4 ms·

>...modern videogames are focusing too much on the "achievement unlocked!" aspect of gaming, at the expense of deeper and more actually engaging game mechanics

>...modern videogames are focusing too much on the "achievement unlocked!" aspect of gaming, at the expense of deeper and more actually engaging game mechanics I absolutely agree. "Badges" and the like are a half-assed (quarter-assed?) way of going about gamification. But some game mechanics simply act like heroin on the brain. World of Warcraft and Ultima Online had this effect on me in past years. I can't put my finger on it precisely (hence the ambiguity in the post), but I can't shake the feeling that there is something special about the incentive designs of WoW and UO that we can leverage to improve engagement in education and in the working world.

mjn 15y ago
As far as the working world, there are some fascinating Soviet attempts with that. I wrote a brief bit about it at http://www.kmjn.org/notes/soviet_gamification.html http://www.kmjn.org/notes/soviet_gamification.html based on some preliminary research, but I'd really like to read a proper analysis written by a Soviet-history expert. It's obvious why the USSR found the idea enticing: since they didn't have tools like higher pay or bonuses to reward workers with, they hoped that they could incentivize workers with some kind of inner cognitive motivation, patterned after whatever secret sauce works in games and sports. It's probably fair to say that their attempts were of decidedly limited success, though it's less clear whether it was the idea that was bad, the Soviet implementation of the idea, the context, or some combination. The conventional explanation among capitalist economists has been that the idea was bad: you can't incentivize workers with games, but only with actual payment, so of course the Soviet attempts failed. But now a bunch of businesses, presumably run by capitalists, seem to think that the idea is worth a second look, which suggests that either they're wrong (and it's not worth a second look, for the same reasons it wasn't good the first time), or the answer for why the USSR's model didn't work is more complex.
- didgeoridoo 15y ago
  Incredible post & research -- thanks for sharing. The relationship of monetary reward to engagement has always seemed a bit weird to me. I've heard it said that compensation over $75K does nothing to increase happiness. However, I've also heard of fabulously wealthy people using money as a motivating scorecard, divorced from its purchasing power, simply used as a measurement of their success. Not sure if these are in conflict, or simply proof that money actually has a very oddly shaped marginal utility curve.
- obtu 15y ago
  Gamification can help differentiate a business even if it doesn't have any positive consequence on education. That didn't apply to the Soviet attempt, a planned economy without much competition which is also analysed years after, in a more long-term perspective.

mjn 15y ago

As far as the working world, there are some fascinating Soviet attempts with that. I wrote a brief bit about it at http://www.kmjn.org/notes/soviet_gamification.html http://www.kmjn.org/notes/soviet_gamification.html based on some preliminary research, but I'd really like to read a proper analysis written by a Soviet-history expert. It's obvious why the USSR found the idea enticing: since they didn't have tools like higher pay or bonuses to reward workers with, they hoped that they could incentivize workers with some kind of inner cognitive motivation, patterned after whatever secret sauce works in games and sports. It's probably fair to say that their attempts were of decidedly limited success, though it's less clear whether it was the idea that was bad, the Soviet implementation of the idea, the context, or some combination. The conventional explanation among capitalist economists has been that the idea was bad: you can't incentivize workers with games, but only with actual payment, so of course the Soviet attempts failed. But now a bunch of businesses, presumably run by capitalists, seem to think that the idea is worth a second look, which suggests that either they're wrong (and it's not worth a second look, for the same reasons it wasn't good the first time), or the answer for why the USSR's model didn't work is more complex.

didgeoridoo 15y ago
Incredible post & research -- thanks for sharing. The relationship of monetary reward to engagement has always seemed a bit weird to me. I've heard it said that compensation over $75K does nothing to increase happiness. However, I've also heard of fabulously wealthy people using money as a motivating scorecard, divorced from its purchasing power, simply used as a measurement of their success. Not sure if these are in conflict, or simply proof that money actually has a very oddly shaped marginal utility curve.
obtu 15y ago
Gamification can help differentiate a business even if it doesn't have any positive consequence on education. That didn't apply to the Soviet attempt, a planned economy without much competition which is also analysed years after, in a more long-term perspective.