Gamification — Valid Term or Marketing-Speak?

Trepidity writes "Controversy continues over the seemingly unstoppable trend of 'gamification' (something we've discussed previously). The University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business held a Gamification Symposium entitled 'For The Win' this week, indicating apparent academic respectability. But in the opening panel debating definitions of 'gamification,' one participant, game scholar Ian Bogost, defined it as 'bulls***.' Elsewhere, Jon Radoff responds that it may not be BS, but is too focused on superficial behaviorism rather than deeper gameplay. For my part, I wonder if by claiming gamification is a completely new thing, rather than just a new word, we're missing out on important past lessons, like the very strange history of Soviet gamification."

Comments

definedd here properly

[k4f]

While all this may be true, the fact of the matter is that these games do very well in terms of engagement. Though you and I may think that "Farmville" is ridiculous, there are millions who spend hours each day devoted to maintaining these virtual crops. If this is the case - and it is - how does that translate into marketers "exploiting" users. Gamification is merely our attempt to engage users in a space in which they already play.

Must be read

[k4b]

Gamification doesn't refer to games themselves (Farmville being a game.) It refers to adding game-like qualities (dynamics) to things that are not inherently games, like eating at restaurants or buying new shoes.