No one forces, or even pressures, anyone to play multiplayer video games.
This assumes a subject is required for coercion. It might be that multiplayer games are the only way for someone to escape.
I don't think this is really as difficult as you imagine. People in poverty have the decision to work or die. Poverty is a form of objective violence. Therefore, people are coerced by objective violence that doesn't depend on any sort of task master whipping them into action.
I don't think that video games need to be the only form of escapism for my argument to hold true. It's a form of escapism that people are taking a part in to avoid the whatever boogeymen exist in the day-to-day. So, while individuals could find themselves in different forms of escapism--drugs, cults, &c.--they may still be finding themselves there after not having been coerced by any other person.
I'm responding to specifically you saying "No >one< forces," someone to play video games, but the "video games" isn't the important part. The important part, to me, is you saying that there needs to be some subject coercing another subject.
Why is this an important distinction? The same or similar forces are likely causing the individual to cheat, so there has to be some serious consideration into how culpable the cheater actually is.
To further argue the point: if all players were cheating then there would be no competitive advantage to cheating, which eliminates the only reason a subset of players cheat in the first place. Even by skewed standards it violates the golden rule.
Uh, what?