
Gamification is bullshit - asanwal
http://m.bogost.com/blog/gamification_is_bullshit.shtml
======
neilk
I hate this whole trend of "gamification" or "game mechanics". It's profoundly
ignorant and just the latest thing for consultants to hype. Because, due to
some high profile successes, it is now easy for them to suggest that if you
just add a layer of game-like-ness onto your app, you can make a loser product
into a winner.

I don't hate all the sites that are touted as successes of gamification,
though. StackOverflow is great. But there is a profound difference between
StackOverflow is doing, and what Farmville is doing.

StackOverflow is trying to produce community resources of lasting value. Their
"game" system is merely a way of recording that value, and allocating
resources. It is fundamentally based on the judgments of the community.

Meanwhile, Farmville is clever at making an activity which simply enriches the
game's owners _look_ like the construction of community resources, or _look_
like competition to display valuable skills.

My view is that there is no "gamification". The metaphor is backwards. Games
are mere simulations of the kinds of things humans like -- to compete, to be
valued, to be trusted, to build things, to have rare resources. It's far
better to make your site more like a community, than more like a game.

~~~
americandesi333
I think this article stops just short of making a leap and saying that game
elements are now used as marketing tool to create 'stickiness'. When I ask
most entrepreneurs the question- what will make people come back to their
website, majority of them tell me that they are thinking of adding a
gamification angle to keep getting people back.

I agree that gamification brings out the human values of competitiveness,
trust, credibility. But I don't think gamification by itself creates a long
lasting business advantage. After all, people will get tired of playing these
games some day.

Great post and makes me think about the 'herd mentality'!

------
wccrawford
He harps on the people who get gamification wrong and totally neglects those
who get it right.

People -do- care about pointless things like 'achievements' and such. I'm
actually kind of ashamed that I care, but I -do- care. I am more likely to
fully explore a site or product if there are external goals in play.

~~~
jameskilton
Perhaps "gamification" is the wrong word. What people are trying to do with
these kind of systems is to create incentives for using the product.

So maybe, instead of gamification, it's incentivization? Definitely a harder
word to say and type out, but it's more indicative of what's going on and has
less negative connotation.

~~~
vyrotek
The word is definitely not well received by everyone. Even the gamification
platform companies (ours included) don't really like the word. It leaves too
much to the imagination and carries a lot of baggage.

Another issue is that people think gamification is the new SEO. Gamification
will not magically bring new users to your site. It's as you said, about
incentivizing or engaging with your current users.

~~~
Lewisham
Yes, gamification has been poisoned by "the new SEO" crowd. What was once a
useful tool (Nike+) has been abused and bent into all sorts of shapes by
people who are, generally, completely oblivious to the decades of game design
the techniques build on.

His perceived ineptitude of the practitioners involved is a large part of why
Bogost is calling out gamification as a marketing term here. Game designers
don't call it gamification. Game designers make games.

------
GBKS
I'm not sure what the recent hype about gamification is. It's an old,
established practice. From your rewards card at the grocery store, to
skymiles, coupons in the Sunday newspaper and all the little tricks in
infomercials on TV. At least those are about actual money instead of bits and
bytes. Then again, who knows, since prices could be artificially inflated to
make discounts look good.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Well there are two concepts in play here, one is like the old S&H Greenstamps,
which is to take an activity that is normally a process to achieve a goal (say
shopping for groceries so you can eat) into something that is itself a goal
(do enough shopping and you can get a new toaster). The airlines created
'milers' who are folks who spend time figuring out ways to keep their
executive memberships current by having enough miles.

The second is the notion of awards and 'achievements' which provide ego
reinforcement for folks who might otherwise be appalled at how much time they
are spending on an activity. This provides a convienient rationalization path
so that folks don't say "I just wasted three hours on the TMZ site, instead
they got three 'oscars' for finding all the Paula Abdul stories in under three
hours."[1] Its a rationalization that they 'achieved' something by investing
that time.

Affinity programs, (such as airline miles, green stamps, etc) are pretty
straight forward since they give information that the customer has done a
certain volume of business with you, you can afford to give them a discount
(post facto) by discounting stuff with affinity 'points.' Achievement / Titles
type programs are a way to tap into the human rationalization engine and
generally only make the consumer feel better (or less bad) about the poor
value they have received.

