The Hidden Dangers Of 'Life Gaming'

by Josh Lovison, Apr 23, 2010, 1:45 PM

• Comment
• Recommend (24)
• Tweet
• 

I recently spoke to a class at USC, and in the Q&A afterward was asked a very interesting question: "Do you think everything will be a game?" It's a question I've been pondering for a while, but actually being asked by someone forced me into an answer. Before sharing why I don't think everything will be a game, let me point out a video from DICE2010 that makes a strong case for "Life Gaming." The 30-minute clip is well worth watching and makes a number of great points.

Foursquare motivated people to check in at their locations by making it into a game, while the founder's game-less predecessor (Dodgeball) failed. "FarmVille" is the fastest growing media property to 50 million users, reaching that benchmark four and a half months since it's release. Virtual goods ( buying "nothing") was a billion dollar industry in 2009. Despite these points and the ones brought up in the video, there's a serious danger to the prospect of life as a game.

The issue at hand is one of motivation. Gamers don't wake up with a strong desire to tap a button several hundred times -- it's the framework around those button-presses that gets people engaged. The problem with "life as a game" is that we are motivated to do many things in life simply for their own sake. Making a game out of those actions endangers our very willingness to do them.

There's a psychological effect at play here called the "Overjustification effect." A classic example of this effect was two groups of students, both asked to solve puzzles. One group was paid, and the other was not. The first group was then told they would no longer be paid, but was given the option of continuing to solve puzzles for free. Member of that group then showed a marked decrease in puzzle-solving interest, below the level of interest shown by the non-paid group.

When we take a task we actually enjoy doing, or decide to do for certain external reasons, and then are given a new reason to participate in that activity, if the new reason is compelling enough, it can replace the original reasons. So the idea of creating a "game" out of brushing one's teeth, or even buying a particular product, endangers the reasoning behind why we do that in the first place. Now, I'm sure most marketers out there think "well, who cares what the reason is, as long as they are buying the product!" But it's not quite so simple.

As any good game designer knows, there is an increase in expected rewards. I may start out a game killing snakes, but I eventually want to kill dragons. If rewards remain constant, we get used to them. Consider a "point" system for brushing teeth. Each time users brush, they get 10 points, and can do this twice daily. Initially, there is sufficient incentive, but after two months, they have over a thousand points. Suddenly the extra 10 points is less motivating.

Even when rewards scale over time, every gamer gets burnout. Users might have several level-80 characters in "World of Warcraft" (WoW), an investment of literally months of their lives. At a certain point, many of these users quit, or jump ship to a new game that doesn't offer only incremental rewards, but an entirely new reward "ladder." It is not a coincidence that last year, for the first time, WoW had no subscriber growth.

Now, this isn't to say some things don't have a role as a "game." If "FarmVille" had special paid goods that went toward charity, it could be a huge influx of otherwise unrealized revenue for a cause. Product registration, usually a low intrinsically motivated activity for consumers, could be tied into a "game" and greatly increase registration rates.

But I would strongly caution against a brand providing constant rewards for an activity their customers are already doing. This might increase activities for a year to two years, but it would enable the competition to steal market share by creating a better "game" instead of a better product. And even brand loyalists will lose their overall brand affinity when their interest in the "game" wanes.

Eventually, in the end, gamers will burn out. And if that game is the "game of life," there are major implications when the switch moves from "Level Up!" to "Game Over."

• Comment
• Recommend (24)
• Tweet
• 

0 comments on "The Hidden Dangers Of 'Life Gaming'".

1. Mike Spring from Voice Coaches
   

   commented on: April 23, 2010 at 3:34 p.m.

   A really terrific commentary, and you bring up a lot of interesting points. As someone who doesn't play FarmVille or any of those types of games, I wonder what it will take to engage myself and others like me.

   This strikes me as a case of "only time will tell..."

2. Kesavan Sampanthar from Cynergy Systems
   

   commented on: April 24, 2010 at 9:57 a.m.

   I think you touch on some interesting points in this article and counter some of the ideas in Jesse Schell's talk. To the larger question of whether everything in life will be a game I think you are right in saying that is unlikely and unadvised. On a related topic that you touched on, motivation theory, the overjustification effect is only part of the story. Motivational design research, drawing from neuroscience, behavioral economics, social media theory etc. is in it's early stages still. The effect of money as a reward warps our motivational drives and you need to separate out that from other extrinsic motivations. Extrinsic motivation is definitely never the best form of motivation, but there is more to intrinsic rewards than meets the eye; reputation, recognition and other ideas from sociology have a great impact on designing rewards.
   This is an interesting field and we are going to hear a lot more from motivational design theory in the next decade. Everything in life might not be a game, but everything in life can be enhanced as we understand more about the motivational circuits in our brains and games happens to be the best implementors of motivation at the moment and there is a lot to be learned from them. I agree that brands need to be wary of jumping on the bandwagon of plastering game mechanics on their products BUT I think brands can greatly increase the engagement of their customers through the right kinds of motivational design.
   Games as metaphor for design shouldn't be taken too literally, but let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. We have more to learn from the open source movement when it comes to motivational design theory then games like halo BUT mafia wars, farmville and World of Warcraft have some really interesting mechanics that can be leveraged very effectively.
   Kes Sampanthar
   Director of Media Strategy
   Cynergy Systems

3. Ngoc T from Iowa
   

   commented on: May 13, 2010 at 9:40 a.m.

   Great effort on a unique, and potentially difficult topic. Got me thinking about how other areas of marketing outside of the gaming industry could learn from this business model.

Leave a Comment