Literature Review on Web Application Gamification and Analytics

Yongwen Xu
Collaborative Software Development Lab
Department of Information and Computer Sciences
University of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI
yxu@hawaii.edu

CSDL Technical Report 11-05

http://csdl.ics.hawaii.edu/techreports/11-05/11-05.pdf

August 2011
Copyright
c Yongwen Xu 2011
Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Related Works 3
2.1 Defining Gamification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 Gamification Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.1 FourSquare : Check-in to Unlock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.2 Nike+: Making Fitness Fun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.3 Microsoft RibbonHero - Making You Better Your Job . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.4 RecycleBank - Making the World Sustainable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3 Gamification Related Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3.1 Serious Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3.2 Persuasive Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3.3 Gameful Interaction Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4 Why Games and Now . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4.1 Ancient Board Games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4.2 Angry Birds: the Additive Casual Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4.3 FarmVille: Social Games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4.4 World of Warcraft : Alone together in MMORPG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.5 Why Gamification ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.5.1 Game can change the world . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.5.2 A Game Layer On Top Of The World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.5.3 Game Based Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.6 Science behind Gamification : Motivation and Behavior Change . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.6.1 Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.6.2 Player Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.6.3 Fogg Behavior Model in Persuasive Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.6.4 Persuasion Profiling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.7 Gamification Debates and Critiques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.7.1 Gamification is Bull*it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.7.2 Poinstification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.7.3 Can you gamify a suicide hotline? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.7.4 Intrinsic Vs Extrinsic rewards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.7.5 Gabe Vs Sebastin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.7.6 Pawned. Gamification and Its Discontents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.8 Gamification Design: HOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

1
 2.8.1 Gamification 1.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.8.2 SCVNGR Game Mechanics Playdeck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.8.3 Four Keys to Fun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.8.4 Gamification Design Frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.8.5 Smart Gamification (2.0?) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.9 Gamification Service and Platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.9.1 Commercial products and services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.9.2 Mozilla - Open Badges Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.9.3 Open Source Gamification Platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.10 Gamification Analytics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.10.1 E-Score . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.10.2 social game metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.10.3 Metrics for Gamification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3 Conclusion and Future 28

4 Appendix 30
4.1 Game Mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.2 Game Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

2
 Abstract

As Gamification quickly becomes the hot debating topic across a wide range of industries and
academia, it deserves more thorough studies and researches both qualitatively and quantitively.
This document intends to survey this recent phenomenon of gamification being argued as a world
changing layer or a useless buzzword. It provides a comparative review of different school of
thoughts on the effectiveness of applying game mechanics to non-game context. Both industry
implementations and academia researches are reviewed and analyzed. With the goal of providing
an empirical research basis on effectively gamifying web applications, the current methodology of
game related analytics is also surveyed.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Wikipedia defines gamification is the use of game play mechanics for non-game applications, par-
ticularly consumer-oriented web and mobile sites, in order to encourage people to adopt the appli-
cations. [61]

The term is almost not exists until in February 2010, as part of the DICE 2010 conference,
Game designer and professor from Carnegie Mellon, Jesse Schell gave a presentation future of
games that elements of games, is and will invade every part of our daily live [54] . The term
becomes prominent as several recent books such as Gabe Zichermanns Game Based Marketing
[70], who advocated the use of game mechanics in marketing as a form of loyalty program, and
Jane McGonigals Reality is Broken [37], who assures us that games will make us better and a
solution to the broken reality, and Baron Reevess Total Engagement [49], who elaborates games
and virtual world will change the way people work and business compete. In the SXSW 2011,
Google backed startup SCVNGR CEO Seth Priebatsch talks about game is the new layer that
similar to the social layer, will change the world. [47]

In IT industry research, Gartner predicts that by 2015, more than half of companies managing
innovation processes will employ Gamification, a process of applying game mechanics to non-game
contexts.[24] . In that same time frame, M2 Research forecasts that the game mechanics produc-
tion will generate 1.6 billion in revenues and will account for 23 percent of social media marketing
budgets. [50]. As of today, Existing gamified applications already range from productivity to fi-
nance, health, sustainability, news, user-generated content and e-learning. Several vendors, mainly
startups offer gamification as a service layer of reward and reputation systems with points, badges,
levels and leader boards, with a spur of venture capitals investment in this emerging industry.

In the newly release Gartner Hype Cycle report, gamification, along with big data and internet
of things, are added to the 2011 hype cycle, that werent present in 2010. According to Gartner,
currently gamification is on the rise to the peak of the hype, the stage of the peak of inflated
expectation, with 5-10 years of mainstream adoption. [see figure 1.1]. Gartner use the hype
cycle theory to track technology adoption, after the peak period, the technology will slip into the
trough of disillusionment and some technologies will start climbing the slope of enlightenment and
eventually reach the plateau of productivity. As any technology, Gamification will inevitably slip
into the disillusionment trough where the hype is passed and the mass realize there are a lot of

1
unsolved and criticism will arrive. The question remains if gamification will eventually climb out
of the trough and appear in the plateau of the cycle.

Figure 1.1: 2011 Gartner Hype Cycle

In fact, there are already quite a lot critique of gamification in the media. Some called it a
merely buzzword, a hype-up version of mileage loyalty program, or a superficial pointification,
where often misses element such as storytelling and experiences which are central to what make
games effective. [52]. More and more game designers and researchers are looking into the deeper
practice of gamification. Amy Jo Kim presents Smart Gamification which focus on designing the
effective Player Journey with intrinsic preferred over extrinsic reward.[31]. Jane Mcgonigal is em-
phasizing the aspect of Playfulness in an gamification instead of game mechanics.[39]. Similarly,
researcher Sebastian Deterding criticized the current practice of simple gamification and stress the
important of meaningful play in his popular google tech talk Getting Gamification Right. [16]

Gamification is openly becoming an IT phenomenon where it is being argued to lies in between

a meaningless buzzword and a layer that will change the world.

The goal of this paper is to review the deferent gamification design thoughts and approaches
as throughout as possible, and to examine most of the commonly employed game mechanics with
their usages, effectiveness. In order to provide a quantitative insight of the research in gamification,
we propose to examine the gamification metrics of the gamified applications, so the current state
of game related analytics research are also surveyed.

2
Chapter 2

Related Works

2.1 Defining Gamification

Although gamification is a popular word nowadays, there are quite a few definitions came from
different fields. Marketing industry defines gamification as integrating game dynamics into your
site, service, community, content or campaign in order to drive participation.[10]. Wikipedia defines
gamification as the use of game play thinking and mechanics to solve problems and engage audiences.
[61]. They all seems evolve gamification with the goal of engagement. Some others considers any
game related application is gamification, including serious game, playful interaction and game-
based technologies. Researcher Sebastian Deterding proposes an academic definition: Gamification
is the use of game design elements in non-game contexts. [15]. It consists of 4 components:
1. Game: It is different than playful interaction, playful design.
2. Element: It is not the complete game such as a serious game.
3. Non-game Context: Similar to serious game, it uses game for other purposed than games
normal expected use for entertainment.
4. Design: It is not game-based technologies or practices of wider game ecology.
Figure 2.1 illustrates the distinction with serious games and playful interaction.

Figure 2.1: Defining Gamification

3
2.2 Gamification Examples
There are many examples of application that effectively employs game design elements. We will
only briefly discuss a few here for the purpose of better understanding the gamification concept
and how it is utilized across a wide range of everyday life. The example list here is solely personal
selection with the hope to cover the broad range of influential gamification cases and in no way a
completed list. In this quickly evolving landscape, it may well be a risk of missing some eminent
ones.

2.2.1 FourSquare : Check-in to Unlock

FourSquare [22] is a location-based game-like service where players check-in to locations for virtual
points and rewards. It is probably the most recognized forerunner of applying game mechanics to
location-based networking application and made badges rewarding a common practice in most of
catch-up gamified applications. Foursqure proved that simple game mechanics can affect behavior
that can engage 10 million customers and being a successful business model. By employing gamifi-
cation elements such as points, badges, levels and leaderboards, it engages users to revisit a location
such as restaurant or pub and become a loyal customer and finally the major of the place. Some
virtual rewards such as the mayors of Starbucks or certain badges could be converted into real
products, e.g. a free coffee.

Figure 2.2: Foursquare makes modern badges popular

4
2.2.2 Nike+: Making Fitness Fun
Nike+ [41] is a social running game-like service that employs game mechanics to encourage runners
- both casual and hardcore - to compete and improve their fitness, with the goal to solve the main
problem of fitness program: motivation. Nike+ makes it easy for runners to upload their run data
to the website and start challenging themselves and their friends, they can also get supports from
their friends.

