewer studies focus specifically on how differentcompetition system —such as player-versus-player modes, ranking systems, or goal-based challenges—shape patterns of engagement and risk. Most discussions treat competition as a general feature, rather than distinguishing between its different forms.
Based on this gap, the present study focuses on how various competition system are associated with player engagement, motivation, and potential addictive experiences. By comparing different gameplay structures, this research aims to provide a more detailed understanding of how competition operates within games, especially among younger players.
Method and Participants
This study employed an anonymous questionnaire-based survey to examine the relationship between competition system and player engagement in digital games.
Gaming intensity was measured through self-reported weekly playtime, while genre preference was assessed by asking participants to identify the type of games they played most frequently. Financial investment in gaming was measured using a question on average monthly spending on games and in-game purchases. To examine competitive orientation, the survey included items assessing participants’ engagement with competitive features such as ranked ladders, leaderboards, player-versus-player modes, achievement systems, and time-based challenges. Participants were also asked to report their primary motivation for playing games, including competition, narrative immersion, social interaction, relaxation, and self-improvement.
In addition, the questionnaire included items measuring emotional responses to winning and losing, as well as the perceived importance of visible recognition systems such as rankings, badges, or achievements. Experiences related to gaming addiction were assessed using a series of frequency-based items capturing behaviors such as excessive play, difficulty stopping, emotional dependence, and perceived impact on daily life. Most attitudinal items were measured using five-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Demographic variables, including age group, gender, educational background, and participation in other activities, were also collected to serve as contextual variables.
Participants were recruited using a non-probability convenience sampling method, primarily through online distribution channels commonly used for campus surveys, including student social media groups and course-related communication platforms. In addition, some responses were collected through school-based channels, allowing access to younger participants. As participants were recruited based on accessibility rather than random selection, the sample does not represent a probability-based population.
A total of 1,114 valid responses were collected. The sample was 60.14% female (n = 670) and 39.86% male (n = 444). The age distribution was heavily concentrated among young people, with 58.89% aged 18–25, followed by 17.06% under 18 (n = 190) and 9.96% aged 26–30, while the remaining respondents were distributed across older age groups. Educational attainment reflected the recruitment context, with most participants reporting undergraduate or college-level education.
Due to the relatively smaller number of adolescent respondents, comparisons between adolescents and adults in this study are presented as exploratory analyses, focusing on identifying patterns and tendencies rather than making population-level generalizations. As the sample was not randomly selected, the findings of this study should be interpreted with caution and are intended to provide insight into possible relationships between competitive game design and player engagement, rather than to represent all player populations.
Results
The study yielded 1,114 valid responses from adolescents and young adults (under 30), providing a broad overview of how players experience different competition system. When categorized by primary competition type, 578 respondents reported most frequently engaging in player-versus-player (PvP) modes, followed by 417 respondents engaging in cooperative-task or player-versus-environment (PvE) modes. Smaller proportions reported primarily engaging in ranking systems (n = 184), achievement-based systems (n = 215), timing-based challenges (n = 130), and non-competitive modes (n = 473). The analysis incorporates both behavioral indicators—such as time spent and money spent—and psychological indicators, including motivation, quitting intention, and addictive tendencies.
Player Investment Across Competitive Systems
Table 1
| Mode | Count | Avg_Time(min) | Avg_Money($) |
| PVP | 578 | 33.322 | 431.391 |
| PVE | 417 | 32.554 | 426.081 |
| Ranking | 184 | 41.25 | 522.659 |
| Timing | 130 | 36.346 | 479.503 |
| achievements | 215 | 33.14 | 411.776 |
| None | 473 | 34.218 | 377.227 |
As shown in Table 1, different competition systems are associated with distinct levels of player investment. Among all gameplay modes, ranking-based systems exhibit the highest average playtime (41.25 minutes) and the highest average financial spending (522.66). These values are notably higher than those observed in the two most common systems, PvP (33.32 minutes; 431.39) and PvE (32.55 minutes; 426.08).