[1] Its an entirely fictitious example, only the web site, TMZ, is real and it
really is a complete waste of anyone's time :-)

~~~
T_S_
Great comment. Gamification turns work into play. Removes guilt from play.
Play is ego gratification or "flow" or a combination.

------
yesimahuman
I'm sure there's an argument in there. I only heard him trash the phrase and
the supposed people who exploit the phrase. How about showing examples of
gamification and explain why you think they are "bullshit?"

~~~
Lewisham
This is a follow-on piece from an article Bogost wrote in Gamasutra [1]. It
doesn't make a lot of sense unless you are aware of Bogost's previous
commentary.

His main point is that gamification is an empty relationship: nothing of value
is exchanged by either party. That it "works" is an unfortunate product of our
psychological wiring, and is thus more aptly described as "exploitationware."

It's important to note that Bogost has worked for many years on
serious/persuasive games as a means of exposing systems. Allowing users to
interact with those systems as a means of persuasion or education is, as far
as he's concerned, a more enlightening experience.

[1]
[http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6366/persuasive_games_...](http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6366/persuasive_games_exploitationware.php)

~~~
aik
Explitationware? Put that way, isn't every extrinsic motivator an exploit?
Bonuses at work, financial targets set by others that are your responsibility,
grades in school from the perspective of the student, "awards" in Khan
Academy, all advertising, etc. Do you agree?

------
gmac
I enjoyed the article, and I think I agree that most of what's described as
gamification is bullshit. Which is a shame, because I think there are areas
where it's a genuinely useful, meaningful idea, and those have been drowned
out by the tides of PR.

In a similar way, the word 'sustainable' -- which could be an extremely useful
word -- has been abused into total semantic oblivion (such as the UK
government's recently introduced presumption in favour of 'sustainable
growth', by which they mean nothing more than 'growth').

------
zwieback
This is the first time I've heard of gamification - I guess I must have been
under a rock some place. I think there may be a good point hidden in a bunch
of angry rhetoric but I can't quite distill what it is, even after reading his
earlier piece. He comes across a little like an annoyed hipster who is forced
to find a new costume after noticing everyone is suddenly wearing lumberjack
shirts.

It's called snobbery.

------
graupel
I've got calls with two big gamification companies coming up and am under some
pressure from marketing to get these features added to our sites (which have
20mm UV/monthly), I'm so torn about the whole idea.

~~~
vyrotek
I hope we're one of those calls ;) <http://iactionable.com>

~~~
knowtheory
[Edit: posted before i saw: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2864030> ]

Actually, thanks for giving us a concrete example.

The video you have posted here: <http://iactionable.com/salesforce/>

What this video has said to me is that you have found a new way for bean
counters to track the behavior of employees through arbitrarily defined
metrics, and make judgements about those employees.

Contests and competition to incentivize behavior are nothing new in the
business world. What is new is the thin patena of presumed "fun" that
"gamification" implies. Left unaddressed and unresolved are all of the
problems and challenges involved in defining good metrics that correspond with
business and employee success, or the social ramifications of competition.

tl;dr: this is just another way to track employee productivity.

~~~
vyrotek
Actually your interpretation of gamification is the problem with gamification.
We specifically call out on our website that it's not about "fun", you implied
that yourself.

No one said that this was a brand new concept. Just as twitter didn't invent
communication, gamification didn't invent competition. The reason it's so
popular now is because the archaic metrics and contests of the past can now be
presented in a form that this generation is more familiar with. Progress bars,
levels and instant notifications.

We put a lot of emphasis on the real-time nature. We work with Call Centers
and they instantly see the value. They're already running these contests
manually so what we bring is a way to give everyone visibility into what's
really going on in the business automatically. When you level up or unlock an
achievement because you made a huge sale, the entire floor is notified. It's
all about status. The time savings alone usually close the deal.

<http://iactionable.com/gamification/what-is-gamification/>

 _"Here at IActionable we take the ideas and techniques around providing
feedback to players from games and move them in to non-gaming applications. We
are not trying to make things that are not games become games. We know you may
want to take a common task and make it “fun” – but that’s not what we do – not
directly. What we do is help users see how well they are performing or
contributing, how they compare to other people, and provide goals for them to
work towards.