Figure 2.3: Nike+ makes fitness run

5
2.2.3 Microsoft RibbonHero - Making You Better Your Job
RibbonHero [51] is a game that helps users discover new Microsoft Office features in a fun and
motivating way. The goal is to have users build familiarity and expose them to the Office UI, so
that they understand what kind of features are available, which according to the belief that Office
has a lot of powerful features that users might not know but can be really useful. The game gave
users a chance to game experience with software outside of typically dry IT training videos.

(a) Quest to earn points (b) Competing a task

Figure 2.4: RibbonHero Helps to Learn Office

2.2.4 RecycleBank - Making the World Sustainable

RecycleBank [48] introduces a series of Green Challenges that used gaming techniques to motivate
participants to learn about green living and to take small green actions to live more sustainable
lives. 49,000 individuals participated in the Green Your Home Challenges. Partnered with Google
Analytics and ROI research, they found that:

Gamification can increase awareness of positive environmental actions. 97% of participants

surveyed said the game increase their knowledge of environment.

Games can drive individuals to take positive social and environmental actions. Most partic-
ipants surveyed indicated they are very or extremely likely to take green actions as a result
of participating in the challenge.

Games are an effective and appealing educational tool. 86% participants agreed online games
and contest can be a good way to inform and educate them personally.

6
 (a) Green Your Home Challenge (b) Game Change Behavior

Figure 2.5: RecycleBank - Gaming for Good

2.3 Gamification Related Concepts

2.3.1 Serious Game
A Serious game is a game designed for a primary purpose other than pure entertainment (Wikipedia).
It includes categories such as educational games and advergames (advertising), political games, and
training game (also known as game-learning).
One excellent example is Fold.it, which made the headline [30] by using game play to help solve
problems that computers cannot solve very well, in this case, online gamers were able to do what
biochemists have been trying to do for a decade: decipher the structure of a protein that is key to
the way HIV multiplies.
The difference between Gamification and Serious game is not very clear. Both are trying to solve
a problem with game thinking. Some reference serious game such as Foldit as a victorious exmaple
of gamification in science [9]. Sebastian Deterdings definition [15] illustrates that gamification are
total different than serious game.
It is interesting to see that although the concept of serious games has been around since long
before gamification, gamification has arguably steps into the mainstream whereas serious games
stay in much smaller scale.

2.3.2 Persuasive Game

The term Persuasive game is introduced in the title book Persuasive Games, The Expressive
Power of Video games by Ian Bogost [8]. In the book, Bogost argues that video games have a
unique persuasive power that goes beyond other forms of computational persuasion. Not only can
video games support existing social and cultural positions, as in Serious games, but they can also
disrupt and change those positions, leading to potentially significant long-term social change, as in
Persuasive games.
Persuasive game is closely tied to Persuasive Technology, designed to change attitudes or be-
haviors of the users through persuasion and social influence, but not through coercion [21].
Loren Baxter [4] posted that persuasive design, the use of psychology in design to influence
behavior, could benefit UX design in a new level, hinting the use in gamification design as well.

7
2.3.3 Gameful Interaction Design
According to The Interaction Design Association (IxDA), [63], Interaction design defines the struc-
ture and behaviors of interactive products and services, and user interactions with those products
and services. It is design principle with main focus on behavior. [42].
For example, the SmartGauge dashboard for Fords hybrid cars (figure), where a digital plant
is responding to how energy-efficient the users driving behavior is. [27]. The design gives drivers
a game like interaction that for them, the game to grow more lush and beautiful leaves, a visual
reward, by driving efficiently, desired behavior.
Another great example is the Piano Staircase created by Volkswagen Sweden and ad agency
DDB, installed in a metro station in Stockholm (figure). [56]. The design is to make the staircase
next to the escalator look and respond like a piano keyboard, so that every step on the stair will
generate different piano sounds every time a commuter walked on it. Observation indicates that
66 percent more people chose the staircase over the escalator, a good example of a Fun Theory
design for persuading and encouraging energy-efficient behavior.

(a) Efficiency Leaves (b) Piano Stair or Escalator

Figure 2.6: Gameful Interaction Design

The goal of such gameful interaction design is to achieve a certain influence, a change in the
behavior of their users not through a mode of informative feedback and rational processing, but
through the activation of emotion or sensibility.

2.4 Why Games and Now

Gamification is not about games, in fact as a subject gamification is deals with everything else but
games. But the research in gamification have to largely base on the studies of games. The games
already prove to be an effective engaging media and ubiquitous as every day life. Video game is
everywhere is the critical thesis of many gamification advocates.
Why game? Researchers published the results of a study in the May 1998 issue of Nature [] that
demonstrated that video game players experienced regular releases of dopamine during game play.
Dopamine is a neurotransmitter that signals pleasure rewards for food, sex and addictive drugs,
such as cocaine. This and subsequent studies have proven that playing games stimulates pleasure
centers in the brain. People are hard-wired to enjoy games.

8
 Carnegie Mellon University professor and game designer Jesse Schell, who ignited the first
wave of interest in gamification with a keynote address at the 2010 Design Innovate Communicate
Entertain (D.I.C.E.) Summit, mentioned that he was surprised so many people took interest in his
presentation now. He had talked about the phenomenon for years with little response. Even before,
back in 2008, Gabe Zichermann coined the term funware, which is the use of game mechanics
in non-game contexts to encourage desired user actions and generate customer loyalty [wikipedia].
But now the term gamification replaces funware and climbs to the peak of the hype cycle within
one year.
Why Now? According to Schell, Were moving from a time when life was all about survival to a
time when it was about efficiency into a new era where design is largely about whats pleasurable.
Online games have entered the mainstream and become the new revolution of culture shift, helped
by platforms such as smart phones, tablets and Facebook, and gamification is a way to arrive at a
fundamental understanding of what it is thats pleasurable to people from many aspects of life.
In his book Total Engagement [49], Stanford professor Byron Reeves describes a Game
Tsunami is happening now, Games Are Big in three ways:
1. Big Bucks. Game industry is already a $10 billion market, one of the largest existing
entertainment categories. Besides the traditional console and software sales, the current model of
subscription fees, virtual goods sales and in-game purchase also account for the huge revenue for
the game industry.
2. Big People. The stereotype about the majority gamers are unemployed youth is easily
proved wrong. One research reveals that across all computer games, the average age of gamers is
thirty-five, and 26 percent of players are over fifty, an increase from 9 percent in 1999. Another
research shows the mean household income of players in one popular MMO (Multi-Player Online
game) was about $85,000, and almost two-thirds of the players have some college education.
3. Big Time. One sizable cohort of players who are thirty-something, most with a full-time
job and many with a family, play MMOs over twenty-five hours per week, compared with seven
hours a week for all video games.
One the similar landscape, researcher and game designer Jane McGonigal also advocate playing
game is the solution to the Broken Reality in her book[37]. She notes that currently more than 3
billion hours a week is spent in playing video game by our society, for good reasons. She says that
the average gamer plays 10,000 hours of games by age 21. Thats about the same number of hours
that students spent in high school and middle school. There are 500 million gamers today, playing
on all sorts of platforms from the iPhone to the game consoles. Instead of the common conception
that gaming is a waste of time, she argues that playing games is the single most productive thing
we can do with our time.
The following sections examine a few popular games and genre to understand why game give
games such power in our society.

2.4.1 Ancient Board Games

In the British Museums department of Greek and Roman antiquities, there is an exhibition section
about ancient games. The description of the exhibition states that We know very little about
how most ancient games were played. Their rules were probably too familiar for people to take
the trouble of writing them down.. A favorite subject of Greek vase-painters was Ajax and
Achilles playing a kind of board game called backgammon as exhibited in the British Museum
(Figure 2.7). It is noteworthy that both Ajax and Achilles have the full armor on while playing

9
the game. According to Arthur A. Krentz.[32] Platos Republic states the connection between play
and education of both adult and children. He points out that, etymologically in Greek the terms
paideia, the word for education/culture, paidia, the word for play/game/pastime/sport and
paides the word for children, have the same root, and the three terms often show up in the same
context. The central aim of pedagogy (paidagogia) is to encourage learning as a form of play
(paidia), which is the most persuasive and effective approach to learning for the free citizens in a
society which honors philosophers..
Another set of pieces belonging to a game exhibited are the label-shaped ivories, inscribed
on one side with words, such as MALE (E)ST (means bad luck), NUGATOR (trifler), etc.,
and on the other with numbers. The whole series of numbers on these ivories runs from 1 to 25,
and includes in addition 30 and 60; The highest numbers have inscriptions of a complimentary
character, e.g., FELIX (lucky) and BENIGNE (kindly).[59] The pieces may have been used in
the Roman game called the game of soldiers. In the current day world, one can relate the worded
and numbered ivory pieces to the badges in modern games.
An important game antique in the British Museum is the Royal Game of Ur, dated from the
First Dynasty of Ur, before 2600BC. It is one of the most popular games of the ancient world, and
probably the oldest set of board game equipment ever found. The beauty of the equipment is still
amazed by the audience today. Wikipedia notes that the game of Ur is still played in Iraq. [62].