PvP and PvE represent the two most fundamental competition systems in the dataset, capturing direct social confrontation and cooperative performance respectively. They also function as foundational building blocks for other systems, as ranking, timing, and achievement-based modes often incorporate elements of either PvP or PvE. Therefore, comparisons below focus primarily on these two systems, while highlighting how ranking systems amplify their competitive intensity.
The higher levels of time and monetary investment associated with ranking systems suggest that structured competition, particularly when tied to progression ladders and status indicators, is especially effective in sustaining prolonged engagement.
In contrast, achievement-based and non-competitive systems show lower investment levels. Achievement players spend an average of 33.14 minutes and 411.78, while non-competitive players spend 34.22 minutes but only 377.23, the lowest spending among all modes. This suggests that without competitive pressure or visible status rewards, players are less motivated to invest financially.
Motivational Structures in Competitive Gameplay
Table 2
| Happy | rank | learn | immersion | friend | release stress | recognition | freedom | community |
| PVP | 3.573 | 3.597 | 3.157 | 3.83 | 3.986 | 3.538 | 3.279 | 3.313 |
| PVE | 3.53 | 3.607 | 3.309 | 4.098 | 3.993 | 3.559 | 3.482 | 3.412 |
| Ranking | 3.674 | 3.761 | 3.353 | 3.978 | 4.114 | 3.543 | 3.435 | 3.402 |
| Timing | 3.254 | 3.846 | 3.562 | 3.769 | 4.008 | 3.492 | 3.7 | 3.262 |
| Achievements | 3.251 | 3.614 | 3.363 | 3.688 | 3.963 | 3.428 | 3.535 | 3.116 |
| None | 2.539 | 3.167 | 3.495 | 3.23 | 3.915 | 3.002 | 3.691 | 2.844 |
Beyond behavioral investment, Table 2 illustrates that competitive engagement is driven by multiple motivations rather than the pursuit of victory alone. In ranking systems, players report high motivation not only for ranking and winning (3.76), but also for emotional immersion (3.98), stress relief (4.11), and recognition (3.54). Motivation related to learning and self-improvement (3.35) also remains relatively strong.
PvP modes show a similar but slightly less intensified pattern, with particularly high scores in achievement (3.99) and immersion (3.83). PvE systems, in contrast, emphasize collaboration and immersion, with immersion reaching 4.10 and friend-related motivation at 3.99, reflecting a more stable and predictable engagement structure.
These findings suggest that competition operates as a multi-dimensional motivational environment, fulfilling players’ needs for progress, validation, emotional release, and social connection, rather than functioning solely as a win–lose mechanism.
Timing-based systems stand out for their strong learning motivation (3.846) and freedom (3.7), reflecting their appeal to players who enjoy self-improvement and efficiency. Achievement systems show more moderate scores across all motivational dimensions, while non-competitive modes score lowest on most items except freedom (3.691), confirming their role as pressure-free spaces for casual play.
Addictive Experiences and Competitive Intensity
Table 3
| Addiction | overplay | craving | impairment | escape | warning | withdrawal | euphoria | spending |
| PVP | 2.792 | 2.247 | 2.149 | 2.753 | 2.578 | 2.085 | 2.071 | 2.144 |
| PVE | 2.835 | 2.269 | 2.158 | 2.823 | 2.571 | 2.161 | 2.101 | 2.043 |
| Ranking | 2.886 | 2.272 | 2.304 | 2.87 | 2.734 | 2.255 | 2.174 | 2.364 |
| Timing | 2.715 | 2.338 | 2.146 | 2.8 | 2.246 | 2.085 | 2.031 | 1.885 |
| achievements | 2.753 | 2.163 | 2.014 | 2.674 | 2.284 | 1.958 | 1.898 | 2.033 |
| None | 2.613 | 2.063 | 1.907 | 2.677 | 2.152 | 1.879 | 1.791 | 1.92 |
In addition to increased engagement, competitive and ranking-based systems show a higher concentration of addictive experiences, as presented in Table 3. Players primarily engaged in ranking modes report higher levels of excessive play (2.89), perceived impairment in daily life (2.30), and emotional escape (2.87) compared to other gameplay structures. Financially related addictive behavior is also most prominent in ranking systems, with spending reaching 2.36, the highest among all modes.
