Gamication - a valid concept or a marketing
buzzword?
Lukas Gartlehner
6. Jan. 2015
Abstract
In this paper the term of gamication is discussed by taking a closer
look at game mechanics and best practices in gamied application design.
The roles of Flow and immersion in game design and its impacts on motivation are explored. Furthermore the eects on intrinsic motivation and
potential unethical use of gamied application are discussed in detail.
1 Introduction
By now the term of gamication has reached mainstream media.
With this
change, the discussion on how to make use of it takes place not only in academic
literature but also in common newspaper-magazines [1]. Although this term is
now widely used, the conception of what gamication actually is varies with
the context it is used in. One of the goals of this paper is to discuss the use
and misuse of the term itself.
Therefor the denition of gamication and its
connection to games and game mechanics has to be looked upon.
This will
make it necessary to take a closer look on what games are and why they have a
unique eect on human behavior.
Furthermore, also the question of suitable contexts for gamication will be of
interest. For that reason comparisons between the trends in self quantication
will be investigated. Also the questions if gamication leads only to extrinsic
motivation and what this could mean for gamied applications will be discussed.
However, the overall question of this paper will be if gamication is a sound
concept of design or just an overused marketing buzzword.
2 What is gamication?
When the origin of the term gamication is discussed the name Nick Pelling
usually comes up. Nick Pelling is the alleged inventor of the term itself. In 1981
he wrote his rst computer game [2], but his career path led him to working
in the eld of business analysis and embedded systems.
In 2003 he founded
his own consulting company, named Conundra Ltd., which focused on making
1
user interfaces easier and more user friendly. The core idea behind this model
of consulting was to design processes that were more eective by making the
user experience fun. The targeted market, however, was mainly the interface
design of hardware devices (e.g. mobile phones, vending machines or in-ight
video) [3]. For the Gamicatoin World Congress of 2014 Nick Pelling was interviewed on his status as father of the term 'gamication ' and further on
how the general understanding of gamication has changed. In this interview
Pelling states 'Gamication' is clearly a word that gets used to describe multiple game-related trends all at the same time: digital is merely one strand of
many.
[4] This coming from the inventor of the term itself, who in his early
work focused on gamied development of hardware interfaces, shows how the
general understanding of the term has shifted.
Furthermore this could mean
that gamication as an idea is not bound to a digital medium, making it possible to use its mechanism in a real-world context. However, to dene a suitable
gamication context it is necessary to rst nd a denition of the term itself.
2.1
Denition
Sebastian Deterding proposes a very general denition of gamication when he
says gamication is the use of game design elements in non-game contexts [5].
To further clarify his proposed denition he then tries to describe in detail each
element of this denition.
Games use specic rules, competition or specied
goals as core elements. Furthermore, games do not have the constraint of being
digital. Deterding further tries to describe game elements by their properties,
but underlines the diculty of discriminating games from artifacts with game
elements. He points out that the dierence between playing and using such is
often set by a negotiated perception and is therefor not given by aordance. He
also assumes that games are used primarily for the purpose of entertainment,
from which we can derive that a non-game context can be every potential context
that is not focused on entertainment. For the exploration of the term design,
Deterding proposes to look at ve levels of abstraction.
1. Interface design patterns
2. Game design patterns or game mechanics
3. Design principles or heuristics: guidelines for approaching a design problem or evaluating a design solution.
4. Conceptual models of game design units
5. Game design methods [5]
From Deterdings attempted denition of the vague idea of gamication we
can derive several ideas. One being the already implied thought of Nick Pelling
not to limit gamication to the domain of digital games. Another interesting
point is the question of context. Since virtually every context aside entertainment is possible, the context itself holds no limitation.
As a result it is necessary to nd other limiting constraints to rene the
understanding of gamication. This means the question at hand is what makes
a game a game. Which leads directly to the already mentioned goals and rules
that most games consist of. If we think of any popular board game we could
2
try to subtract all given elements of the game one by one. If we remove a single
element and the game is not playable anymore, it must be a vital part of the
game design.
To decipher what makes games playable it is necessary to nd
and to describe these elements.
2.2
How games work
Contrasting Deterdings 5 levels of abstraction for design in games Gabe Zichermann proposes the MDA Framework as a method of understanding game design.
In this framework the letters MDA stand for:
•
Mechanics
•
Dynamics
•
Aesthetics
He describes the mechanics as functioning components that allow the designer
to guide the players actions, dynamics as the interaction of the player with the
underlying mechanics of the game and aesthetics as how the player feels during
the game. He further points out that mechanics and dynamics are, in certain
cases, interchangeable [6].
Compared to the abstraction model of Deterding,
Zichermanns MDA Framework provides only a rough classication for elements
of game design. However, both ways of looking at game design point out the
importance of game mechanics. In his article Dening Game Mechanics Miguel
Sicarts approach is that
Game mechanics are methods invoked by agents for interacting with the
game world. [7] In his attempt to nd a denition for game mechanics, Sicart
points out that in a practical game context it is often hard to distinguish between
the game and the mechanics of the game. But he further states [...] it is possible
and useful to understand game mechanics as dierent from game rules, and in
that understanding, we can more clearly describe how games can be designed
to aect players in unprecedented ways.[7].
