Summary
Gamification is “the use of game design elements in non-game contexts” (Deterding, Dixon, Khaled and Nacke, 2011). A game is a complete experience played for its own sake; gamification takes selected elements of games (usually points, badges and leaderboards) and adds them to an activity that is not a game, such as learning a language, exercising, studying or shopping, to increase engagement. Because it leans heavily on extrinsic rewards, it is where the overjustification-effect is most likely to bite.
Key ideas
Game design vs gamification
| Game design | Gamification | |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | An immersive, entertaining experience | Engagement and motivation in something that isn’t a game |
| Where | Complete games, played for their own sake | Education, fitness, marketing, training, productivity |
| Elements | Full mechanics, narrative, interactive play | Selected elements added to an existing activity |
Deterding et al. also separate gamification from serious games (full games made for a non-entertainment purpose) and from toys or playful design (play without rules or goals).
Points, badges, leaderboards (PBL)
Werbach and Hunter (2012) call points, badges and leaderboards the “PBL triad”: the most common, and shallowest, gamification toolkit.
- Points: a number for progress; immediate feedback and a sense of accomplishment.
- Badges: symbols of achievement; status and a pointer to mastery (glory rewards in reward-types).
- Leaderboards: rankings against others; competition and social comparison.
The leaderboard problem
A single global leaderboard motivates the people near the top and quietly tells everyone else they are losing; after the first week, most people cannot see themselves on it. Common fixes:
- Show the players near you (relative ranking) rather than the top ten.
- Friends only, or filtered groups.
- Weekly resets so everyone has a fresh chance.
- Small leagues with promotion and relegation: Duolingo’s weekly leagues of about 30 learners (the figure widely reported by players; Duolingo itself describes being matched with learners of similar habits) keep someone within reach at every level.
Beyond PBL
Better gamification uses elements that reach intrinsic needs (self-determination-theory):
| Element | What it adds | SDT need |
|---|---|---|
| Challenges | A skill test, often timed or with a target | Competence |
| Quests | Structured missions with a clear objective and a little narrative | Autonomy (when there is choice) |
| Social features | Sharing, teams, communities, cooperation as well as competition | Relatedness |
| Feedback and progress | Visible improvement, not just a score | Competence |
The six engaging factors of McGinnis et al. (2008), fun, structure, challenge, feedback, social and identity, give a checklist for a fuller design (see reward-systems).
In practice
- Start from the activity, not the badges. Ask why people would want to do the activity, and use game elements to support that reason.
- Make rewards informational. “You’ve run further than last month” supports competence; “run to earn points” risks replacing the reason to run.
- Design the leaderboard for the median user, not the winner.
- Plan for the end. What happens when the points stop, or when a user has every badge?
- Examples: Duolingo (streaks, XP, leagues), Strava (segment leaderboards that can be filtered to people you follow, personal records), loyalty cards, and weekly self-check quizzes in a course.
Evidence
- Deterding, Dixon, Khaled and Nacke (2011), “From game design elements to gamefulness: defining ‘gamification’”, Proceedings of MindTrek ‘11, pp. 9–15, gave the definition now used as standard.
- Werbach and Hunter (2012), For the Win: How Game Thinking Can Revolutionize Your Business, popularised the PBL triad (and a wider pyramid of dynamics, mechanics and components).
- The course lecture series contrasts game design with gamification, presents the leaderboard problem and its fixes, and maps challenges, quests and social play to competence, autonomy and relatedness (course lecture series, see source-player-psychology-lectures).
- Hamari, Koivisto and Sarsa (2014), reviewing empirical studies, found that gamification generally has positive effects but that these depend strongly on the context and the users.
Implications
- Gamification is a strong test of the overjustification-effect: the activity may already have intrinsic value, and adding expected rewards can undermine it.
- Gamification sits close to dark-patterns when streaks, loss aversion and FOMO are used to keep people engaged against their interests.
- Designing good gamification is game design: the same principles of feedback, challenge and meaningful choice apply.
Open questions
- Do PBL effects last? Many studies are short; novelty effects may explain early gains.
- Where is the line between motivating and manipulating, especially in apps aimed at children or in workplace monitoring?
Related
- reward-systems — reward design and the six engaging factors
- overjustification-effect — the main risk of extrinsic rewards
- self-determination-theory — competence, autonomy, relatedness
- reward-types — glory, sustenance, access, facility
- dark-patterns — streaks, FOMO and manipulation
- game-definition — what makes something a game
- engagement-led-design — engagement as a design goal
- source-player-psychology-lectures