Blog Post

Release Notes
5 MIN READ

What is Gamification, Really?

MikeW's avatar
MikeW
Lithium Alumni (Retired)
14 years ago

Michael Wu, Ph.D. is Lithium's Principal Scientist of Analytics, digging into the complex dynamics of social interaction and group behavior in online communities and social networks.

 

Michael was voted a 2010 Influential Leader by CRM Magazine for his work on predictive social analytics and its application to Social CRM.He's a regular blogger on the Lithosphere's Building Community blog and previously wrote in the Analytic Science blog. You can follow him on Twitter or Google+.

 


 

Earlier this month, I was invited to Wharton’s gamification symposium: “For the Win: Serious Gamification.” It was definitely a meeting of the minds with a very diverse group of participants ranging from game designers to policy makers straight from The White House. There were proponents of gamification, and some of the stories are reported on Knowledge@Wharton. Yet, there were also strong critics and opponents of the idea as well (see Gamification is Bull**bleep**). However, the goal is well-intended. We were all there to poke and probe gamification from multiple angles and put it through some of the most rigorous tests. The goal is to figure out what aspects of this idea will actually endure and last.

 

The organizers of the symposium, Prof. Kevin Webach (Wharton) and Prof. Dan Hunter (NY Law School), posed a series of high level questions in the meeting agenda to guide our discussions and debates. Although we didn’t explicitly answer all of them, they were excellent questions that need to be addressed in order to advance gamification beyond its current state of hype. With that in mind, I’d like to spend the next few posts to address most, if not all, of these questions.

 

Q1: What is gamification?

I used to casually define gamification as “the use of game mechanics and dynamics to drive game like engagement in a non-game context.” However, after seeing the numerous implementations of gamification at this symposium, I am convinced that the use of only game mechanics/dynamics may be too restrictive. So I’d like to expand the definition a bit.

 

Gamification is the use of game attributes to drive game-like player behavior in a non-game context. This definition has three components:

  1. The use of game attributes,” which includes game mechanics/dynamics, game design principles, gaming psychology, player journey, game play scripts and storytelling, and/or any other aspects of games
  2. To drive game-like player behavior,” such as engagement, interaction, addiction, competition, collaboration, awareness, learning, and/or any other observed player behavior during game play
  3. In a non-game context,” which can be anything other than a game (e.g. education, work, health and fitness, community participation, civic engagement, volunteerism, etc.)

 

Q2: What is it not?

Anything that doesn’t fit the definition above is, by definition, not gamification. Clearly, if a strategy is not intended to drive game like player behavior, then it is not gamification, but then you probably don’t need to do anything at all. Strategies that drive game like behavior but didn’t use game attributes or it’s not used in a non-game context are also not gamification. So there can literally be millions of things that gamification is not. I’m not going to list them here, but I will point out a couple that are often confused in the industry and give some explanation.

 

Gamification is not a game. Primarily because the definition specifically states that gamification refers to those applications in a non-game context, where players don’t really know that they are actually playing a game. Furthermore games don’t need to be “gamified” further. It should already be driving game-like behavior (unless it is a very poorly designed game).

 

I like to refer to games that are created to achieve goals other than mere entertainment as serious games. Just to give a few examples, the following are all serious games:

  1. There are many educational games that teach various subjects in school through game play. As students play these games, they get practice and reinforcement with a particular concept. As a result, they learn and retain the knowledge better.
  2. Games that drive the awareness of certain issues (e.g. environmental) with the ultimate goal to change our behavior through game play
  3. Games that solves a different problem as we play the game (e.g. protein folding, etc.)

 

However gamification and serious games are related because both try to leverage aspects of games to achieve something more. A serious game does it through an actual game, but gamification does it through a broader set of tools (e.g. game mechanics/dynamics, game design, gaming psychology, etc.). If we take this perspective, then a serious game can be seen as a subset of gamification. However, the prior definition explicitly excludes this subset from the set of proper gamifications. That is why people are often confused between the two.

 

Gamification is also not the use of prizes (or other external incentives) to drive action. These are merely incentives systems. Although incentives are often used in gamification as a form of game mechanic, they do not constitute gamification by themselves, because not all incentives are good game mechanics.

 

Incentive systems are not new, and people have been using these techniques for hundreds of years throughout school, work, and most of our lives. For example, letter grades, salary promotion, cash bonus, etc. can be seen as a form of incentive systems. However, they are generally not considered as game attributes, because many of these incentives weren’t created with any game design principles in mind. If they are game attributes, they are terrible ones. And this is the reason why there are so many bored students at school and so many dispassionate employees in large enterprises.

 

Conclusion

Alright, now that we have a revised and extended definition of gamification, we can address the deeper and more interesting questions at the Wharton Gamification Symposium in the next post.

 

Also, from the limited feedback I received, I get the sense that most people prefer shorter posts. So I will try hard to keep my articles a little more compact in the future. If need be, I will break up the longer articles into short ones and post them separately.