So although Zichermann points
out that game mechanics and game dynamics are often interchangeable, Sicart
states that it is important to nd denitions for elements of game mechanics,
since this helps us to understand how and why games work.
2.3
Game mechanics construction kit
The website Techcrunch published an article about the alleged Zynga Playbook [8]. Zynga developed the game Farmville in 2009 and managed to keep
35 million people playing monthly just two months after its release [9].
This
socalled playbook is a collection of game dynamics terms, although game dynamics might be interchangeable with game mechanics for most of the terms on
the list. Many of the terms listed in this playbook can be found on other sources
[10] as a guideline on how to implement social games and gamied applications.
Zichermann gives a more general overview on tools to implement game mechanics and uses the categories Points, Levels, Leaderboards, Badges, Challenges
3
and Quests, Social Engagement Loops, Customization and Dashboards as the
core tools for gamication ([6], Chapter 4).
Points
A very simple concept of motivation is to give the user points for successful
actions. The term on the Zynga list that ts the most would be achievement.
This incentive can be found in most of all games since it gives a quantication
of accomplishment and allows comparison of individual gameplay with others.
Levels
The term Progression Dynamic of the Zynga playbook describes best what
levels are about. The user should have the feeling that his playing leads to a
certain development of the game as a whole. The practical implementation can
go from a classic jump-and-run leveldesign where each level represent a world
full of obstacles to overcome or it can be represented by the level of a character
in a role playing game. Either way, the implementation of levels represents a
progression over time.
Leaderboards
Zichermann describes two types of leaderboards. The no-disincentive leaderboard that shows the players name in the middle of the leaderboard, even if
that is far below the top ranks. Further he describes the innite leaderboard,
that allows the user to switch between various views, showing the accomplishments of friends, the ranks close to the personal score and the ranks of the top
players, letting the user decide what he wants to see.
Disregarding the actual implementation, the core idea of leaderboards is to
enforce the terms pride and status, to use terms of the Zynga playbook. The
user should gain motivation by entering a competition, even if the game itself
is played in single-player mode.
Badges
Badges, or equivalent rewards such as top-contributor lists that are used to
recognize a user's contributions on a site [11].
The online question and an-
swer forum stackoverow.com is an example for a well working badge system.
Users will get badges for helpful answers, depending on factors like frequency,
acceptance and amount of answers given [12]. In ([6], Chapter 4) Zichermann
points out that the term badge in the context of showing an achievement can
also be found in the automotive industries, where the class and price of a car
can be seen by looking at the small plate on the rear of the car, which is also
called badge. Furthermore, structures of visible achievement in the Boy Scouts
or the Military are also based on such a reward system. The badge obviously
is a concept that preexisted long before digital incentives took advantage of the
4
term and concept. The idea, however, remains the same. Make contributions
visible to create dierences in status and encourage others to contribute as well.
Challenges and Quests
Both terms dene mostly the same idea, which is to reach a certain goal. According to [10] challenges rely on a given time limit in which a certain goal has
to be reached or on a competition, as opposed to Quests that oer some kind
of a journey towards the goal that has to be reached. However the details of
these term may vary, both rely on the idea of a given task that has to be accomplished in order to proceed. In many games this is a way to ensure a story
will be told by leading the player from one point in the game world to another.
Furthermore, this also works well in combination with the concept of levels. The
accomplishment of a quest can be a necessary prerequisite for entering another
level in the game.
Cooperative Quests play a special role in games that rely on social embedding. If a game is played by a community of people, quests can be designed so
they can only be completed by several players working together ([6], Chapter 4)
. This raises the motivation for the individual to be part of the team, since only
the combined contribution of several players will allow the group to accomplish
the task.
Social Engagement Loops
Gabe Zichermann describes the concept of social engagement loops as a possibility to build up long term commitment to a game or an application. This
means that in the design process of an application this kind of usage has to be
taken into account. The question is not just how does a user interact with the
system, but how can the design motivate the player to come back. Zichermann
describes that this can be accomplished by a motivating emotion which leads
to re-engagement. This emotion is then triggered by a social call to action. His
example is the message service Twitter, that by letting the user know his or her
previous posts were mentioned by other users, trigger this re-engagement. ([6],
Chapter 4)
The idea of appointments that have to be kept in order to succeed can be an
implementation of both social engagement loops as well as cooperative quests.
The players have a certain obligation to keep up their engagement, since other
depend on their participation. This is a concept that multiplayer online games
often use, but that also works in a social gaming and gamication context [10].
Customization
The aspect of customization is the only item in Zichermanns list that has no
direct counterpart in the Zynga Playbook.
Customization is implemented in
an application to give the user the possibility to change their account specic
details, whether it is an avatar or a landing page, to make it more personal.
5
As a result the user is more likely to be commited to his or her personal page,
since time was invested to create something that reects the own personality
in a certain way. A common and very easily implemented method is to allow
the user to add a custom header image to a users page. But Zichermann also
points out that it is important not to overwhelm the user with to many options
to congure their proles or avatars.
