Gamification is Here to Stay (And it's not bulls@#t)

I wrote earlier that Ian Bogost was not a big fan of gamification, or at least, what is being called gamification.

Well, it appears there are people who don't agree with him.

Gabe Zicherman, chair of the gamification summit (who incidentaly stands to make a lot of money from gamification), happens to think that gamification is here to stay, and its not Bulls!#t.

Gabe starts his discussion by claiming that all those who claim gamification is a perversion, of one sort or another, don't really understand that gamification is doing a lot of good, and the people behind it would never have any ill intentions.

He goes on to list some examples of gamification that are doing good. He discusses Nike+ as his first example of gamification doing good. He compares the nike plus program to two of Ian Bogost's games, Cow Clicker and Dean for America and claims that while the Nike + program in no way (other than encouraging players to wear out their shoes) seeks to deceitfully encourage the players to buy their products, the two games by Ian Bogost are deceitful in that they “bury their real message without full disclosure”.

Given that Cow Clicker is a game that satires gamification (and shows very clearly that while this type of gamification does work, its not exactly good that it does) and that Dean for America is really not about what its title claims it is about (actually, it is exactly just what the title says it is, they are definitely hiding something though) this comparison does not make the point that Gabe is hoping it would.

Nike+ is about creating a market and creating access with that market, and ultimately it does come down to trust. Do you trust a company like Nike to never abuse something which might increase their profit margin?

But even as we acknowledge that some corporations might have nefarious interests, we must recognize that the fundamental purpose of all organizations is to create as much "value" as possible. This value may be measured in assets or lives saved, children made healthier or kilos of trash diverted from landfill. Regardless, there is no evidence that any of the passionate designers using gamification have ill intentions, but a lot of evidence to the contrary.

Gabe has a lot of trust, probably misplaced. Most organisations are looking to increase their own value, anything else is probably a happy coincident.

Gabe uses three more examples of where gamification has worked in education, waste reduction and fitness to flesh out his argument that gamification both works and is good. He also goes on to tell us that all the people he has met who are interested in gamification are nice people.

In all of Gabe's discussion he fails to come to grips with Ian's critique. While Ian does argue that a lot of what passes for gamification is nothing more than a points scheme with a few gimmicky labels, he also argues that gamification does work, but in its most common form, its not exactly a good thing that it does work. However, while Gabe might miss the point on the criticism, the article does show that gamification may well have something useful to contribute.

Overall, it would seem that this discussion (at least between these two articles) is more about drawing lines in the sand than discussing the possible dangers and benefits of gamification. In my next post I will discuss some examples of how people are starting to use gamification in classrooms and suggest some different uses of game elements in the classroom. It might be that the useful discussion of what use we can make of gamification might come from those who are already giving it a go.