PvP modes also display elevated scores on several addiction-related indicators, including overplay (2.79) and craving (2.25), though these values remain lower than those observed in ranking systems. Importantly, while average scores across all modes remain below the threshold of severe addiction, the clustering of higher values in ranking-based gameplay suggests that competitive intensity may increase the likelihood of addictive tendencies emerging, particularly when repeated match cycles and ranking pressure are present.
Among less intensive systems, achievement-based play shows moderate addiction scores, with overplay at 2.753 and craving at 2.163. Timing-based systems have relatively low spending addiction (1.885), the lowest among all modes, suggesting that players focused on efficiency are less likely to spend money excessively. Non-competitive systems consistently score lowest on most addiction indicators, including impairment (1.907) and withdrawal (1.879), supporting their image as healthier play options.
Quitting Intentions and Structural Pressure
Table 4
| Quit | Difficulty | nonachievement | cost | toxic community | slow updates | friend left | no interest | stress | family |
| PVP | 3.522 | 3.538 | 3.817 | 3.827 | 3.413 | 3.05 | 3.846 | 3.412 | 2.31 |
| PVE | 3.547 | 3.602 | 3.837 | 3.871 | 3.372 | 3.192 | 3.839 | 3.453 | 2.348 |
| Ranking | 3.321 | 3.522 | 4.022 | 3.924 | 3.359 | 3.103 | 3.908 | 3.587 | 2.516 |
| Timing | 3.508 | 3.585 | 4 | 3.962 | 3.292 | 2.815 | 3.946 | 3.215 | 2.223 |
| achievements | 3.53 | 3.586 | 3.893 | 3.944 | 3.247 | 2.912 | 3.972 | 3.27 | 2.312 |
| None | 3.913 | 3.759 | 4.114 | 4.104 | 3.476 | 2.909 | 4.011 | 3.41 | 2.163 |
Finally, Table 4 demonstrates that players’ intentions to quit are more closely associated with structural pressures than with a simple loss of interest. In ranking systems, players report relatively high levels of stress (3.59) and financial cost (3.92) as reasons for considering withdrawal. The pressure of unmet achievements is particularly notable, with ranking modes scoring 4.02 on “no achievement,” the highest among all systems.
PvP and PvE modes show similar patterns, where quitting intentions are more strongly linked to cost, stress, and unmet progression rather than boredom alone. In contrast, purely non-competitive modes display higher quitting scores related to difficulty and lack of achievement, but comparatively lower stress levels.
These results indicate that players are often driven away not because games become uninteresting, but because competitive structures introduce sustained emotional, financial, and performance-related pressures that gradually outweigh enjoyment.
Summary of Results
The results of this study suggest that competitive and ranking-based game modes are strongly associated with higher player engagement. One possible explanation is that these systems provide players with clear goals and immediate feedback. When players win a match or improve their rank, they receive a sense of progress that encourages them to continue playing. Even after losing, the desire to recover lost points or improve performance may encourage players to play “one more round.” Both of these responses happen in real time during and right after the game. From the players’ perspective, ranking systems make progress visible and measurable, which may help explain why they are linked to longer playtime and higher investment.
Another important finding of this study is that competition is driven by multiple motivations rather than only the desire to win. The data shows that players in competitive modes report strong motivations related to improvement, recognition, emotional release, and immersion. This suggests that competitive gameplay satisfies different psychological needs at the same time. For some players, competition offers a way to test their skills and gain recognition, while for others it provides a way to relieve stress or feel more emotionally involved. As a result, competitive systems may be especially engaging because they combine achievement, emotion, and social interaction into a single experience.
However, the findings also indicate that higher engagement in competitive systems is often accompanied by increased pressure. Players in ranking modes report higher levels of stress, spending, and addictive experiences compared to other gameplay structures. This suggests that competition has pros and cons. While it makes games more exciting and meaningful, it may also increase the difficulty of stopping or taking breaks, especially when progress and performance are constantly evaluated. In addition, the results related to quitting intention show that players are more likely to consider quitting due to stress and cost rather than a lack of interest. This implies that players do not necessarily lose enjoyment, but may feel overwhelmed by the demands of competitive systems.