3 Gamication Best Practices
After laying out the groundwork for gamied applications we now have a denition of tools that can be used to add game like behavior to non game applications. To make it clear how these tools can be implemented, we take a closer look
on some successful products that claim to be gamied. The projects listed in
this section are chosen to exemplify how diverse the purpose and target audience
of such a product can be. Each project is described and further briey analyzed
regarding the game mechanics that can be found in the implementation.
3.1
TM Meter
Health Sciences - Bayer's Didget
In 2010 the pharmaceutical company Bayer released the socalled Didget Meter.
This device is supposed to help diabetes patients to monitor their blood glucose
levels. The device is a standalone testing unit, but it oers the possibility to
connect with a Nintendo DS handheld gaming device. [13] Connected with this
device it acts as a game that integrates the testing of blood into the gaming
experience. The overall idea of this device is to make it easier for children with
diabetes type 1 to monitor their blood levels [14, 15].
As the platform that
is used to host the game is a dedicated gaming device, the aordance of the
device itself (pushbuttons, steering cross) implicates that this is a game and it
is very likely that children playing with this device will recognize it primarily
as such. The game itself is an adventure game that allows the player to walk
around with an avatar and complete quests by challenging opponents.
If the
device is used without being connected to the Nintendo DS, it logs each test of
glucose levels throughout the day. Both the game and the device can be used
independently.
But by uploading a well maintained log history extras in the
game can be unlocked. These are minigames and prizes for the avatar [16].
6
Figure 1: Bayer Didget - as standalone device and connected to the host (Nintendo DS) [13]
Obviously by adding tasks into the game that have to be completed by
the player the aspect of challenges and quests, as mentioned in 2.3, are integrated in this concept. Furthermore by adding points, achievements and bonuses
(minigames) the mechanism of reward for consistent play is implemented quite
clearly. What makes this device so interesting in terms of gamication is that
it uses a game platform to piggyback a pharmaceutical device. Often the topic
of gamication is approached by adding a game layer to a regular, non-gamied
application. In this particular case the game device preexists the gamied application and is used as a host that allows the user to approach a serious topic
in a less serious, maybe even fun, way, thus reframing the context of use .
3.2
Sports - Nike+ and Runtastic
Achievement is an integral part of sports and therefor several companies have
tried to improve their business models by providing a gamied view on these
achievements. The companies Nike and Runtastic are amongst the most successful ones in terms of active users, but also in terms of creativity, by creating
a wide variety of devices and software applications to supplement these goals.
Nike +
The sportswear manufacturer Nike has started the Nike+ product eld in 2006.
The rst product series featured a sensor integrated into the shoe that was
able to connect wireless to an iPod. This combination of technologies enabled
the user to log the distance traveled in each run and allowed to upload that
7
data to an online account, providing statistical information about the training.
To calculate the consumption of calories, the average pace for a run or the
overall distance traveled per week can be considered as important information
for enhancing the training. Later developments feature the socalled FuelBand,
which is a wristband equipped with sensors to measure movement and provide
information for a wider range of athletic activities (e.g. aerobic) where the mere
information about distance traveled is not sucient [17, 18]. But the connection
to an online community can be seen as a new feature with the very distinct
purpose to maintain or even enhance the level of motivation and dedication
that the users have towards their sport.
Figure 2: Nike+ Community Site - listing achievements of user from all over
the world [18]
Since Nike claims to have more than 11 million active users in their community [19], this program is widely used as a proof for the success of gamication.
This community allows users to set goals for themselves, to earn achievements
or to simply log the distance covered.
The Nike+ website features live tick-
ers that show combined global statistics of this community, like the worldwide
amount of calories burnt.
The combination of social engagement, challenges
and leaderboards can be implemented in this context easily since sports in real
life communities works on the same principles - who participates in the training
sessions, who improves the most, who will win the next competition?
Those
are the questions a trainer or teammate would ask another member of the team
in order to reinforce the motivation to achieve a certain goal.
Asking those
questions in an online community seems to have a similar eect.
Runtastic
A dierent approach on using game mechanics in the context of athletics was
taken by the Austrian company Runtastic. The product with which this company entered the market was a smartphone App that allowed the users to mon-
8
itor and evaluate their runs.
However, the product portfolio of the company
developed in a similar direction as the portfolio of Nike+.
One part is the
strong integration of online communities and social networks. The app allows
the user to share details about their runs on Facebook and other social media
sites. The idea of competition, leaderboards and social engagement is also immanent in the design of Runtastic products. Another similarity with Nike+ is
that Runtastic added customized hardware, like bluetooth heartrate monitors
and wristbands, to their product series [20, 21].
Of course this is a business
decision that does not directly correlate with the idea of gamication, but since
the examples of Bayer and Nike also use custom hardware, it seems that the use
of hardware artefacts oer a higher user acceptance. We may assume that those
artefacts are cut out to be used for a very special purpose and therefor these devices are not only recognized as the small computers they are, but become toys
in a game that is embedded in the users reality. This approach of design plays
with the users expectation. In the Didget Meter a dedicated gaming device is
used to put medical treatment into another context, in the context of sports
the additional hardware is used to provide sensor data. The sensor hardware
could also be tted into a little black box, but instead wristwatches and shoes
are used because, for most sports, they are already part of the known context.
