Don’t reward people for things they know or believe they should be doing already. For example, if someone feels that recycling is a moral obligation, then rewarding him for recycling may cheapen that behavior and may even make the behavior morally offensive. It will give people the impression that someone is recycling only for the rewards, not because he is environmentally conscious. Likewise, rewarding someone with $5 for donating blood may give people the impression that he’s donating blood only for the money, not because he is altruistic. The same goes with voting or other civic engagement. This is an example where gamification requires a better understanding of their players. Bartle’s typology is clearly insufficient here. We need to know the motivational orientation of the players (i.e. how sensitive they are to extrinsic rewards).

McDonalds was not cinemafying its human resources system when it created a short training video for new employees. No doubt they used cinematography, actor performance, mise en scene, and editing to create the video, but it’s safe to assume there was no thought to the technical overlap with Tarkovsky and Godard.

I

yourself, because the site says more than the above words ever could about the nature and

I'm talking in this video about democracy (on a fortress!) and about gamification in an interview

@ibogost @karsalfrink I think this is quite beautiful:

ce that any of the passionate designers using gamification have ill intentions, but a lot of evidence to the contrary.

Is there truly deceit in gamification's fundamental nature, as some claim? Let's take Nike+ as an example. In Nike+, players are provided with clearly disclosed encouragement to improve their physical fitness using a gamified system. And while

mes earnestly would mean changing the very operation of most businesses. For those whose goal is to clock out at 5pm having matched the s

Just like that @dingstweets lays down the gamification presentation to end all gamification presentations. Definitive:

Be the one people talk about NOT because of your latest gamification and WOM campaign, but because it is obvious to your users and those they influence that your brand, product, book has made them better at something. Something they care about. Don’t be the slot machine of your industry. Give people an experience that leaves them feeling a little better about their own capabilities, not better about the faux-status awards they know, in their heart, are not examples of anything more awesome than a marketer’s attempt to use them.

e, in real time. It’s a pointless expression of self-impor

be able to create poetic experiences of the everyday and mundane, Çugun and Alfrink

Such are the extremes of opinion in my mind that I am awed by the idealism while also believing that Reality is Broke

the design or from our appreciation of play? A little of both actually. What matters is Interdependence, and to define the space in between life and play. Because we have forgotten how to see it, and designers have never known how to turn it into gameplay.

Were there game elements in the Joe Camel campaign? Sure. Points, redeemable items. Was there satisfaction, or a “fun” factor involved?

Only if you were on the board of directors of a cigarette company. Everyone else lined up for Lung Cancer or worse.

Gamification redux: You are either playing a game or you are being played. RT @ibogost Exploitationware:

But you don’t need a consultant. You need to ask yourself why you think you need one. Most the answers to that question will resolve with you realising you don’t. 

Gamification, as it stands, should actually be called poinstification, and is a bad thing because it’s a misleading title for a misunderstood process, although pointsification, in and of itself, is a perfectly valid and valuable concept which nonetheless needs to be implemented carefully with due concern for appropriateness and for unintended consequences, just as actual gamification, namely the conversion of existing systems into functioning games, is also a valid and valuable process which carries its own concerns, but which now cannot with any clarity be referred to as gamification since that term is already widely associated with the process of what should more properly be called poinstification, and which we therefore

oss the front. He's polite and eager to lend a hand. He's also animated: Pete the Plant Manager stars in a new online video game from Siemens called Plantville that simulates what it's like to run a manufacturing facility. The aim is to take three dilapidated factories and make them more efficie