(a) Ajax and Achilles Playing (b) Ancient Game Badges (c) The Royal Game of Ur

Figure 2.7: The Beauty of Ancient Board Games

2.4.2 Angry Birds: the Additive Casual Game

In todays tech world, no gaming platform is completed without the new star game Angry Birds.
This simple game has been downloaded over 300 million times, and has been played roughly 200
million minutes a day across the world, that is 1.2 billion hours a year. According to Nieman
Journalism Lab [5], all person-hours spent creating and updating the entire wikipedia totals about
100 million hours. That is half day of the Angry Birds play time.
Why is this seemly simple game so massively additive? Charles Mauro discussed the cognitive
ways of Angry Birds in Human factor engineering (aka usability engineering) for the sake of an-
swering the more important real world question, why users dont find their companys software
or product engaging?: [36] (1) Simple Engaging Interaction Concept: Angry Birds simple inter-

10
action model is easy to learn and incremental increase of complexity with anticipated rewards. (2)
Cleverly managed response time: In Angry Birds design, it is not faster is better, instead, differ-
ent birds have different trajectory time and the flight path of the bird is intentionally illustrated.
It solved one huge problem for user interfaces - error correction.It also take a seemly long time
for the pigs to expire once their house are collapsed, this non-functional time delay increases the
playfulness of the game and bring users entertainment.
Michael Chorost [12] explains that Angry Birds is addictive because: (1) its simple, with no
learning curve to get going; (2) its rewarding we get a primitive pleasure in blowing stuff up; (3)
its realistic the physics of the game are just as youd expect; and (4) its funny the sounds, laughter
and backflips are amusing. The anticipation of reward puts your dopamine system into overdrive,
which makes you compulsively want to know what will happen when you fling the next bird.

2.4.3 FarmVille: Social Games

With the motto Connecting the world through games, Zynga who found in 2007 quickly become
the top game company catching up to the more traditional establishment such as EA and Activision
Blizzard. With the help of social network platform Facebook, the FarmVille and CityVille quickly
become the most popular games within Facebook. Zynga later expanded the games into other
platform such as mobile and new google+ social network.
FarmVille has 71 million active players and although it is free to play, Zynga is estimated to
generate $50 million in revenue from the most engaged players who buy virtual goods in game.
Phil Michaelson [40] writes about 8 tactics that FarmVille uses to design for Engagement:
1. Reward users for returning in a short time period.
2. Reward users for helping friends every day.
3. Allow users to create without typing.
4. Show progresseverywhereon everything.
5. Make users feel lonely without friendsbecause if they get friends on, theyll stay longer.
6. Enable self expression.
7. Offer increasing levels of complexity for mastery.
8. Have surprises and limited time events.

2.4.4 World of Warcraft : Alone together in MMORPG

World of Warcraft (WoW) is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) with
11.1 million subscribers, currently the worlds most popular MMORPG.
From his research in MMORPG, Nick Yee, [68] describes 5 Motivation Factors for Why People
Play them:
(1) Relationship: This factor measures the desire to develop meaningful relationships with other
players in the game - usually in the form of a supportive friendship.
(2) Immersion: This factor measures the desire to become immersed in a make-believe construct.
Players who score high on this factor enjoy being immersed in a fantasy world they can wander
and explore.
(3) Grief: This factor measures the desire to objectify and use other players for ones own gains.
Their means may be both outward or subtle by killing or deceiving.
(4) Achievement: This factor measures the desire to become powerful within the construct of a
game. Players who score high on this factor try to reach the goals as defined by the game.

11
 (5) Leadership: This factor measures the gregariousness and assertiveness of the player. Players
who score high on this factor prefer to group rather than solo.
Most of the activities offered by a MMORPG are already present in single player games. What
makes a difference for many is apparently the shared experience, the collaborative nature of most
activities and, most importantly, the reward of being socialized into a community of gamers and
acquiring a reputation within it. [69]. its the people that are addictive, not the game
Based on longitudinal data collected directly from playing the game, Nicolas Ducheneaut etc
[19] concludes that
(1) WoW is not just communities, as most MMORGPs emphasize. In the basic, WoW truly is
a virtual Skinner box [67] , smoothly increasing reward and difficulty and reinforcing player com-
mitment along the way. Players are always on the edge of opening up new abilities, of discovering
new content.
(2) Many of WoWs subscribers play alone with a different kind of social factor, audience, a
sense of social presence. It is different than the quest grouping that providing direct support and
camaraderie. There are three appeals in being alone together in multiplayer games: (a). inter-
acting with an audience: MMORPGs are in essence reputation games - an avatar wearing powerful
items, for instance, is essential to the construction of a players identity (b). Being surrounded by
others. (c). Laughing at and with others.

2.5 Why Gamification ?

2.5.1 Game can change the world
In her popular and inspiring TED talk Gaming can make a better world [38] and her book Reality
is Broken, [37], researcher and game designer Jane McGonigal illustrated why good games make
us better, and how they can help us change the world. She said Reality is broken, and game
is the fix. Games are nothing more than unnecessary obstacles that we volunteer to tackle. Why
are we spending so much time on unnecessary obstacles? McGonigal says it has a lot to do with
eustress, or positive stress. Based on the findings of positive psychology, She argues that the blissful
productivity comes from the flourishing feeling, i.e., Positive Emotion, Relationships, Meaning and
Accomplishments.
Another instrumental work came from Byron Reevess book Total Engagement, [49]. He
argues that games, especially MMO type games and virtual worlds, can change the way people
work and business compete. He illustrates ten ingredients of great games and how to use them to
design a better productive work place. (1) Self-Representation with Avatars (2) Three-Dimensional
Virtual Environments (3) Narrative Context (4) FeedBack (5) reputations, ranks, and levels (6)
Marketplaces and economies (7) Rules that are explicit and enforced (8) Teams (9) Communication
system that can be reconfigured by participants (10)Time pressure.

2.5.2 A Game Layer On Top Of The World

Seth Priebatsch, young CEO at startup SCVNGR, gave a great talk at TED titled The game layer
on top of the world[47] . His main message is: Last decade was the decade of social. This next
decade is the decade of games. social layers purpose is to connect; a game layer is to influence.
How to build a game layer? He claims there are seven game mechanics that can get anyone to do
anything, and lists four of them: 1) Appointment dynamic: in which to succeed, players have to do

12
something at a predefined time, generally at a predefined place. 2) Influence and status: the ability
of one player to modify the behavior of anothers action through social pressure. 3) Progression
dynamic: success is granularity displayed and measured through the process of completing itemized
tasks 4) Communal discovery: a dynamic wherein an entire community is rallied to work together to
achieve something, to solve a challenge. It leverages the network that is society to solve problems.

2.5.3 Game Based Marketing

In his book Game Based Marketing, Gabe Zichermann stated that FunWare, aka, Gamification,
is about taking the lessons learned from the games industry around points and badges and levels
and challenges and achievements and bake those into any kind of life experience. Games can help
improve the outcomes in every aspect of life. Marketing has always been about a certain degree of
persuasion and motivation, and a degree of manipulation. Games do that most effectively. Game
mechanics and the psychological conditions (FunWare) exploit are powerful tools that marketers
can use, and they are a lot cheaper ... than cash in the long run. Games are the only force in
the known universe that can get people to take actions against their self-interest, in a predictable
way, without using force.. This resonates the volunteering attribute of game play in McGonigals
book.

2.6 Science behind Gamification : Motivation and Behavior Change

Researchers from psychology, game industries and academia, have studied the psychology of moti-
vation that makes online games so engaging. Online games are voluntary experiences that become
so addictive that people [who play them] wont even go to the bathroom [in the middle of a game],
Rigby pointed out.