3.3
Research / Crowdsourcing - EteRNA
The publicly funded EteRNA project, in the contrary to the previously mentioned examples of gamied applications, does not make use of any special
purpose hardware. Developed by the Carnegie Mellon and Stanford University,
this online game lets players build RNA chains by clicking onto molecules and
changing their type and combination.
The game is built as a simple puzzle,
there is a desired outcome for each level and the user can play around with the
structure in order to complete a task. What makes this application special is
that the data generated by the players will be logged and is actually used in
research. Many RNA transformations are complex to render by an algorithm,
but human users may see an intuitive, easy solution that can not be calculated
by a deterministic algorithm [22].
9
Figure 3: EteRNA - Solving RNA design problems as a puzzle [22]
The fact that this existing problem can be reframed in a game context that
easily, lies in the structure of the problem itself. This is already a puzzle, so the
game mechanics are already there. The problem in implementation is on the
level of useability, because the knowledge required to fully understand problems
of RNA design is quite high, but the actual task of solving an isolated design
problem is not bound to this knowledge. EteRNA is also an example of a very
fair implementation of a gamied application, since the player is not a potential
customer that has to be tied to a brand, but the player is oered a free game
in exchange for the data that is generated while playing.
But EteRNA also
makes use of the same mechanics and dynamics that the previously discussed
products do. EteRNA oers a wide selection of challenges that allow the user
to earn points according to the level of diculty. After each completed level the
position on a leaderboard for the players solution is immediately listed and the
game also oers a connection to the players Facebook account.
3.4
Education - Treehouse
Similar to sports the cultural perception of education is widely associated with
achievement and progress. So these already existing dynamics can be used to
enforce the motivation of students to reach a certain goal. Treehouse is a browser
based eLearning tool that oers training for IT and business related topics. The
topics are called tracks and each track has several stations that mark a level of
comprehension of a topic.
10
Figure 4: Treehouse - eLearning enhanced with levels and skillpoints [23]
These tracks are similar to the quests a player completes in a game.
In
the course of a track the user can gain achievements, which are implemented
as badges and underline his or her learning curve. In this case the process of
learning new skills is reframed into a game by putting rules in place that lead
the student from one level to the next [23]. In this approach the motivation of
reaching a certain level of prociency is already existing, the goal is to focus this
motivation towards a visible improvement, which is done by the game mechanics
of levels.
3.5
Productivity - The Email Game
This gamied application clearly stands out in comparison to the applications
discussed so far. The Email Game focuses on the very trivial problem of many
unanswered emails in the users inbox. The program itself can be integrated into
existing Gmail mailclients.
By answering, archiving or deleting mails before
time runs out, the user gets rewarded with points, which act as incentives for
higher productivity.
A timer counting down from 3 minutes implements the
game mechanic of a challenge in this scenario [24].
Figure 5: The Email Game - award users with points for clearing the inbox
11
The context of answering Emails has no elements of a game hidden that
the application can build upon. The mere addition of a counter to the inbox
adds an element that we know is being used in many games, but awarding
points for being fast at any given task is a very crude approach to this topic.
This application poses questions that are of relevance for the overall discussion
about gamication. The rst one being is it possible and furthermore desirable
to add game mechanics to every topic, no matter how mundane, just to improve
motivation? After all people are motivated to achieve certain goals because they
set those goals for themselves. But what happens if every part of daily life is
split up into goals, how will this aect the individual perception of goals that
are worth to be working towards?
The other question that arises in this specic example is if the task of answering mails is positively aected by this tool. Of course the productivity can
be measured easily by looking at how many Emails are answered in a certain
time period. But the quality of this work can hardly be measured. In case an
Email contains inconclusive content because it is answered in a hurry, this can
lead to unnecessary followup conversations. Clearing the inbox in a rush could
also lead to misinformation or inadequate deletion of conversations. It is quite
unclear if this gamied application is an improvement in its eld.
3.6
Recruitment - America's Army
On the outskirts of the spectrum of gamication lies a game produced and
published by the U.S. Army. America's Army is a 3D shooter like many others,
a tactical infantry combat simulation that puts the player in the role of a soldier.
In the missions of America's Army the objectives are to retrieve stolen materials,
secure buildings or deal with an ambush that targets your group. The website
of America's Army features a leaderboard for all-time highscores and free to
download comics that complement the game experience [25].
Figure 6: Americas Army, leaderboards and free comics on the website to encourage participation in the game community [25]
None of this is exceptional in any way, since the genre of shooters is full
of titles that claim to provide realistic battle experience.
But in this specic
case the purpose makes the dierence. Since the game is published for free on
the popular gaming service Steam [26] it gets a certain attention in the gaming
community. According to the U.S. based statistical company Statista 29% of
12
gamers are below 18 years of age, another 32% are at least younger than 35
years [27]. Furthermore 52% of all gamers in the U.S. are male [28]. It comes
as no surprise that among the people playing computer games the share of
young people is higher and further that there is a slightly higher percentage
of male gamers.
This of course is a very good match for the target group
of the armed services recruitment, but as a result this also arises questions
of ethics.