Beyond the major competitive systems, timing-based and achievement-based modes serve more specialized functions. Timing systems appeal to players who value efficiency and measurable self-improvement, as shown by their high learning motivation scores. However, their narrow player base and high cost-related quitting suggest they work best as complementary features rather than core gameplay loops. Achievement systems, while effective for short-term goal completion, struggle with long-term retention once objectives are exhausted. This explains their high quitting scores related to lack of interest, suggesting that players simply run out of things to do.
Non-competitive systems, despite their low engagement intensity, play an important balancing role in the gaming ecosystem. They provide pressure-free spaces for relaxation, creative expression, and casual social interaction. The high freedom scores in this mode suggest that some players actively seek environments without performance evaluation. However, the elevated quitting motivations related to lack of achievement indicate that pure sandbox experiences may need occasional structure or events to maintain long-term interest. For game developers, this suggests that offering a mix of competitive and non-competitive modes within a single game could support a wider range of player needs: intense ranked play for some, casual exploration for others.
This study has several limitations. First, the data was collected through an online questionnaire, which means the results rely on self-reported experiences and cannot determine cause-and-effect relationships. Second, although the sample size is relatively large, the number of adolescent respondents is smaller compared to adults, so comparisons between age groups should be interpreted cautiously. Future research could use interviews or experiments to better understand how players experience competition over time, or focus specifically on younger players to explore how competitive systems influence their gaming habits.
Overall, this study suggests that competition plays an important role in shaping player engagement. Competitive systems appear to increase both enjoyment and pressure, making them powerful but complex elements of game design. Understanding how different competitive structures influence player behavior may help players, developers, and researchers better reflect on how games are designed and experienced.
This study explored how different competitive systems in digital games are related to player engagement, motivation, and potential addictive experiences. Based on data collected from 1,114 players, the results show that competitive structures: especially ranking-based systems: are associated with higher levels of time investment, financial spending, and emotional involvement. Compared to other gameplay modes, ranked competition appears to intensify both engagement and pressure.
One key finding of this research is that competition motivates players in multiple ways. Rather than being driven solely by the desire to win, players in competitive systems also report strong motivations related to self-improvement, recognition, immersion, and emotional release. This is especially true in timing-based systems, where learning and freedom emerge as primary drivers, and in achievement systems, where goal completion provides structure and direction. Even non-competitive modes serve a purpose, offering players autonomy and relaxation without performance pressure. This suggests that different competitive structures fulfill different psychological needs, and no single system works for all players.
At the same time, the results indicate that higher engagement in competitive modes often comes with increased stress and addictive tendencies. Players in ranking systems are more likely to report excessive play, difficulty stopping, and concerns related to spending and pressure. Importantly, quitting intentions are more closely linked to stress and cost than to a loss of interest, suggesting that players may still enjoy the game but feel overwhelmed by the demands of competitive structures.
This study considers competitive systems as both helpful and potentially dangerous. They can stimulate enjoyment and engagement in the gaming process, but they may also increase the risk of unhealthy play behaviors associated with higher levels of addiction. Based on an online questionnaire survey of 1,114 participants and further analysis, this research provides a clearer understanding of how different competitive systems influence player engagement.
References
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
Hamari, J., & Keronen, L. (2017). Why do people play games? A meta-analysis. International Journal of Information Management, 37(3), 125–141.
Kou, Y., & Nardi, B. (2014). Regulating anti-social behavior on the Internet: The example of League of Legends. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 616–628.
Kordyaka, B., Jahn, K., & Niehaves, B. (2020). Towards a unified theory of toxic behavior in video games. Internet Research, 30(4), 1081–1102.
Tian, F., & Wang, L. (2022). A study on minors’ online game use and its impacts. Youth Research, (3), 45–57.
About the author
Charles Shang
Charles is a 12th grade student based in San Francisco, CA.