2.6.1 Flow
Psychology professor Mihaly Czikszentmihalyi introduced a specific kind of happiness that he named
flow[13], which is widely accepted to be one of the fundamental reasons that people play games.
Flow, a state of absorption in ones work, is characterized by intense concentration, loss of self-
awareness, a feeling of being perfectly challenged (neither bored nor overwhelmed) and a sense that
time if flying.
As Csikszentmihalyi describes, there are seven core components of flow that are summarized
in Table 2.1. These components can be broken into two categories: conditions and characteristics.
Conditions must be achieved before flow can be reached. Characteristics occur while a person is in
flow, even though they may be unaware of it.
In order to achieve the flow, the right conditions above must exist. The last and the most
important condition is a balanced goal that is challenging yet achievable within the individuals
ability. A task that is not challenging or requires excessive time to complete becomes boring and
players lose interest; A task that is too hard causes frustration and anxiety and again players lose
interest. With a persons skills improve over time, the challenge needs to increase along with the
improving skills. This balance is referred to as the flow channel as shown in figure 2.1 (based on a
diagram from Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, p 74).

13
 Table 2.1: Flow Condition and Characteristics
Conditions of Flow Explanation
Clear tasks Person understands what they must complete
Feedback Person receives clear and immediate feedback showing what
succeeds and what fails
Concentration/focus Person is not distracted and can fully attend to the task
An attainable, balanced goal Goal is challenging and within their abilities to complete
Characteristics of Flow Explanation
Control Person believes their actions have direct impact on tasks and
that they can control the outcome
Diminished awareness of self Complete focus on the task leaves little room for feeling self-
conscious or doubt. Often described as becoming a part of
the activity.
Altered sense of time Perception of time is distorted. Seconds can feel like min-
utes, minutes like hours. Yet, time also passes by quickly,
unnoticed.

Figure 2.8: The state of flow is achieved between anxiety and boredom

14
2.6.2 Player Type
In order to understand why people play games, Richard Bartle identified four player personality
types by studying players of Multi-User Dungeon (MUD) games in 1960s. [3]. The four types:
Achievers, Explorers, Killers, Socializers, are based on the 2 underlying axes:
* Achievers are driven by in-game goals, usually some form of points gathering - whether
experience points, levels, or money.
* Explorers are driven to find out as much as they can about the virtual construct - including
mapping its geography and understanding the game mechanics.
* Socializers use the virtual construct to converse and role-play with their fellow gamers.
* Killers use the virtual construct to cause distress on other players, and gain satisfaction from
inflicting anxiety and pain on others.
Bartles player type model has been the basic for understanding the player motivation. Amy
Jo Kim applied the model in her gamification approach by overlaying social actions from the game
on top of the player types.

(a) Bartles Player Types (b) Kims Social Actions for Players

Figure 2.9: Player Types

2.6.3 Fogg Behavior Model in Persuasive Design

Stanford Universitys researcher BJ Fogg [21] introduces the Fogg Behavior Model (FBM) to explain
what causes behavior change. The model shows that three elements, Motivation, Ability, and
Trigger must converge at the same moment for a behavior to occur.
1.Motivation: the person wants desperately to perform the behavior (i.e. he is highly motivated)
2.Ability: the person can easily carry out the behavior (i.e. he considers the behavior very
simple)
3.Trigger: the person is triggered to do the behavior (i.e. he is cued, reminded, asked, called to
action, etc.)
Michael Wu uses FBM to analyze why and how gamification are able to drive actions. [64].
Game mechanics and game dynamics are able to positively influence human behavior because

15
 Figure 2.10: Fogg Behavior Model

they are designed to drive the players above the activation threshold (i.e. the upper right of the
ability-motivation axis), and then trigger them into specific actions. In other words, successful
gamification is all about making these three factors occur at the same time.
Wu describes a Fogg Behavioral Model and suggests that Gamification is an iterative process
and works best when motivation, ability, and trigger (what they are told) all three of these converge.
If a game you designed is not working, assess all three elements, figure out which elements need
changes and improvements, and then, redesign the game in your feedback system accordingly to
get the desired response.

2.6.4 Persuasion Profiling

Researchers at Stanford, [28], for example, have begun to develop the technique of persuasion
profiling. This technique builds a profile of which psychological triggers work best for a given
person, and uses these triggers to drive new behaviors in the future. In other words, beyond
focusing on what content someone might prefer, this approach determines the how to deliver it
most effectively.
[29] Cialdinis six principles of persuasion [2][3] - six ways of framing a persuasive request to
increase behavioral compliance : 1. Principle of reciprocation: People feel obligated to return a
favor. 2. Principle of scarcity: When something is scarce, people will value it more. 3. Principle of
authority: When a request is made by a legitimate authority, people are inclined to follow / believe
the request. 4. Principle of commitment and consistency: People do as they told they would. 5.
Principle of consensus: People do as other people do. 6. Principle of liking: We say yes to people
we like.

16
2.7 Gamification Debates and Critiques
Debate continues over whether gamification itself is inherently good or bad. That is, is its use
motivated by bad intentions to dupe people into doing things that arent necessarily in their best
interest? Or are some attempts at gamification merely poorly executed, so that its effects are
superficial and fail to transform peoples behavior in long-lasting, positive ways? If gamification is
fundamentally about tricking people to feel happier about situations that arent going to be better
[for them], then its problematic on a lot of levels both ethically and in effectiveness in the long
term, according to Kevin Werbach, a Wharton professor of legal studies and business ethics who
organized the conference with Dan Hunter, a professor at New York Law School. The question
is: What are the aspects of [gamification] that are really about meaningfully improving peoples
experience?
After his inspiring talk in DICE2010, Jesse Schell and Bryan Reynolds (Zynga chief designer)
discussed about Gamification vs. Gameplay in DICE 2011s opening session Hot Topic. [55]
. They are arguing in a very basic level of the definition of gamification. Brian considered Gam-
ification is where you use game elements to try to get people to do stuff they dont want to do,
while Schell responded that Its a problem solving situation that you enter into because you want
to. Reynolds argued Everyone who has tried to use game mechanics to improve their marketing
has only managed the most basic concepts, and Schell responded that this was the developers, not
the concepts fault.
In a debate-style session of GDC 2011, The Great Gamification Debate, [35] panelists ar-
gue the merits of bringing gameplay mechanics to just about everything. On the pro-gamification
side was Jane McGonigal (Social Chocolate), Margaret Robertson (Hide & Seek), and Jesse Schell
(Schell Games). On the other side of the table was Eric Marcoullier (OneTrueFan), Ross Smith
(Microsoft), Ian Bogost (The Georgia Institute of Technology), and Margaret Wallace (Playmat-
ics). Although they most agreed that definition of gamification was summed up best by Schell,
gamification is taking things that arent games and trying to make them feel more like games.,
there are a lot different opinions between the two sides. While Jesse Schell believes the gamification
is the cultural shift in every day life, Ian Bogost considers that the purpose of gamification is to
cash in on the current popularity of games. While Margaret Wallace said If a word gains traction,
why fight it?, Bogost disagreed, saying that words actually do matter. Regarding the concept
of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards through gamification, Schell notes the definition is squirrely.
While the idea of gamification is reduced by some to merely behavioral conditioning or creating a
kind of Skinner box for users, McGonigal maintained that users should at least find a reward of
value.
As we see now, while the gamification is hailed as the next big thing in our future of life, there
are a lot of criticism from academia and industry.
Designer Umair Haques post Unlocking the Mayor Badge of Meaninglessness [25] arguing too
much gamification is about zero sum games: often, for me to win, youve got to lose. For example,
many gamified sites simply offer a fixed number of badges, trophies, or other trinkets, to the first
N participants that, for example, visit six different pages. Thats because, third, many games are
relying on or worse, trying to create artificial scarcity.
Designer Stephen Andersons presentation Long After the Thrill: Sustaining Passionate Users [1]
argues (a) gamification mistakes extrinsic rewards (rather than intrinsic motivation) for the power
of games and hence offers only feedback, not goals & rules, (b) a long-term successful product or
service thats not pure entertainment most go beyond delight/entertainment and be first & foremost

17
useful.

Figure 2.11: Gamification is about extrinsic rewards [1]

Jane McGonigal, talked in GDC 2011 that We dont need no stinking badges: How to reinvent
reality without gamification, [39] argued gamification confuses intrinsic/extrinsic motivation and
propose Gameful Design instead of gamification. She claims that Gameful is player-oriented,
which presumes that the loyalty program type gamification is product or service oriented. While
the current gamification is about extrinsic reward, with points, badges, and levels, gameful design
is about intrinsic reward, with positive emotion, relationships, meaning and accomplishment.
Many critiques are surrounded with the suggestion that current gamification is shallow and
superficial, as Ben Sawyer states, is really gamification 1.0 (at best).. [53] Most gamification
does not provide and thus does not reward with in-game strategy. There is no grand mystery
to unravel, no in-game process to optimize, and so it really isnt a game. Instead what he see as
Gamification 2.0 is sort of something of a combination of alternate reality games and augmented
reality.
The followings are a few more eminent critiques of gamification:

2.7.1 Gamification is Bull*it

At the Wharton conference, Georgia Institute of Technology professor and game designer Ian Bogost
called gamification efforts exploitation-ware that is being invented by consultants as a means to
capture the wild, coveted beast that is video games and to domesticate it for use in the grey, hopeless
wasteland of big business. Gamification, he argued, gets games wrong, mistaking incidental
properties like points and levels for primary features like interactions with behavioral complexity..
In the GDC 2011 gamification debate, he states that To take something like games, which are
complicated, and substitute it out for points and badges is a very efficient way to get a hot culture
commodity into your product.