If children and young adults play army simulations with an online
community that ranks the best soldiers in a leaderboard, their perception might
be that they play a rst person shooter like any other. But by using the online
community that ranks the best soldiers in a leaderboard and has a direct link
to www.goarmy.com, the recruitment platform of the U.S. Army, they might be
more susceptible to be urged into a career in the armed forces. Is it justied
to use motivational enhancement of such kind to lead young people towards
such decisions? Of course emotions like power and excitement have always been
used by military recruitment in order to inspire young people, but a rst person
shooter adds an uncomfortable amount of belittlement of violence to this idea.
4 Why games reinforce motivation
The discussion so far focused on how game mechanics can be applied to various
contexts.
So the questions asked were if gamication can be applied in any
domain, if it is desirable in terms of quality of services and overall in terms of
moralities. But since many companies are willing to invest in gamied applications it seems necessary to ask why these methods help to increase motivation.
Why most people enjoy playing games is a question for psychological studies and
will exceed the scope of this paper. However, certain aspects of that question
will be discussed in this section.
4.1
Immersion and Flow
Based on the work of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi the term of Flow [29] is quoted
many publications that try to explain why playing is part of human nature and
why it has such unique eects on the human perception. Flow describes a state of
mind that is focus on a certain activity with full of involvement and enjoyment.
According to Csikszentmihalyi's book it is an essential part of human nature to
be active and involved.
Contrary to what we usually believe, moments like these, the best moments
in our lives, are not the passive, receptive, relaxing times - although such experiences can also be enjoyable, if we have worked hard to attain them. The best
moments usually occur when a person's body or mind is stretched to its limits
in a voluntary eort to accomplish something dicult and worthwhile. Optimal
experience is thus something we make happen. [29]
This idea of Flow has become inuential for studies that take a look on
computer games and their immersive characteristics. So the terms immersion
and Flow are closely related when it comes to virtual environments. Brown and
13
Cairns [30] worked towards a denition of the vaguely dened term of game
immersion.
They conducted interviews with gamers and built up on existing
denitions of immersion. Although a clear, short denition could not be found
in their research, their work is driven by the question of how much a gamer
can be present in the virtual environment of a computer game. They dened 3
stages of involvement that are
•
Engagement
•
Engrossment
•
Total Immersion
In the level of engagement the player is willing to concentrate on a certain game
or matter. If the player learns the rules of a game and invest a certain amount of
time, he or she gets engaged in the game. If the immersion gets more intense, the
engagement becomes engrossment. In the stage of engrossment the combined
game elements have a direct eect on the players emotions. In the third stage,
the total immersion, a player is present in the game. The participants in Brown
and Crains study described this stage as (...) being cut o from the world you
actually inhabit [30] .
So the immersive character of games is the reason why playing a game can
create a fullling emotional experience. In an ideal design and setup the gamers
are almost disconnected from their physical reality and become part of the
simulated environment of the game. But while immersion describes how involved
a gamer is while playing a game, Flow describes the level of positive excitement
that encourages the gamer to engage further in the game.
Figure 7: B. Cowley et al., the USE schema as an attempt to dene how the
user experience is interconnected with ow and immersion [31]
14
B. Cowley et al.
proposed the USE framework in order to identify the
elements that add up to a game experience that establish this Flow.
In this
framework the system segment is the hardware and software aspects of the
game.
For the Nike+ wristband this would be the wristband itself but also
the software on the device and also the server software that enables the user
to connect with other Nike+ users. The examples of Treehouse or The Email
Game might not have dedicated hardware, but the use of standard hardware
would put mouse and keyboard in system segment.
The user segment of this framework points the interesting fact that even
if someone plays the same game in a similar context and setting the individual experience will most likely be dierent for each person. There are various
topologies on how to categorize players by their way of playing and their expectations towards a game. In [31] the four groups mentioned are the conqueror,
the manager, the participant and the wanderer. While the conquerors prole is
dened by win-at-all-costs, the manager is driven by the details of the logistics of a game and driven by the development of better skills. The wanderer,
on the contrary to both the conqueror and the manager, is motivated by the
enjoyment of the game and seeks a fun experience.
The participant, in this
denition, enjoys the social component of games and the involvement in an
alternate world.
badgeville.com., a gamication wiki, classies individuals into four player
types, namely achievers, explorers, socializers and killers. While the denition
of the achiever seems to overlap widely with the denition of the conqueror, the
other groups are only partial matches. The killer, however, has no equivalent
in Cowleys framework. But the human behavior is by far to complex to be put
into four types of patterns. The user segment in this framework is important
in order to create the awareness that not all methods can be applied with the
same impact on every targetgroup.
It will, however, not be enough to get a
comprehensive image of the potential audience.
In the USE framework the experience segment is the part where immersion
and ow are located. Flow, as derived from Csikszentmihalyi idea of this state of
mind, is part of an experience that starts out with some kind of participation.
The experience is a process that leads from participation to engagement and
further to immersion.
When engagement and immersion trigger each other
in the right way, the player is positively excited about his or her doing and
experiences Flow. [31]
15
Figure 8: Flow channel diagram, the dimensions of experience [31]
What we can derive from this framework for the discussion on gamication
is rst of all that one method of gamifying might not have the same eect
on everyone. A positive trigger that works well for one individual might lead
another player into the area of boredom or anxiety. Taking The Email Game as
an example, it might work well for the productivity of many to have a ticking
clock to enforce faster decisionmaking, but it is also quite possible that this is
only recognized as a source of stress to others and further causes the risk of
being counterproductive.