Now, some people may find that fun. Some people like getting feedback and
seeing improvement or validation. Some people like the competition amongst
others. This kind of fun is a nice side effect, but incidental. It is not the
primary goal. The primary goal varies for each company we work with but is
generally tied directly to their business goals. We motivate users towards
these goals by showing them what is expected and how well they are meeting
those expectations. It’s all wrapped up in a game-like interface, but no one
is going to think they are playing Space Invaders."_

~~~
knowtheory
Yep, so that's the meat of the issue. Gamification then is a rebranding more
than it is an innovation either technically or conceptually. I don't want to
quibble over the definition of the word "game" but i strongly believe that the
word "game" implies and is tied strongly to the notion of fun/play/things done
in one's free time. [1]

I guess i'd say that's too bad, but businesses are going to do what businesses
are gonna do.

I'm happy you've found a niche, and are running a business off it. I hope
you're encouraging your customers to behave in humane ways (given my
aforementioned criticism of competition in the workplace).

\--------------------------------------------

[1] For example, there are linguistic tropes that people rely upon like "it's
_just_ a game!" or "this isn't a _game_!" which indicate the contrast that
games have with topics of import/seriousness.

------
phillmv
orly? <http://i.imgur.com/ZVWxL.png>

~~~
jergason
What stylesheet are you using for HN? That looks great.

~~~
EAMiller
Looks like Georgify:
[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ofjfdfaleomlfanfeh...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ofjfdfaleomlfanfehgblppafkijjhmi)

~~~
phillmv
Yup. Makes HN tolerable, for a change - albeit I can't understand for the life
of my why certain usernames are in green.

~~~
judofyr
That's unrelated to Georgify. All new user account have a green username (so
we can easy spot the newcomers).

------
melvinram
The OP is attempting to make 3 core arguments with this post:

1) Language that conceals the truth, attempts to impress others or coerce
people is bullshit.

2) Creating a word such as "gamification" is attempting to conceal the truth,
impress others or coerce people.

3) The word "gamification" is used to conceal the truth, impress others or
coerce people.

The first argument holds water but the other two are half truths at best.

Words are created all the time, but they are not just used to try and conceal
the truth, impress others or coerce people. It is often used simply to make
concepts easier to digest and understand. It gives people a common vocabulary
so that they can have more in-depth discussions.

Yes, the words will be bastardized and used by people who really have no idea
what they are talking about but to use them as the baseline of how you treat
everyone using the word is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Simplifying a concept into a word so it's easier to understand is far from
attempting to conceal the truth, impress others or coerce.

~~~
jasontsui
I agree. The author seems to be caught up in the semantics here. The way I
read it, the criticism stems from its use as a buzzword instead of its
implementation as a concept. The word itself just allows us to have a
conversation about it without detailing it in full each time. Gamification is
no more bullshit than SEO or UX. Its simply utilizing things weve learned from
other fields to create better experiences for users.

------
ryanelkins
I definitely think gamification is in a hype stage right now. Some people seem
to think it fix anything and others are happy to take their money.
Gamification is young and no one has a good grasp of what it actually _is_ or
how it can best be applied.

I like the idea that it can act as a better source of feedback. I think the
Stack Exchange sites do a good of this. It obviously works - HN itself moved
to make karma less noticeable because it was altering behaviors so much. The
key will be to figure out how to best harness it apply it to a worthwhile end.
We're working to use gamification to help people learn new systems faster,
understand what is expected of them, and drive business goals. It's working
pretty well towards those goals so far.

~~~
Pointsly
I think the game layer is real - I like Shell's statement - 'how can it not
happen?'

see - [http://g4tv.com/videos/44277/dice-2010-design-outside-the-
bo...](http://g4tv.com/videos/44277/dice-2010-design-outside-the-box-
presentation/)

------
jradoff
No, but overuse of behaviorism is bullshit:
[http://radoff.com/blog/2011/08/09/gamification-
behaviorism-b...](http://radoff.com/blog/2011/08/09/gamification-behaviorism-
bullshit/)

------
barce
This seems to be the quick summary.

Gamification coerces in that an organization can leverage the phrase, "we made
your work more interesting, you have to do more."

It conceals in that the author feels there is no value add.

It impresses in that it's such a fad.

This tends to ignore Jane McGonigal's work on games as necessary because
reality is broken. I'd be very curious about the author's thoughts on her
work.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_McGonigal>

~~~
_delirium
He has a moderately positive review of her book:
<http://www.bogost.com/blog/reality_is_broken.shtml>

He disagrees with its approach in the end, but credits it with being much
better than what he categorizes as gamification:

 _One can only hope that McGonigal's book scores an epic win against the
trite, simplistic trends in "gamification" that her smart, sophisticated ideas
overshadow._

------
mhb
He defines "bullshit" and not "gamification"?

~~~
knowtheory
That would be consistent with what he's discussing. If he believes
"gamification" to be bullshit, the term isn't something that can be mapped to
a true/false claim. It's undefinable bullshit.