2.7.2 Poinstification
In her blog, [52], Game designer Margaret Robertson criticizes that Gamification is an inadver-
tent con. It tricks people into believing that theres a simple way to imbue their thing with the

18
psychological, emotional and social power of a great game. She states that Gamification is the
wrong word for the right idea. The word for whats happening at the moment is Pointsification.
The current use of gamification is a bad thing because its a misleading title for a misunderstood
process. Points and badges are the least important bit of a game, the rich cognitive, emotional and
social drivers which game designer are intending to connect with.
Pointsification, in and of itself, is a perfectly valid and valuable concept which nonetheless needs
to be implemented carefully with due concern for appropriateness and for unintended consequences;
while the actual gamification, (in her definition,) namely the conversion of existing systems into
functioning games, is also a valid and valuable process which carries its own concerns, in other
words, games are good, points are good, but games != points.

2.7.3 Can you gamify a suicide hotline?

Can you gamify everything? No, you can not gamify game. According to Gabe Zichermann, the
idea of baking game mechanics into everything you do is fun, but when asked how would you make
a suicide hotline fun, he admitted that adding games to a suicide prevention seems distasteful at
first, but he could add a game mechanics like a competitive environment in a call center setting.

2.7.4 Intrinsic Vs Extrinsic rewards

There are many debates against the current efforts of gamification that focus on extrinsic motiva-
tors (such as points, badges and rewards) versus intrinsic motivators generated by an individuals
internal will or desires. Nicole Lazzaro states that In the long run, extrinsic rewards are not fun,,
The use of extrinsic motivation will decrease motivation to use your products and services once
you remove that reward.... You have to keep upping the dose to have the same motivation and
change in behavior over time. [34].
Vockell [58] also resonates that in education psychology, Extrinsic motivators may lead to merely
short-range activity while actually reducing long-range interest in a topic, while in Intrinsic moti-
vators, people are best motivated when they are working toward personally meaningful goals whose
attainment requires activity at a continuously optimal (intermediate) level of difficulty.
But Carnegie Mellons Schell cautioned against writing off extrinsic rewards without a deeper
understanding of the psychology behind motivation. We dont fully grasp the complex relationship
between intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, he noted.[60]
Michael Wu argues that extrinsic rewards can jumpstart intrinsic motivation, [66] . The
key realization is that gamification doesnt have to work long term to create sustainable value.
It just has to work long enough for some other processes to take over as the primary driver of
value. Subsequently, gamification will become a secondary reinforcement system that facilitates
the primary value drivers..

2.7.5 Gabe Vs Sebastin

A very interesting debate [17] has been going on regarding the principles of gamification, between
Gabe Zichermann and Sebastian Deterding. It started with Sebastians long review on Gabes new
book Gamification by Design. Deterding claims the book misunderstands a number of pieces
of crucial terminology, makes half-knowledge statements against established research, especially
the theory of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and generally encourages the use of gamification

19
as a cheap marketing gimmick. He expressed his strong concern of Zichermanns misrepresentation
of a growing industry will hurt the industry in multiple ways.
Gabe responded that his book is a practical book for practical purposes, focused not on games
at all, but Gamification as a unique and hybridized discipline. Whether or not academics believe
the techniques in the book work, they are based on my experience with dozens of clients, interviews
with hundreds of practitioners, and extensive review of the literature and case studies.

2.7.6 Pawned. Gamification and Its Discontents

In his Playful 2010 talk Pawned. Gamification and Its Discontents [14], Sebastian Deterding crit-
icized the current gamifications potential pitfalls, along with a series gamification talks, workshops.
[18], [16].:
1. Foursquare has an engagement problem. He notes that although Foursquare accounts grows
from 2 million to 8 million in 2011, the daily checkins per user dropped from 0.5 to 0.34.
2. current gamified applications are very much like tic-tac-toe or Fisher Price toys: The oppor-
tunities users have to interact with them, and the kinds of challenges and interesting things to find
out and fiddle with in these systems are so limited that they quickly are exhausted.
3. when it comes to why games are fun leads, current gamification practices confuse intrin-
sic/extrinsic motivation to (a). mistaking points/feedback (= rewards) to be game design, rather
than rules/goals (= challenges). (b). overlooking the side effects of extrinsic rewards and quanti-
tative performance measuring.
4. gamification can be used for evil purposes, in an exploiting way.

2.8 Gamification Design: HOW

2.8.1 Gamification 1.0
Different game mechanics and elements can be used to serve different functions in satisfying players
needs, and the basic elements such as point, badge, leader board are the defining attributes of the
current gamification practices.[18]

(a) Game Mechanics and Elements Satisfies Human Needs (b) basic mechanics
(Bunchball)

Figure 2.12: Gamification 1.0

20
2.8.2 SCVNGR Game Mechanics Playdeck
Seth Priebatsch states that Back at SCVNGR, we like to joke that with seven game dynamics,
you can get anyone to do anything [47]. Beyond the seven, they actually have 47, illustrated in
a playdeck style published by TechCrunch [7]. It works as a set of flash cards and the SCVNGR
employees are instructed to memorize those and find places where these game dynamics exist in
their applications. Most of the mechanics in the deck are list in the Appendix of this review.
Subsequently, social interaction designer Adrian Chan posted a blog, I just killed a social
game mechanic, [11], comments on each of the decks 47 points and points out that the sociological
factors that makes social gaming is not listed in the deck and the confusion around game mechanics
and game dynamics.

2.8.3 Four Keys to Fun

By doing a research study of 15 hardcore gamers, 15 casual games, and 15 non-players [33], Nicole
Lazzaro identified the Four Keys to releasing players emotions during Play: Hard Fun, Easy
Fun, Serious Fun, and People Fun and most of the popular games selected in the research create
emotion in at least three of the Four Keys, thus she suggested that combining these four keys in
the game design will make a deeply enjoyable game for a wide market.
In her Game Developer Conference (GDC) 2011 talk [34], Nicole Lazzaro presented the applying
of the four keys to fun framework to design better engagement in games, especially the MSO
(Massively Social Online) games.

Figure 2.13: Four Keys to Fun Game Map

2.8.4 Gamification Design Frameworks

Game Design Framework: Mechanics/Dynamics/Aesthetics(MDA), introduced by game designer
Marc LeBlanc, describes three pillars of a good game: [26]

21
 Mechanics: the various actions, behaviors and control mechanisms afforded to the player within
a game context. They make up the functioning components of the game.
Dynamics: run-time behavior of inputs and outputs between player and game, They are the
players interactions with mechanics.
Aesthetics: The desirable emotional responses evoked by the game dynamics. They are how
the game makes the player feel.

2.8.5 Smart Gamification (2.0?)

Amy Jo Kim presents Smart Gamification which focus on designing the effective Player Journey
with intrinsic preferred over extrinsic reward. [31]. Kim points out that game techniques not equal
to core experience and intrinsic value greater than extrinsic rewards. Kim states that a good game
take the player on a journey toward mastery. When overtime players experience from newbie and
become regular and finally turns into enthusiast, they progress from novice to expert and last to
master. When designing the journey, Kim suggests to use different techniques to meet players
needs, where novices need onboarding, experts need fresh content, activities and challenges, and
masters need exclusivity, recognition and impact. Kim incorporates the MDA framework, using it
to guide and motivate the player journey.

(a) Player Lifecycle (b) Game Design

Figure 2.14: Designing Player Journey

Similarly, researcher Sebastian Deterding not only criticized the current practice of simple gam-
ification practices but stressed the important of meaningful play and proposed three user experi-
ence design: Meaning, Master and Autonomy.[16], an adaptation to the three elements to motivate
people in Daniel Pinks book Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. [46]:
Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose. Deterding explained that the reason why we play is because of
the meaning and autonomy with choice in the game. The mastery in the game give us fun and
enjoyment.

22
2.9 Gamification Service and Platform
2.9.1 Commercial products and services
This section outlines the current industry players that provides gamification service via platforms
or consultation service. [see figure 2.1]. Almost all of them are recent startups that funded by
venture capitals.

Figure 2.15: Gamification Service Industry

Here we take a brief look at the three most active players:

Badgeville [2] brands itself to be the worlds leading Social Loyalty Platform. Its products
include Dynamic Game Engine, providing an easy and flexible way to setup behaviors, rewards,
missions; Gamification Widget Studio, offering a collection of skinable and configurable game
mechanics widgets; Social Fabric, integrating social graph, social notification, relevant activity
streams for better social engagement.
Bunchballs [10] Nitro Platform provides a comprehensive set of game mechanics, besides the
normal points and badges levels, it provides Actions, Groups, Virtual Goods, Social networks,
Trivia, Poker, Comments etc. It is a fully integrated platform for engineers, designers, and mar-
keters. Another product that Bunchball introduced is the Nitro Elements, which is a suite of
cloud-based, simple plug and play apps, that is aimed for quick implementation of gamification.
The current elements includes FanBox (a reward system) and GameBox (hosted poker game).
BigDoor [6] also provides a platform with flexible API and customizable widgets to add game
mechanics to web sites, to reward users with points, badges, achievements and leaderboards. The
javascript based MiniBar widget is a quick way to add game layer to the website.
All of the above platforms feature built-in analytics built to provide some kinds of metrics about
the result of the gamification. While Badgeville seems emphasize on social integration; Bunchball

23
provides a comprehensive solution even with a game box; and BigDoor provides a simplest Mini-
Bar for easy non-technical integration into existing website.

2.9.2 Mozilla - Open Badges Infrastructure

Open Badges [43] is a project of Mozilla with support from the MacArthur Foundation to provide a
software infrastructure to making it easy to issue and display badges across the web. It uses shared
badges as the recognition for all types of learning and achievement that take place anywhere,
such as a skill learned from after-school program, a certification earned or simply an achievement
of providing useful technical answers. The badges could be displayed in the personal or social
website, or being used in the job search as a convenient showcase of applicants qualification.

Figure 2.16: Mozilla - Open Badges Infrastructure

2.9.3 Open Source Gamification Platform

Userinfuser [57] is an open source platform that provides customizable gamification elements de-
signed to increase user interaction on websites. The project involves badging, points, live notifica-
tions, and leaderboards. Additionally, the platform provides analytics to track user participation.
The current documentation shows the following widgets available in the platform.

24
 Figure 2.17: Open Source Gamification: Userinfuser Widget

2.10 Gamification Analytics

Ducheneaut and Yee etc [19] provides a good example of using game metrics for analysis of players
experience in a quantitative approach. They reported the relationship of playing time and leveling
in the MMORGs, as shown in the following figure:

(a) Average time required to reach a level (b) Average accumulated play time by level

Figure 2.18: Player Metrics

In the social game industry, player metrics collection and analysis are widely practiced to
provide game designers to determine what the player audience likes and dislikes about a certain
game experience. [44].
This section reviews what kinds of the metrics and analytics could be employed in gamification
design and implementation.

25
2.10.1 E-Score
E-Score is introduced by Gabe Zichermann, mainly applies in marketing gamification.[45] These
are the metrics that go into the score: Recency How long ago did they visit? Frequency How
often did they come back? Duration How long did they stay? Virality How many people have
they told about you? Rating What did they explicitly say when asked about you?

2.10.2 social game metrics

http://www.appdata.com/apps/facebook/102452128776-farmville
The Secret Glossary of Social Games Analytics: [20]
ARPU
A term carried over from Telecom companies, Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) is measured
as total revenue divided by the number of subscribers. This includes revenue from subscriber fees,
virtual goods, affiliate marketing and ad impressions. Because social games are so metrics-heavy,
ARPU can be broken down by day, by country, by demographic, or by pretty much any other
metric.
Churn
The turnover rate (or attrition rate) of a social games active players. The noise level in casual
gaming is extremely high, which means social games have a user base that is constantly changing
as gamers abandon the game or delete the Facebook app. Churn refers to this constant loss and
gain of members.
Cohort
A common term in statistics, a cohort is a group of subjects who have shared a particular
experience during a particular time span. In social gaming metrics, cohorts are used for analyzing
retention. By organizing users in groups such as everyone that visited on June 10th and analyzing
the percentage that revisit, you can pinpoint what promotions are having the greatest effect.
DAU
Daily Active Users (DAU) is just what it sounds like: the number of active users over the course
of a single day.
DAU/MAU
The DAU/MAU ratio is one of the hot metrics in social games. Comparing Daily Active Users
to Monthly Active Users shows roughly how many days per month your average user engages with
your game. If you have 500,000 daily users and 1 million monthly users, the DAU/MAU is .5,
translating to the average user logging in 15 days per month. The DAU/MAU ratio is strongly
correlated with social gaming success. According to Lisa Marino from RockYou, the minimum
threshold for DAU/MAU is .2. This is necessary for a game to hit critical mass virality and
engagement.
Engagement
Facebook players typically have dozens of active games at a time. Engagement measures how
long they spend playing your game. How many features do they access? Are they spending hours
or seconds? How many pages does the average user view? What percentage are returning visitors?
Entry Event
An entry event is the first action a user performs when they enter the game. Online social
games can track every action you perform, and the Entry Event Distribution is one of the more

26
important metrics to follow. What do your users do first? Which entry events are the most effective
at bringing people back?
For example, you might find that a majority of your users log in when they receive a gift, and
the first thing they do is check that gift. By determining the more popular entry events, you can
push more resources towards them, thus increasing retention, engagement and re-engagement.
Exit Event
The opposite of entry events. Exit events are the last actions a user performs before exiting the
game. Tracking the Exit Event Distribution helps show why users are disengaging with the game.
K Factor
K Factor measures the virality of your product. K Factor = (Infection Rate) * (Conversion
Rate). An Infection Rate is how much a given user exposes the game to other players, such
as through status updates or email invites. A conversion rate, as marketers know, is when that
infection results in a new sign up (or install.) Put more simply, a K Factor of 1 means every member
is bringing you one additional member. A high K Factor is treasured by social game publishers,
because it becomes a very effective vehicle for bringing in new players. Lifetime Network Value The
value a user provides to your network over the course of their entire lifetime on the network. For
instance, is the user contributing to viral effects? Evangelizing the game? Contributing positively
to ARPU? This is compared to the User Acquisition Cost, or how much it costs (via marketing and
viral efforts) to bring in new members. According to Facebook app analytics provider Kontagent,
a (very basic) equation is 1/(1-k) * Monthly ARPU * User Lifetime.
MAU
Like DAU, Monthly Active Users (MAU) tracks the total number of users in a given month.
Re-Engagement
Gamers stop playing eventually. Re-engagement is how you get them back. It includes re-
engaging gamers who have been signed off for an hour, a day, a month, or more. Theres a lot of
competition out there, so implementing and tracking re-engagement practices is a must.
Retention
Think of it as the opposite of churn. Retention is how well you maintain your userbase.
Viral Rate/Virality
Viral growth is the name of the social media game. Measured by K Factor, the Viral Rate/Virality
shows how much your users are promoting, evangelizing and spreading your game. Because of this,
social games are increasingly built around cooperation, competition and the constant addition of
new features, which increase virality. Every feature is a source for growth, whether its liking,
Facebook notifications or tweets. Not often confused with virility.

2.10.3 Metrics for Gamification

[65] http://lithosphere.lithium.com/t5/Building-Community-the-Platform/Relatively-Cheat-Resistant-
Rewards-and-Metrics-for-Gamification/ba-p/30889

27
Chapter 3

Conclusion and Future

As Gartner put it: [23] Games often model the real world. Increasingly, real-world activities are
starting to look like a game. In the past year, gamification has emerged as a recognizable trend.
Rarely does an emerging trend impact so many areas of business/society. Given that the goal of
gamification is to change human behaviors, there are many opportunities and risks.
So What? This industry has made massive study and progress with engagement. They have
taken the balance between challenge and skill in flow states and fully operationalized this mechanism
to keep people engaged, even glued to games. We who are in the workplace and the field of employee
engagement have much to learn by studying and applying the principles and practices of gaming.
We also must not get caught by gamification hysteria by keeping a focus on the limits and potential
traps embedded in gamification.
It seems the major take away of reading the debates of gamification is that, before the novelty
of simple gamification hadnt worn off, and it seemed like an amazing idea that everything could
be made more fun and motivational with achievements and points. Now we know its crucial that
we make good games, rather than take the easiest bits to reproduce (points) and apply them to
everything.
There was a definite feeling of, Were only at the start of something here, a turning point, so we
better steer it well throughout it all
In a field rife with anecdotes but little hard data, Whartons Werbach and New York Law
Schools Hunter intend to develop in-depth case studies to examine the types of business problems
organizations want gamification to solve, the techniques used and the results. According to Wer-
bach, there currently are few bridges between game design as a craft and psychological research.
Thats why research is valuable to get beyond whether gamification is good or bad, and does it
work or not.
Deterding [15] suggested that insight into gamefulness as a complement to playfulness in terms
of design goals as well as user behaviors and experiences marks a valuable and lasting contribution
of studying gamified systems. Partly in reaction to this, the term gameful design design for
gameful experiences was also introduced as a potential alternative to gamification. Given the
industry origins, charged connotations and debates Figure 1. Gamification between game and play,
whole and parts Figure 2. Situating gamification in the larger field about the practice and design
of gamification, gameful design currently provides a new term with less baggage, and therefore a
preferable term for academic discourse
** Important People to Follow:

28
Jane McGonigal
Ian Bogost
Jess Schell
....

29
Chapter 4

Appendix

4.1 Game Mechanics

The gamification wiki [ref] compiles a comprehensive list of gamification mechanics and categories
them into three types (Behavioral, Feedback, Progression) and their benefits in measurable metrics
(Engagement, Influence, Loyalty, User Generated Content (UGC), Time Spent, Virality) and other
non-metrics ( Fun, Revenue, SEO).

Table 4.1: Mega List of Game Mechanics and Benefits, part 1

Types Mechanics / Examples Benefits Personality
Types
Progression Achievements: normally represents as badge, Engagement, Loyalty, Achievers,
completed something Time Spent, Influence, Explorers,
Fun, SEO, UGC Killers
Progression Levels: a system of reward for a cumulation of Engagement, Loyalty, Achievers,
points, Often are unlocked as players progress Influence, Time Spent, Explorers,
to higher levels. Virality, Fun Killers
Progression Points: a running numerical value given for any Engagement, Loyalty, Achievers,
single action or combination of actions. Influence, Time Spent, Explorers,
Virality, Fun, UGC Killers
Progression Progression: success is granularly displayed and Engagement, Loyalty, Achievers,
measured through the process of completing Influence, Time Spent, Killers
itemized tasks, such as a progress bar. Fun, UGC
Feedback Appointment Dynamics: at a predetermined Engagement, Influence, Archivers,
times/places a user must return for a positive Time Spent Explorers,
effect Socializers
Feedback Bonuse: a reward after having completed a se- Engagement, Influence, Archivers,
ries of challenges or a specific task Time Spent, Virality, Explorers,
Fun, UGC Socializers,
Killers

30
 Table 4.2: Mega List of Game Mechanics and Benefits, part 2
Types Mechanics / Examples Benefits Personality
Types
Feedback Cascading Information Theory: information Engagement, Loyalty, Archivers,
should be released in the minimum possible snip- Influence, Time Spent Explorers,
pets to gain the appropriate level of understand- Socializers,
ing Killers
Feedback Combos: reward skill through doing a combina- Engagement, Influence, Archivers,
tion of things, usally comes with the reward of Time Spent, Virality Explorers,
a bonus Socializers,
Killers
Feedback Countdown: players are only given a certain Engagement, Fun, In- Achievers,
amount of time to do something. This will fluence Explorers,
create an activity graph that causes increased Killers
initial activity increasing frenetically until time
runs out, which is a forced extinction.
Feedback Quests/Challenges: Challenges usually implies Engagement, Loyalty, Achievers,
a time limit or competition whereas Quests are Revenue, Influence, Explorers,
meant to be a journey of obstacles a player must Time Spent, Virality, Killers
overcome. a way to organize player effort. SEO, Fun, UGC
Feedback Reward Schedules: The fixed or variable time- Engagement, Loyalty, Achievers,
frame and delivery of the rewards, contingency, Revenue, Influence, Explorers,
response, reinforcer. Time Spent, Virality, Killers
SEO, Fun, UGC
Behavioral Discovery/Exploration: players love to discover Engagement, Loyalty, Explorers,
and to be surprised. Influence, Time Spent, Achievers
Fun
Behavioral Epic Meaning: Players will be highly motivated Engagement, Loyalty, Achievers,
if they believe they are working to achieve some- Influence, Time Spent, Explorers,
thing great, something awe-inspiring, something Fun Socializers,
bigger than themselves. Killers
Behavioral Free Lunch: getting something for free due to Engagement, Loyalty, Achievers,
someone else having done work. Groupon Revenue, Influence, Explorers,
Virality, Fun Socializers,
Killers
Behavioral Infinite Gameplay: do not have an explicit end, Engagement, Loyalty, Achievers,
static state is its own victory. Revenue, Influence, Killers
Time Spent, Fun
Behavioral Loss Aversion: influences user behavior not by Engagement, Loyalty, Achievers,
reward, but by not instituting punishment. the Influence, Time Spent, Explorers
player having to perform an action to avoid los- Virality, Fun
ing something they currently have.

31
 Table 4.3: Mega List of Game Mechanics and Benefits, part 3
Types Mechanics / Examples Benefits Personality
Types
Behavioral Lottery: the winner is determined solely by Engagement, Loyalty, Achievers,
chance. winners will generally continue to play Revenue, Influence, Explorers,
indefinitely while losers will quickly abandon Time Spent, Virality, Socializers,
Fun Killers
Behavioral Ownership: creates Loyalty by owning things. Engagement, Loyalty, Achievers,
Revenue, Influence, Explorers,
Time Spent, Virality, Socializers,
SEO, Fun, UGC Killers
Behavioral Community Collaboration: an entire commu- Engagement, Influence, Archivers,
nity is rallied to work together to solve a riddle, Time Spent, Virality Explorers,
a problem or a challenge. Immensely viral and Socializers
very fun.
Behavioral Behavioral Momentum: a tendency of players to Engagement, Loyalty, Archivers,
keep doing what they have been doing Revenue, Influence, Explorers,
Time Spent Socializers,
Killers
Behavioral Blissful Productivity: playing hard rather than Engagement Archivers,
relaxing makes you happier Explorers,
Socializers,
Killers
Behavioral Status: The rank or level of a player. Players Engagement, Loyalty, Achievers,
are often motivated by trying to reach a higher Revenue, Influence, Socializ-
level or status. Also relates to envy. Time Spent, Virality, ers,Killers
SEO, Fun, UGC
Behavioral Urgent Optimism: The desire to act immedi- Engagement, Fun Explorers,
ately to tackle an obstacle combined with the Killers
belief that we have a reasonable hope of success.
Behavioral Virality: more successful in the game if you in- Engagement, Loyalty, Socializers,
vite your friends, the social check-in. Revenue, Virality, SEO, Achiev-
UGC ers,Killers

32
4.2 Game Elements
Game Elements are different than mechanics, as illustrated in the examples below, they manifest
the game information to the player, usually as a UI components.

Table 4.4: List of Game Elements

Elements Description and Examples
Activity Feed shows players what has been taking place in the system overall and
motivate the player to obtain the same achievement as others.
Avatars unique representations for a player. shows a high emotional attachment
between the player and the game. often customization and decoration
are enhancement for higer engagement.
Easter Eggs an intentional hidden message, in-joke.
Instances are created for players to have a unique experience that is outside the
normal experience. When a player creates a special unique page expe-
rience that allows to log into and view their unique content an instance
has been created.
Leaderboards are a means by which users can track their performance, subjective to
others. Leaderboards visually display where a user stands in regards to
other users. Leaderboards can be broken down into several subcategories
such as: Global, Friends, Relative, Isolated etc.
The Notifier is a direct way to give the user direct feedback about their progress,
change of status in the gameplay experience etc.
User Profile displays a Users data about their activity on a website and can be used
to tell the world and a community on the internet who they are.

33
Bibliography

[1] Stephen Anderson. Long after the thrill: Sustaining passionate users.
http://www.slideshare.net/stephenpa/long-after-the-thrill-sustaining-passionate-users, 2011.

[2] Badgeville. Badgeville. http://www.badgeville.com.

[3] R. Bartle. Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit muds. Journal of MUD research,
1(1):19, 1996.

[4] Loren Baxter. Why persuasive design should be your next skill set.
http://uxmag.com/design/why-persuasive-design-should-be-your-next-skill-set, 2011.

[5] Joshua Benton. I have found the cognitive surplus, and it hates pigs.
http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/12/i-have-found-the-cognitive-surplus-and-it-hates-pigs/,
2010.

[6] Bigdoor. Bigdoor. http://www.bigdoor.com.

[7] John Biggs. Scvngrs secret game mechanics playdeck. 2010.

[8] I. Bogost. Persuasive games: The expressive power of videogames. The MIT Press, 2007.

[9] Torie Bosch. Score one for gamification. 2011.

[10] Bunchball. Bunchball. http://www.bunchball.com.

[11] Adrian Chan. Scvngrs secret game mechanics playdeck. 2010.

[12] Michael Chorost. How i kicked my addiction to the iphone game angry birds. In Blog.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/world-wide-mind/201101/how-i-kicked-my-addiction-
the-iphone-game-angry-birds, 2011.

[13] M. Csikszentmihalyi. Flow: The psychology of optimal experience: Steps toward enhancing the
quality of life. Harper Collins Publishers, 1991.

[14] Sebastian Deterding. Pawned. gamification and its discontents.

http://www.slideshare.net/dings/pawned-gamification-and-its-discontents, 2010.

[15] Sebastian Deterding. From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining gamification.
MindTrek, 2011, 2011.

34
[16] Sebastian Deterding. Meaningful play. getting gamification right.
http://www.slideshare.net/dings/meaningful-play-getting-gamification-right, 2011.

[17] Sebastian Deterding. A quick buck by copy and paste. http://gamification-

research.org/2011/09/a-quick-buck-by-copy-and-paste/, 2011.

[18] Sebastian Deterding. There be dragons: Ten potential pitfalls of gamification.

http://www.slideshare.net/dings/there-be-dragons-ten-potential-pitfalls-of-gamification, 2011.

[19] N. Ducheneaut, N. Yee, E. Nickell, and R.J. Moore. Alone together?: exploring the social
dynamics of massively multiplayer online games. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on
Human Factors in computing systems, pages 407416. ACM, 2006.

[20] Matt Fairchild. The secret glossary of social games analytics.

http://www.wavedash.net/2010/04/the-secret-glossary-of-social-games-analytics/, 2010.

[21] B J Fogg. Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do.
Morgan Kaufmann, 2003.

[22] foursquare. foursquare. http://foursquare.com/.

[23] Gartner. Gamification primer: Life becomes a game.

www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?id=1528016, 2010.

[24] Gartner. Press release. https://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1629214, 2011.

[25] UMAIR HAQUE. Unlocking the mayor badge of meaninglessness. Haward Business Review
Blog, 2010.

[26] R. Hunicke, M. LeBlanc, and R. Zubek. Mda: A formal approach to game design and game
research. In Proceedings of the AAAI-04 Workshop on Challenges in Game AI, pages 15,
2004.

[27] IDEO. Hybrid electric vehicle interaction. http://www.ideo.com/work/hybrid-electric-vehicle-

dashboard-interaction, 2009.

[28] M. Kaptein. Adaptive persuasive messages in an e-commerce setting: The use of persuasion
profiles. 2011.

[29] M. Kaptein, P. Markopoulos, B. de Ruyter, and E. Aarts. Can you be persuaded? individual
differences in susceptibility to persuasion. Human-Computer InteractionINTERACT 2009,
pages 115118, 2009.

[30] F. Khatib, F. DiMaio, S. Cooper, M. Kazmierczyk, M. Gilski, S. Krzywda, H. Zabranska,

I. Pichova, J. Thompson, Z. Popovic, et al. Crystal structure of a monomeric retroviral
protease solved by protein folding game players. Nature Structural & Molecular Biology, 2011.

[31] Amy Jo Kim. Designing the player journey. http://www.slideshare.net/amyjokim/gamification-

101-design-the-player-journey, 2010.

[32] A.A. Krentz. Play and education in platos republic. In Twentieth Congress of Philosophy.
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Educ/EducKren.htm, 1998.

35
[33] N. Lazzaro. Why we play games: Four keys to more emotion without story. 2004.

[34] Nicole Lazzaro. Chasing wonder and the future of engagement. In Talk.
http://www.slideshare.net/NicoleLazzaro/chasing-wonder-and-the-future-of-engagement, 2011.

[35] Tom Magrino. Dice 2011 hot topic: Gameplay vs. gamification.
http://gdc.gamespot.com/story/6301575/the-pros-and-cons-of-gamification-, 2011.

[36] Charles Mauro. Why angry birds is so successful and popular: a cognitive teardown of the user
experience. http://www.mauronewmedia.com/blog/2011/02/why-angry-birds-is-so-successful-
a-cognitive-teardown-of-the-user-experience/, 2011.

[37] J. McGonigal. Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the
world. Penguin Pr, 2011.

[38] Jane McGonigal. Gaming can make a better world. 2010.

[39] Jane McGonigal. We dont need no stinking badges. http://www.slideshare.net/avantgame/we-

dont-need-no-stinkin-badges-how-to-reinvent-reality-without-gamification, 2011.

[40] Phil Michaelson. 8 ways farmville designs for engagement. In Blog.

http://www.philmichaelson.com/user-generated-content/8-design-tactics-farmville/, 2011.

[41] nikeplus. nikeplus. http://nikeplus.com/.

[42] D.A. Norman. The design of everyday things, volume 16. Basic Books New York, 2002.

[43] openbadges. openbadges. http://openbadges.org/.

[44] Nadia Oxford. Metrics vs. creativity: Killing video games?

http://gametheoryonline.com/2010/12/13/metrics-video-games-gaming-data/, 2010.

[45] Laurie Petersen. Gabe zichermann on gamification, fun and metrics.

http://econsultancy.com/us/blog/7283-q-a-with-gabe-zichermann-on-gamification-fun-and-
metrics, 2011.

[46] D.H. Pink. Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Riverhead Books, 2009.

[47] Seth Priebatsch. The game layer on top of the world. 2010.

[48] RecycleBank. Recyclebank. http://www.recyclebank.com/.

[49] B. Reeves and J.L. Read. Total engagement: using games and virtual worlds to change the
way people work and businesses compete. Harvard Business School Press, 2009.

[50] M2 Research. The gamification summit 2011 m2 research presentation.

http://www.slideshare.net/loyoyo/gamification-summit-2011-presentation-m2-research-final,
2011.

[51] ribbonhero. ribbonhero. http://ribbonhero.com/.

[52] Margaret Robertson. Cant play, wont play. http://www.hideandseek.net/2010/10/06/cant-

play-wont-play/, 2010.

36
[53] Ben Sawyer. Issues of gamification. http://bensawyer.wordpress.com/category/serious-games-
2/serious-game-design/gamification/, 2010.

[54] J. Schell. Design outside the box. DICE summit, 2010.

[55] Dennis Scimeca. Dice 2011 hot topic: Gameplay vs. gamification.
http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/710342/dice-2011-hot-topic-gameplay-vs-
gamification/, 2011.

[56] thefuntheory.com. Piano staircase. http://www.thefuntheory.com/piano-staircase, 2009.

[57] UserInfuser. Userinfuser. http://code.google.com/p/userinfuser/.

[58] E. Vockell. Educational psychology: A practical approach. Purdue University, 2004.

[59] HB Walters, British Museum. Department of Greek, and Roman Antiquities. A Guide to the
Exhibition Illustrating Greek and Roman Life. British Museum, 1929.

[60] Wharton. Can gamification advance to the next level?

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2829, 2011.

[61] Wikipedia. Gamification. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamification.

[62] wikipedia. Royal game of ur.

[63] Luke Wroblewski. Defining interaction design. http://www.lukew.com/ff/entry.asp?327, 2006.

[64] Michael Wu. The magic potion of game dynamics. http://lithosphere.lithium.com/t5/Building-

Community-the-Platform/The-Magic-Potion-of-Game-Dynamics/ba-p/19260, 2011.

[65] Michael Wu. (relatively) cheat resistant rewards and metrics for gamification.
http://lithosphere.lithium.com/t5/Building-Community-the-Platform/Relatively-Cheat-
Resistant-Rewards-and-Metrics-for-Gamification/ba-p/30889, 2011.

[66] Michael Wu. Sustainable gamification: Playing the game for the long haul.
http://lithosphere.lithium.com/t5/Building-Community-the-Platform/Sustainable-
Gamification-Playing-the-Game-for-the-Long-Haul/ba-p/33601, 2011.

[67] N. Yee. The virtual skinner box. http://www.nickyee.com/eqt/skinner.html, 2001.

[68] N. Yee. Facets: 5 motivation factors for why people play mmorpgs. www.nickyee.com, pages
114, 2002.

[69] N. Yee. Understanding mmorpg addiction. Retrieved February, 15:2008, 2002.

[70] G. Zichermann and J. Linder. Game-based marketing: inspire customer loyalty through re-
wards, challenges, and contests. Wiley, 2010.

37