Another important aspect that Cowley brings up in the USE framework is
the interaction between participation, engagement, immersion and Flow. Games
usually try to ease the player into the experience using intro sequences, tutorials
and sidestories.
Ideally this causes curiosity and leads to participation.
This
way the loop of engagement and immersion is started by the users initial interest.
EteRNA also uses tutorials to trigger this initial interest. Of course the tutorials
are also a necessity in this context, since the idea of the game has to be explained.
Nevertheless this makes it easier for the user to nd interest and engage in the
game.
4.2
Self-quantication and pointication
Self-quantication: The act of actively or passively performing self-evaluation
through test, comparison and experimentation of personal data sets gathered
through information technology. [32]
Sports and health sciences were already discussed in detail in the previous
sections and the close proximity to the topic of self-quantication is evident.
Sjöklint tried to nd evidence of change in the decision-making process due
to the use of self-quantication and in her work discusses the similarities with
gamication. She points out that there are two ways self-quantication is implemented, one being by the pull eect, which means the user has some degree
of inuence over the data provided. The other being the push-eect, which is
a passive process where the user receives numbers on his or her interface that
can not be controlled. Sjöklint further describes the push eect as passive selfquantication or pointication. The term of pointication stems from gamica-
16
tion and also aims towards higher user engagement in online communities.[32]
Pointication is a mere reductionist view on gamication, using only points and
leaderboards to increase motivation. However, by dierentiating between push
and pull eects the question arises whether and how gamication inuences the
intrinsic or extrinsic motivation. In his master thesis Larsson conducted interviews with users of various running apps (e.g. Nike+) to explore how this eects
the motivation of the users. In his conclusion internal motivation is needed in
order to maintain an athletic training over time. But the concept of running
apps is clearly based on external rewards. His interview showed that without
the use of their running apps the runners would not stop their training.
Al-
though the intensity would maybe decrease, they would not quit their training.
This indicates by implication that without a certain basic intrinsic motivation
to build upon a gamied application might not be enough to sustain interest in
that matter. [33]
4.3
Intrinsic motivation
Do points, levels and leaderboards harm intrinsic motivation?
[34] was the
question that Mekler et al. based their study upon. In related work indication
of negative eects on intrinsic motivation was found and therefor this hypothesis
was tested in an online experiment. A simple task of adding a tag to a given
image had to be completed in an online tool. The performance was measured by
counting how many tags each participant added and how much time was spent
doing so. One group had an online tool that featured a leaderboard, one group
could collect points and another group could achieve by completing levels. The
control group used a tool with no game-like incentive at all.
Figure 9: Comparison of productivity for gamied and non-gamed applications
[34]
The productivity of the leaderboard and level users exceeded those of the
users who could only gain points. For the control group the measured produc-
17
tivity was far below the other groups.
But the hypothesis that the intrinsic
motivation was being eected negatively could not be supported by the experiment. What is to be critiqued about this study is that it only reects short
term usage of a tool. But what happens if an application that is strongly dependent on game elements is used over a long time? How will users react once
the motivation eects of game elements wear o ?
Zichermann, however, approaches the discrepancy between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic reward system in a dierent way. In an article on gamication.co he states that classic extrinsic rewards, which can be incentives of
any kind, but above all cash incentives, work against intrinsic motivation. He
further states that intrinsic motivation leads to better results when it comes to
long-term engagement, but that it is hard to nd suitable triggers for intrinsic
motivation, since this varies a lot between individual and may not be logical.
His design approach is to combine both triggers for intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
(...)
the best systems of motivational design speak to the intrinsic
motivation of the user while also providing extrinsic rewards that they value
that are both monetary and non-monetary (or tangible and intangible). [35]
While this design approach might work quite well, it seems questionable
in terms of ethics.
Zichermann proposes to use external rewards to facilitate
the buildup of intrinsic motivation.
This design shows certain similarities to
respondent conditioning and if implemented without thought reduces the human
mind to a behavioristic black box.
5 Manipulation and misuse
5.1
Bernays - Propaganda
It is chiey the psychologists of the school of Freud who have pointed out that
many of man's thoughts and actions are compensatory substitutes for desires
which he has been obliged to suppress.
A thing may be desired not for its
intrinsic worth or usefulness, but because he has unconsciously come to see in
it a symbol of something else, the desire for which he is ashamed to admit to
himself. A man buying a car may think he wants it for purposes of locomotion,
whereas the fact may be that he would really prefer not to be burdened with it,
and would rather walk for the sake of his health. He may really want it because
it is a symbol of social position, an evidence of his success in business, or a
means of pleasing his wife. [36]
1928 Edward Bernays laid out the groundwork for the decades of marketing
to come.
In his book Propaganda he meticulously deconstructs why people
make decisions, whether it is a decision on what to buy for breakfast or who
to give ones vote in the next election. As stated in the best practices section,
the possible elds of application for gamied applications are not homogenous
at all, so many implementations may be valid designs that improve preexisting
applications.
