4 ms·

I don't think it gets lost, it just loses it's value. In my company we have "games" all over (also known as extrinsic motivators or artificial targets). For exa

by aik 15y ago

I don't think it gets lost, it just loses it's value. In my company we have "games" all over (also known as extrinsic motivators or artificial targets). For example, in the consulting world we're chasing higher billability, ie. the more hours I log as billable a quarter, the happier people will be. If I log under a certain amount, people become angry. What a fun game, right!? Not exactly. The fact that I'm pushed to play games rather than pushed to do something I actually value is demoralizing and off target. If my goal was rather to ensure the client is happy (within reason), ensure that I'm producing great stuff, and overall skilled at my discipline, I can guarantee the outcome would be much better.

didgeoridoo 15y ago
This is a great point, but I don't think we're talking about the same thing when we use the word "game". There is a counter-intuitive difference between a sales contest and a weekend spent playing Modern Warfare. One has a real monetary value attached, and the other doesn't. Yet we'd STILL rather engage in the activity that has no real reward attached. To me, that is the sign of a well-designed "game".
jonbittner 15y ago
Ripping off clients definitely sucks as a "game" - I'm more interested in the achievement / reward structure associated with learning, and the sense of completing a finite task, which like finishing a level in a game. Turning things that have moral components (like doing good work versus meeting a target) into a game has been shown to cause problems...specifically, I recall reading about a study about a day care center charging people if they were late to pick up their kids. Charging for lateness actually increased the average late of lateness by de-moralizing the obligation to arrive on time to the day care center (sorry for the lack of reference). It's not that I think gamification makes everything better, it's that creating a well-controlled enviroment with some rewarding goals makes learning specifically more focused and fun.

by aik 15y ago

didgeoridoo 15y ago

This is a great point, but I don't think we're talking about the same thing when we use the word "game". There is a counter-intuitive difference between a sales contest and a weekend spent playing Modern Warfare. One has a real monetary value attached, and the other doesn't. Yet we'd STILL rather engage in the activity that has no real reward attached. To me, that is the sign of a well-designed "game".

jonbittner 15y ago

Ripping off clients definitely sucks as a "game" - I'm more interested in the achievement / reward structure associated with learning, and the sense of completing a finite task, which like finishing a level in a game. Turning things that have moral components (like doing good work versus meeting a target) into a game has been shown to cause problems...specifically, I recall reading about a study about a day care center charging people if they were late to pick up their kids. Charging for lateness actually increased the average late of lateness by de-moralizing the obligation to arrive on time to the day care center (sorry for the lack of reference). It's not that I think gamification makes everything better, it's that creating a well-controlled enviroment with some rewarding goals makes learning specifically more focused and fun.