~~~
mhb
I can define a lot of things that I believe are bullshit and whose definition
doesn't "map to a true/false claim" (though I don't understand what that means
either).

~~~
knowtheory
Then you don't understand what the original author is talking about.

The essay "On Bullshit" means something very specific when it talks about
bullshit and bullshit's contrast with the lies or the truth.

The point is that truth/falsity is at best an inconvenience for bullshitters,
it plays no material role in the things that they say, or assert.

So, there is a whole range of possible statements that bullshitters may make
that are either so squishy they don't mean anything, or are formulated in such
a way that they can't actually be assessed to be true or false.

The article author, by making the claim that 'gamification' is bullshit, is
asserting that 'gamification' is not an actual _thing_ that we can evaluate.

He's trying to place the onus of explaining what 'gamification' is and what
it's import/role in the world is on the people touting it.

I'd go so far as to say that 'gamification' is a fraught term, because it's
predicated on a definition of 'game', and given that word's controversial past
both within and without the ludology world
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_studies> ), 'gamification' appears to be a
marketing buzzword more than anything else.

In other words, bullshit.

~~~
mhb
Thanks

------
anigbrowl
Incentives are not the whole of gamificattion (although I do think they're
bullshit in most non-gaming contexts).

------
cubicle67
for those on Lion with a limited vocabulary like mine, try a double tap using
three fingers to get definitions of unknown words

[Edit for context: FTA: _accompanied by a turgid budgetary arrow and a
tumescent rocket, suggesting the inevitable priapism this powerful pill will
bring about_ ]

------
RobIsIT
Not bullshit: Motivation.

Gamification is one way to motivate people. There are others.

------
Hisoka
Adding incentives to boring activities sucks. But adding a layer that helps
people measure their progress/achievements is absolutely not bullshit, if done
well. Why? Because of human nature. Saying it's bullshit is fighting against
our intrinsic nature.

Think about the normal job. We're given abstract goals and vague feedback. How
do we "win" at getting a project done? Or even becoming a better developer? We
can't. The result is too far in the future, and we easily become unmotivated,
and demoralized when we can't see the result as quickly as possible. However,
anything that helps measure our progress gives us motivation to continue on.
Indicators that tell us how far we've improved keep us in the game.

Any goal that takes too long can benefit from these principles, whether it's
language learning, work, etc. We don't need badges, points, etc. We just need
something that feeds our desire for progress, improvement and achievement. We
need that sense of "win". The same feeling you get when you finish cleaning
your room, or heating something in the microwave for 1 minute.

Call it gamification, or whatever. To be honest, I don't even think it should
have a term (it just causes people to screw things up as they try to apply it
to stuff that don't need it). Things like loyalty cards, or racking up points
for a flight is NOWHERE near where the real benefit lies. It's just marketing.

But saying it's bullshit is a disservice.

~~~
absconditus
It is bullshit because its main use is getting people to do things that are
unnecessary so that corporations can make more money.

One must also wonder why such things are necessary now.

~~~
dave_sullivan
Sales orgs have been running sales contests since the beginning of time.
Salespeople don't take part because it makes the company more money (even
though it does) they take part because it connects with their competitive
spirit, gives them an opportunity to make more money, and is usually
associated with some new push/technique/product for the rep to try out in the
field.

Game mechanics as it applies to business is essentially just the internet
version of the sales contest applied to different orgs. The problem has been
that areas like customer service and development have been harder to track
than areas like sales. And even sales has had to define new metrics as the
sales cycle gets longer and longer, it's no longer enough to just measure the
outcome, you've got to measure what happens in between. These same techniques
can and are being applied to other areas, and there's a lot more that can be
done.

To some extent 'game mechanics/gamification' is just another buzzword but it
also represents a pretty powerful concept that can be used to build more
effective organizations.

------
Meai
Humans do things for reasons. Which is true. So it's not bullshit.

q.e.d

------
Alex3917
I think this is generally true, but there are a few websites that do it very
well. The way that Squidoo does points, items, quests, and levels is probably
the best case study I've seen for a website.