But as gamication is widely used in the context of improving
productivity of employees and loyalty of customers it seems that there is a
18
tendency towards the misuse of gamication as a tool for manipulation. In the
list of best practices the game Americas Army seems emphasize this tendency
best, since it is a game that promotes the military recruitment by reframing it
with emotions of excitement and fun. But also simple oce applications could
put users under emotional stress, since a leaderboard creates not only winners.
What will happen to employees if they refuse to gain more points in order to
see their name in the top of the list?
It is quite likely that applications will
be designed in a way so they keep up the feeling of Flow during use. To keep
users experience in an active loop of engagement and immersion users might
become subject to manipulation by design. Adding incentives that are designed
to build up intrinsic motivation step by step, to continue the thought process
of Zichermann [35], could become a tool of control and in terms of a systemic
view a means of centralized steering of a system.
5.2
Exploitationware
In an article on gamasutra.com Ian Bogost argues that the discussion about
gamication has to be reframed. One of his key arguments is that the creation
of good games is a dicult task, since it is hard to specify what makes a good
game. But by using the term gamication it is indicated that it is possible to
add a portion of whatever makes games special to any other application, thus
making it gamied. He emphasizes the importance of rhetoric in this matter,
by comparing the use of the sux -ify in general. If it is possible to humidify
dry air, then it is possible to gamify any kind of application, making it fun to
use all of a sudden. He further points out that by the use of game mechanics in
dierent context companies and organizations (...) replace real incentives with
ctional ones. Real incentives come at a cost but provide value for both parties
based on a relationship of trust. [35]
Bogost proposes the reframing of the idea by choosing a name that reects
the underlying agenda of gamication. Since fraud software is usually dened by
the sux -ware (malware, spyware), the rhetorical opposition to gamication
could be exploitationware [37].
6 Discussion
Although there seems to be a certain consent when it comes to the formal denition of gamication, when practical implementation are explored the frictions
in the denition become quite visible. It is not always clear if an application
is using game mechanics in a non-game context or if it is a game that servers
a second, maybe hidden, purpose. Americas Army does not t into Deterdings
denition of gamication [5] to well, but after all the game is in a way a recruitment campaign that reaches its target audience perfectly and therefor makes
use of the idea of gamication.
However, it is evident that in many cases the practical use of gamied applications outperforms applications in terms of productivity and loyalty. This
19
indicates that gamication will not go away any time soon and that the questions it poses have to be dealt with.
The questions if it is desirable to make
every dull program fun to use has an obvious downside. How will the perception of dull tasks shift once the gamied design has spread in all spheres of life?
There will still be tasks that can not and will not be fun after all, and when
it comes to already implemented gamied applications the eects of the game
could wear of easily, making it necessary to constantly keep adding incentives
to maintain motivation. Eventually this could create a new work ethic that is
in constant fear that it will run out of sticks and carrots.
In a larger scale gamication seems to work well in the context of new forms
of communication and quantication.
Joseph Vogl describes the shift in per-
ception as a shift from the homo oeconomicus towards the rational fool [38].
Instead of using economic reason to make decisions that improve the individual
situation, this is a model of decisionmaking that is best compared to statistical methods in heuristics. Decisions are made so the outcome is most likely to
the individual advantage.
This leads to politics and organizations constantly
checking target groups and incentive programs to maximize their eciency. In
return, individuals are constantly evaluating their own decisions. The amount
of likes on a Facebook post or the amount of calories burnt in training are all
unquestioned indicators that have to be maximized. The generation that is now
25+ of age grew up with videogames and leaderboards, it comes as no surprise
that the same mechanics work very well as incentives for this generation. Ian
Bogosts proposal to reframe the idea of gamication on a linguistic level by calling it exploitationware may be a little drastic, but could provide a valuable
change of perspective.
7 Conclusion
Since gamication in practical implementation is often ambiguous and consists
of simple elements like points or leaderboards, it seems to be more accurate to
call gamication an idea instead of a concept. Many similar concepts overlap
with this idea, so in many cases pointication or quantication might be alternative terms that provide a more accurate description of the mechanics in use.
The ethical dimension of gamication has to be discussed in every context of
use to prevent deliberate misuse. While helping children with diabetes to check
their health regularly is clearly a positive aspect of this idea, the use in other
domains like military recruitment might be considered problematic or even unethical.
projects.
Overall, a responsible use of methods should be the goal of gamied
Besides the context of use this also includes the way of implemen-
tation, which means gamied applications should not be built on the ideas of
classic conditioning and should not feature a hidden agenda. By deconstructing existing applications and making visible whats beneath the surface we can
come to a dierentiated understanding of such applications, making it possible to nd more accurate terms like persuasive games, gameful design or even
exploitationware.
20
References
[1] H. Aichinger, Zocken für die Firma, 2014.
[2] Retro
Isle,
Retro
Isle
-
Author
Spotlight.
[Online].
http://www.retroisle.com/autspotlight.php?n=Nick
Pelling
Available:
Orlando
M.
Pilchard
[3] N. Pelling, The (short) prehistory of gamication.
[4] , Interview with Nick Pelling: The Gamication Inception. [Online].
