By Gabe Zichermann, Christopher Cunningham Whether you’re an executive, developer, producer, or product specialist, Gamification by Design will show you . Gamification by Design has ratings and 40 reviews. د.أمجد said: إذا أردت أن تطبق مبادئ الألعابGamificationعلى مشروعك أو عملكفهذا الكتاب هو المكان. Download Citation on ResearchGate | On Jan 1, , Gabe Zichermann and others published Gamification by Design: Implementing Game Mechanics in Web .

Author: Fenrijora Dole
Country: Italy
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Politics
Published (Last): 3 February 2004
Pages: 220
PDF File Size: 11.89 Mb
ePub File Size: 11.9 Mb
ISBN: 934-7-13634-336-8
Downloads: 48083
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Nanris

At the risk of tiring even the most steadfast of readers, I would like to respond to the points he made there. As he will also remember, I replied to him that I would likely not be able to make it since I had at the time of his email already submitted a proposal for a gamification roundtable at the bi-annual Gamificaton conference on game research, scheduled in parallel to the Gamification Summit.

So moving on, the reply states that my critique falls in three categories: It is interesting to put this as the first category of critique, as it implies that this is the most important part of the issues raised.

In my review, I counted all in all two things which can be seen as errata: The misreading of the social engagement loop diagram, as mentioned by Zichermann, and a typo in the name James L. I did not write the review with the intent of accusing Zichermann of plagiarism. The main issue of my review are those conceptual flaws. Furthermore, I did not accuse, but pointed out case-by-case, open to any reader to see for herself, where I saw no due credit given, which is a different thing than plagiarism, like for instance the unmarked verbatim copy of a piece of a blog post by James Halperin I also pointed out see the post here and the book on p.

As for the slides by Amy Jo Kim, which I gave as one example for such lacking credit, Zichermann states that both his slides. For example, the player types research comes from Richard Bartle and the stages of mastery work from Oppenheimer and Oppenheimer.

Gamification by Design: Response to Zichermann | Gamification Research Network

One gamificxtion also find inspiration for the viral loops from Penenberg and myriad others and game design action verbs from Lopes, Kuhnen et al — without taking anything away from Amy Jo. But I would ask him to kindly point me to the place where any of these people before Amy Jo Kim suggested to create a gamified design in a series of exercises entailing to first write the player story, then rank their top 5 actions from a list of verbs matching almost all words on his list, but with no match with the game verbs Lopes and Kuhnen mention gage, then place those actions on the Bartle diagram, then place them on progression of levels of expertise — in that precise order?

And yes, one can find inspiration for talking about loops and virality from other sources. Personally, I find the work of Kontagent on social game metrics informative, even beyond social gamivication. That is a curious statement. As I stated in my review, the annoying thing here is not lack of credit, but self-linking, together with the additional work created for the reader to find the sources the book merely mentions in passing, which incidentally also makes it harder to cross-check what the sources say with what the books says like cross-checking with Lopes and Kuhnen, Dreyfus and Dreyfus, or Penenberg above, which Zichermann did not link to in his post.


Almost every piece of work in social science and psychology has significant methodological problems, and opinions about what works and why go in and out of fashion as quickly in academia as they do on the runways.

As a pragmatist myself, nothing could be further from where I stand. There is a difference between a contentious field in science, with good argument and data supporting both sides, and a field were all data and argument unilaterally point in one direction, and coincide with what practicioners have learned from experience. Again, I invite Zichermann to point to but one peer-reviewed empirical study that states that incentives and status, not mastery is at the core of what makes games fun.

Is that body of knowledge always incomplete and open to amendment? By the very definition of what science is.

Gamification by Design

Is it also the most reliable, acid-tested piece of knowledge on the topic out there? The cognitive revolution, replacing behaviorism with cognitive psychology as the dominant paradigm in psychology, was a slow, year process from the mids to the early s, working its way from argument to argument, experiment to experiment.

For example, long-term social status rewards can be particularly effective at nurturing creativity and play. This misrepresents both that Pink and the research he references talk about extrinsic, tangible if-then rewards in general, not just money also certificates, trophies, food, badges, etc. Research holds enormous values for practical business decisions, and in my past presentations on the topic, I have always tried to demonstrate that connection to direct business cases.

For instance, as I also noted in the review, research reliably shows that overall, men prefer competitive situations much more than women do. But what use is a good summary of flawed thinking? Numerous practicioners highly respected in the gamification field have publically supported my critique of the arguments presented in the book, or fashioned their own critique, such as Buster Benson or Tadhg Kelly.

Jon Radoff, who spoke at the Gamification Summit, likewise publically spoke up multiple times against reducing what works in games and gamification as behaviorism. As for myself, I have worked several years in the industry as a program manager and user experience designer, and continue working on projects increasingly involving the use of game design beyond games.

I happily invite everyone to ask my past employers and clients whether my work lacked practicality or business acumen. As I stated both in the review and elsewhere, all things he mentions have some relevance: The book Gamification by Design is seriously underplaying and misrepresenting the existing research and business cases that incentives are of limited effectiveness and often come with unwanted side effects, for no apparent reason — businesses only benefit from becoming smart about these things.

The book is seriously overplaying the importance of social status and neglecting the complications and prerequisites for something becoming a meaningful conveyor of social status. By doing so, the book is seriously underplaying the existing research and business cases on the elements of games and play beyond incentives and status that make them highly engaging, and have been shown to be crucial for engagement in workplaces and education alike — components like achievement and competence, autonomy, trust and safety, or meaning and purpose.


Thus, it needlessly leaves on the table for its readership the huge motivational potential of games, play, and extending them beyond games. Now I have nothing against studying or deploying customer loyalty and employee rewards programs, long practiced and promoted in marketing and human resources by bodies like the Enterprise Engagement Alliance — I just hope that the people doing it take notice of what psychology has learned in the past decades about human motivation.

I have also nothing against Zichermann branding his own variant of this, and I welcome his co-founding of his own Engagement Alliance, as this indeed helps to clarify the space he is coming from and aspires to. Why such forceful repackaging against the majority of both researchers and design practicioners?

Gamification By Design: Designing For Engagement Part I – Gamification Co

Why not inform readers about the complications and caveats involved? Why not be more careful in presenting what knowledge and experience is already out there? Why leave so much value zichedmann readers on the table?

I am happy to continue the discussion on these matters, as I agree gamificahion will be a teachable moment for all. Gabe is trying to sell something digestible, accessible, memorable and, perhaps above all, sellable to marketing departments. I think you may have accuracy, logic, coherence and detail on your side.

I suspect Gabe will gamificafion more money. Otherwise, as I noted in my recent comment on your blog post on Gamesbrief, I see digestible, accessible, memorable and sellable intros that are not as flawed, like e.

Indeed you did, and thank you. Very well reasoned, informative and fair. Thank you so much for the obvious effort you have put into your review, thoughts and responses — your passion for rigor and quality is doing us all a huge service. Major hat tips in your direction. To the point that your work is too in the weeds or to research based: Always well reasoned and thought out; thank you so much!

Errata It is interesting to put this as the first category of critique, as it implies that this is the most important part of the issues raised. Plagiarism I did not write the review with the intent of accusing Zichermann of plagiarism.

This is a false contrast for at least three reasons: Nick, thanks, I promise I try to cut down in the words from here on forward: Response to Zichermann Adding the Fun.

A brief history of gamification Games everywhere: