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 because gamification is, in fact, a whole domain of study. It represents a deep interplay between behavioral/cognitive science, game design, human-computer interaction, and research methods.
I bear the same shocked reaction when someone asks "is gamification effective?" that many people would have if you asked them, "is design effective?" Let me say it clearly: Gamification is not one monolithic thing. Instead, it represents a deep interplay between behavioral/cognitive science, game design, human-computer interaction, and research methods. Gamification is influencing user behavior through design decisions informed by principles of behavioral science and game design that increase voluntary usage
Gamification as you've been seeing it for years isn't being inspired by games and behavioral science, but rather, by other gamification. As a result of this Lazy gamificationLazy gamification
Lazy gamification is what happens when you slap a relatively homogenous configuration of points, badges, and leaderboards onto a heterogenous set of problems. This is done without thinking about where, why, and how those interventions work to influence user behavior given the parameters of the who the users are and important contextual factors.
It's a common trap to think about game mechanics as motivators. I prefer to instead think about them as Think about mechanics as facilitators.
Gamif..., we've ended up with a "Foursquare genre of gamification" that doesn't understand when it’s welcome and applies copy/paste solutions to problems and populations that they weren't meant to solve for. It's no wonder 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...!
However, if we lump the points, badges, and leaderboards that we're used to seeing into a "Foursquare genre," then that can be liberating. We can break past the shackles of what's known and venture into new territory. 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..., and we've only scratched the surface.