Available:
http://www.gamicationworldcongress.com/2014/05/09/nick-
pelling-the-gamication-inception/
[5] S. Deterding, D. Dixon, R. Khaled, and L. Nacke, Gamication : Toward
a Denition,
CHI 2011, pp. 1215, 2011.
[6] G. Zichermann and C. Cunningham,
Gamication by Design, 2011.
The international journal of computer game research, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 114, 2008.
[7] M. Sicart, Dening Game Mechanics,
[8] E. Schonfeld, SCVNGR's Secret Game Mechanics Playdeck | TechCrunch,
2008.
[Online].
Available:
http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/25/scvngr-
game-mechanics/
[9] Farmville
cial
is
Express,
'most
2009.
popular'
[Online].
Facebook
Available:
application
-
Finan-
http://archive.nancialex-
press.com/news/farmville-is-most-popular-facebook-application/513239
[10] Game
Mechanics
|
Gamication.org.
[Online].
Available:
http://badgeville.com
[11] D. Easley and A. Ghosh, Incentives, gamication, and game theory:
Proceedings o the fourteenth
Electronic commerce, vol. 1, no. 212, pp. 359376, 2013. [Online]. Available:
an economic approach to badge design,
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2492002.2482571
[12] Badges
-
Stack
Overow.
[Online].
Available:
http://stackover-
ow.com/help/badges
[13] Didget
Meter
|
Bayer
Diabetes
Canada.
[Online].
Available:
https://www.bayerdiabetes.ca/en/products/didget-meter.php
[14] Bayers
Didget
makes
[Online]. Available:
childsplay
of
blood
glucose
monitoring.
http://www.gizmag.com/bayer-didget-blood-glucose-
monitoring/14933/
[15] Bayer's
DIDGET(TM)
Blood
Glucose
Meter.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/articles/64-/9482-the-bayer-didget
21
[16] Bayer's
Didget
Enticing
Kids
Available:
Blood-Sugar
to
Monitor
Manage
Health
Attaches
|
Popular
to
Nintendo
Science.
DS,
[Online].
http://www.popsci.com/gadgets/article/2010-04/blood-sugar-
monitor-attaches-nintendo-ds-enticing-kids-manage-health
[17] Apple
-
Run
or
work
out
with
Nike
+
iPod.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.apple.com/ipod/nike/
[18] Nike+. [Online]. Available: https://secure-nikeplus.nike.com/plus/
[19] Nike+
Users
Could
Power
6,700
Houses
Daily.
[Online].
Available:
http://mashable.com/2013/02/22/nike-fuelband-stats/
[20] Runtastic Shop | Willkommen im Runtastic Shop. [Online]. Available:
https://www.runtastic.com/shop/de/
[21] Runtastic - makes sports funtastic. [Online]. Available: https://www.runtastic.com/de
[22] EteRNA - Played by Humans. Scored by Nature. [Online]. Available:
http://eterna.cmu.edu/web/about/
[23] Features | Treehouse. [Online]. Available: http://teamtreehouse.com/features
[24] The Email Game. [Online]. Available: http://emailga.me/learn.html
[25] America's
Army:
Proving
Grounds.
[Online].
Available:
http://aapg.americasarmy.com/
[26] America's Army: Proving Grounds Beta bei Steam. [Online]. Available:
http://store.steampowered.com/app/203290
[27] Age of video game players in the U.S. 2014 | Survey. [Online]. Available:
http://www.statista.com/statistics/189582/age-of-us-video-game-
players-since-2010/
[28] Gender split of U.S. computer and video gamers 2014 | Survey. [Online].
Available:
http://www.statista.com/statistics/232383/gender-split-of-us-
computer-and-video-gamers/
[29] M.
Csikszentmihalyi,
Flow:
The Psychology of Optimal Experience.
Harper Perennial, 1990.
[30] E. Brown and P. Cairns, A grounded investigation of game immersion,
Extended abstracts of the 2004 conference on Human factors and
computing systems - CHI '04, p. 1297, 2004. [Online]. Available:
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=985921.986048
[31] B. Cowley, D. Charles, M. Black, and R. Hickey, Toward an understanding
of ow in video games,
Computers in Entertainment,
2008.
22
vol. 6, no. 2, p. 1,
[32] M. Sjöklint, The Measurable Me : The Inuence of Self-Quantication on
the Online User's Decision-Making Process, in
ISWC, 2014, pp. 131137.
[33] R. S. l. Larsson, Motivations in Sports and Fitness Gamication, Masterthesis, UmeåUniversit, Sweden, 2013.
[34] E. D. Mekler, F. Brühlmann, K. Opwis, and A. N. Tuch, Do points,
and leaderboards harm intrinsic motivation?
Proceedings of
the First International Conference on Gameful Design, Research, and
Applications - Gamication '13, pp. 6673, 2013. [Online]. Available:
levels
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2583008.2583017
[35] Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation in Gamication | Gamication Co.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.gamication.co/2011/10/27/intrinsic-
and-extrinsic-motivation-in-gamication/
[36] E. L. Bernays,
Propaganda, 1928.
[37] I. Bogost, Persuasive Games : Exploitationware, 2011.
[38] J. Vogl,
Das Gespenst des Kapitals.
23
diaphanes, 2010.