 

BTW, if you feel that gamification deserves the attention and proper treatise at SxSW, I'd like to ask for you help to please vote for my workshop proposal (you may need to create a FREE account to vote). Many thanks in advance, and see you next time.

 

 

Updated 6 months ago
Version 7.0
  • MikeW's avatar
    MikeW
    Lithium Alumni (Retired)

    Hello Glenn,

     

    Thank you for stopping by and commenting.

     

    You bring up a good point. Incentive systems and gamifications are not easy to tell apart if you are not a trained professional game designer. The reason is that the two are not mutually exclusive. Some incentives sytems are designed with gaming attributes from the ground up (these are valid gamification), and others are not (these are just plain old incentive systems).

     

    The best way to distinguish a plain old incentive system from Gamification is to ask couple of questions

    1. What gaming attributes did it use?

    2. What gamer profiles/persona does the incentives target?

    3. Does it drive behavior reliably and predictably?

     

    If the answer to all three are yes, then it is likely that it is a gamification. But keep in mind that these are not definitions, so getting 3 yes do not guarantee it is a gamification, and missing some of them does not guarantee them to be a plain old incentive system either. These are merely a set of diagnostic questions. You should always check back with the definition to see if they are indeed gamification or just incentive systems.

     

    I will keep your suggestions in mind. Maybe when I have the bandwidth to write a book, I will include more examples. And of course, I will sure some of them here on my blog too.  ;-)

     

    Thanks again for the comment. I hope this helps for the time being. See you next time.

     

  • Hello Mike,

     

    as far as I can see your definition of gamification is the most precise on the internet. However I have difficulties to understand the non-game context part of it:

     

    You say:
    "the definition specifically states that gamification refers to those applications in a non-game context, where players don’t really know that they are actually playing a game."


    So by non-game context you actually mean that the application which is to be gamified is not a game before being gamified, right?


    In other words: If you use game attributes to drive game-like player behavior in a non-game context and
    "unintentionally" create a game - is that gamification or doesn't it fit into the definition here because of breaking out of the non-game context? Specificaly: What happens if suddenly the user understands that he is actually playing a game, is it then still non-game context? Is it still Gamification?


    I actually thought that if you gamify something in a non-game context and it happens to you that you create a game where there was no game, than this is the best result you can achieve with Gamification.

     

    Thanks!

  • MikeW's avatar
    MikeW
    Lithium Alumni (Retired)

    Hello Boris,

     

    Thank you for the comment, and for inquiring clarification on the definition.

     

    I can totally related to your confusion about the "non-game context" clause in the definition of gamification. That is the most vague part of the definition, and there is good reason for it.

     

    The reason is because we don't really have a really good definition of "games."

     

    What is your definition of a game? I often hear people say that a game is a form of play or the activity that we engage in where the players follows a set of rules defined by the game and the outcome of the game is determined by skill and chance. If you believe in this or any other definition of games, then a lot of things can be a game, such as school, business, work, or even life in general.

     

    So when I say non-game context, the games I was referring to are games like Angry Bird, poker, chess, basketball, etc., something that we do for fun, as opposed to work, school, business, exercise, etc. (even though some people may find these activity fun and think of it as just another big game). So it is very hard to define what a game is, consequently, I hope you see the difficulty in defining what is not a game.

     

    They key point to take a way is that a good game should have all the necessary narrative, game mechanics/dynamics already and shouldn’t need to be gamified. If you have invented a kind of work that is so fun that everyone love to do, then you don’t need to gamify that work, even though it is work. But for that matter, those kind of work might as well be perceived as a game, and many people doing those work are probably thinking that they are playing a fun game.

     

    So non-game context in my definition is rather vague, but what I want to say is that they are not already a game. At least not being thought of as a game "in the traditional sense (i.e. Angry Bird, basketball, poker, chess, etc.)" by most people even though anything we do can be thought of as a game.

     

    Alright, I hope I clarify the confusion. Thank you for asking such great question.

    I hope to see you around lithosphere more in the future.

     

  • Hello Mike,

    thanks a ton for answering on my question!

    Just recently I've read a dissertation by Gonzalo Frasca with a definition for the constructs Game and Play, which I find is very well derivated and accurate. Here is how the definition for Game goes according to Frasca:

    A game is to somebody an engaging activity in which players believe to have active participation and where they agree on a system of rules that assigns social status to their quantified performance. The activity constrains playersʼ immediate future to a set of probable scenarios, all of which they are willing to tolerate.

    http://www.powerfulrobot.com/Frasca_Play_the_Message_PhD.pdf

    It takes into account the player's individual point of view and many other important aspects and might help us to clear up what the game-context is.

    See you.

    : ]

  • Cubix inc Definition of Gamification:

     

    Gamification is the application of game principles and game-design elements in non-game contexts. It is the process of taking something that already exists, such as a website or online community and integrating game elements into it that will motivate engagement, participation, and loyalty among your audience.

     

    This definition comes from - 5 Reasons Why Companies Should Gamify Virtual Training

  • This was really informative Mike and it also clearly differentiates between Serious games and gamification.