[brandall10]

In a more meta way, just about any innovation goes through a 2-steps forward, 1-step back cycle. The 1-step back is always due to wide-scale adoption where the original message is somewhat lost in translation, but as a whole actually moves things forward (ie. agile 'methodology').

I think when it comes to gamification it's perhaps better to reframe it as a more targeted engagement structure. If you think about how big the actual video game industry is, how much people are _paying_ to solve problems, that there could be a better way to flip that script, because they are in fact doing work in the guise of entertainment.

Right now the whole concept is in its infancy, but I imagine five years from now it will be prevalent in most everything we do, perhaps in a very indirect manner. It might even be the perfect cure for procrastination (ducks :)

[gradstudent]

> I think when it comes to gamification it's perhaps better to reframe it as a more targeted engagement structure. If you think about how big the actual video game industry is, how much people are _paying_ to solve problems, that there could be a better way to flip that script, because they are in fact doing work in the guise of entertainment.

----

Disagree. Play is distinct from work because it is responsibility free. Work is a chore that you do because you must. For this reason Gamification is and will forever remain bullshit.

[brandall10]

I up-voted you because I like you directly teasing out this point.

This is what I meant by flipping the script. It's just a matter of perception, and that itself can be changed. It shifts with culture. If you think work is a chore then it will be a chore. If you think it is fun then it will be that, at least some of the time. If innovations come around that make it more fun regardless, culture will shift where less will think of it as a chore. These things build upon themselves.

Keep in mind play is not responsibility-free - it has an associated time/opportunity cost. Taking a trip around Europe for a couple weeks, I'd say that's great. The experience can be life-changing... it can bring alot of value for the time spent. Being locked in a room playing some online game for a few weeks... not so great. It might be fun to some degree, but it can be deleterious for one's health, personal relationships, work life, etc. It can actually be harmful.

As a working engineer for the past dozen years I can agree that many times work is a chore. But, and this is a big but, every once in awhile I get a project that is so challenging, so meaty, so impactful that it is far more fun than anything else I can imagine doing. Those projects are the kinds of things I stay at work late for, when I get home even VPN to the office to continue working until I pass out, then get in early to the office because I can't wait to get back to it. YMMV, but I think quite a few HN folk can relate. Some people this might describe their job entirely. The gamification is implicit in the work itself.

I think there's a huge industry waiting to be tapped here, and once it finds its footing human productivity will go up a few notches. The biggest problem is what we currently have is a bit cheesy and too obvious, perhaps to the point where it makes the user feel foolish/duped. That needs to be overcome.

[gradstudent]

For the vast majority of people work is always a chore. It's a commodity you use to barter with your employer; in exchange you receive money that allows you to live.

You argue that sometimes work is "fun". I think a more accurate description is that work can sometimes be engaging. Like when you're presented with a problem that's right at the edge of your abilities but not out of reach. Yet it's still work. Unlike play, work carries with it stress and responsibility. There are consequences if you screw up. Worse if you stop entirely. None of these are true for play.

Gamification is bullshit because it encourages the perception that these differences don't exist or that they don't matter. It's a flat out lie. Work is not play. Accept it. Move on.

[evanwolf]

Play is a frame of mind, not a contractual relationship. If it weren't, nobody would take mmorpgs seriously, and they do; the consequences may not involve your paycheck but it's harsh when you let your team down.

Playfulness shows up at work all the time, although not necessarily in ways that promote the bottom line.

Play mindsets can be encouraged in the workplace when they don't emerge spontaneously. Whether those efforts are successful for a given person on any given day...? It's still pushing a rock uphill.

Game design and reward systems are trying to find a path that doesn't suck. It may take another decade of experimentation before ten thousand failed attempts show the obvious and elegant ways to make more workplace leaders look like your favorite camp counsellor, recess organizer, or dungeon master.

[gradstudent]

> Play is a frame of mind

It's more than that. The environment matters. Real play is risk free. You can do whatever you want and there are no consequences. This is not true for work.

At the end of the day business doesn't want their employees to treat work as play; they just want them to be more engaged while at work. But instead of looking at why their workers are disengaged they hire people who set up cute little games and contests and tell people to pretend they're not actually working. Which is all well and good until somebody drops the ball and they get fired. Whoops. Sorry Bob. I guess you didn't understand we weren't actually playing after all.

Gimme a break. Gamification is just bullshit newage snakeoil.

[zachsnow]

What others perceive as work can certainly be play. For example, if I've saved enough money in my rainy day fund then there are no consequences for ceasing 'work', so perhaps by your reasoning what seems to be work could really be play to me.

I wish my rainy day fund were that big.