I loosely define gamification as taking inspiration from game design and behavioral science to influence voluntary user behavior. Game designers and behavioral scientists are asking many of the same questionsGame designers and behavioral scientists are asking many of the same questions
Game designers have been designing for digital behavior change for longer than just about anyone. They design the environment that the users interact with and the rules through which all of the user's actions are interpreted. The goal of game design is to influence user behavior to create an intended experience. They are doing Behavioral Product Strategy.
As such, game designers are asking many of the same questions as applied behavioral scientists.
How do we design meaningful choices? A fr..., it's just that the game designers may not use the same vocabulary or methods for validating ideas. As such, I look to game design as an alternate set of lenses for studying and drawing inspiration for Behavioral Product StrategyBehavioral Product Strategy
The way a product is designed shapes the way that people use it. Every app is designed for behavior change, intentionally or unintentionally, so the questions that drive behavioral product strategy must be addressed. User Involvement is a set of metrics whose success is defined by the combination of user behaviors that contribute towards creating a desirable outcome. Behavioral product strategy is making product decisions to influence user behavior and improve user involvement.
It doesn't ma....
Other definitions focus too much on mechanics or elements, which ends up leading to the fact that Most gamification sucksMost gamification sucks
Game designers have been designing for digital behavior change for longer than just about anyone. They design the environment that the users interact with and the rules through which all of the user's actions are interpreted. The goal of game design is to influence user behavior to create an intended experience. They understand Behavioral Product Strategy, even if they don't use the same words to describe it.
Given game design's profound and intentional influence over player behavior, it ast... and, from my perspective, misses the point. Most people think about gamification as points, badges, and leaderboards. I say that Gamification is not one monolithic thingGamification is not one monolithic thing
When people think of gamification, they tend to think of points, badges, and leaderboards. They make claims like "gamification is good for engagement” or “gamification should only come in at X stage." Academic researchers will research questions like “is gamification effective?” This is based on the assumption that gamification is a monolithic thing.
However, gamification can be done without feeling like gamification, without points, without badges, without extrinsic rewards. This is becaus.... In fact, it is a whole domain of study and practice. There could be many genres of gamificationThere could be many genres of gamification
A genre of games is a set of games that deal with a common set of problems and attempt to deliver a similar experience while varying a range of common conventions.
Let's go ahead and lump points, badges, and leaderboards together into the "Foursquare genre" of gamification. What might other genres of gamification in software products look like?
We need more genres because most of the gamification we have is Lazy gamification. A relatively homogenous configuration of points, badges, and lead... beyond the "Foursquare genre."