[tsumnia]

Gaming and nudge theory[1] in general is an interesting concept that I expect to have increased discussion in the coming years. On one hand, you have instances like this article where gamification is viewed in a positive light; on the other hand, companies like Robinhood or loot boxes are currently being scrutinized for utilizing gamification elements.

This isn't a post for or against them, but rather acknowledging the ethical concerns and how we determine what is "okay" for gamification. If we use these methods for health, education, etc., it is presented under the guise of "helping" an individual receive the respective benefits. BUT, one will likely be able to argue the same aspects for things like personal finance and video games.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory

[iscrewyou]

To me at least, when nudging in gaming is associated with monetary payments to the company, it is not for my benefit, mental or otherwise. There's a difference between loot boxes and season passes and it's up to us to understand that.

A well laid out payment structure when it comes to gaming is the best way to distinguish this.

[tsumnia]

> To me at least, when nudging in gaming is associated with monetary payments to the company

But in the case of Robinhood for example, they gamify buying/selling a security with confetti. You aren't paying them money per say, but they do sell your payment for order flow to other institutions. This sort of fits into my original post where there are less overt gamification/nudges and which environments is it "acceptable" to do so.

Is sending reminder notifications on Duolingo a gamification/nudge? Is it, or why is it, appropriate in this context? Could Robinhood do the same thing without scrutiny? That's sort of where I see gray areas on gamification and when its okay to use.

[adamredwoods]

Gamification of killing:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/the-gamification-of-domest...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/10/europe/germany-synagogue-atta...