I mostly agree with this write-up, but I also think it’s not the most useful framework. I’d argue “gamification” as used in the tech industry (and increasingly outside it, as per the piece) is a little meaningless, because “gamification” supposedly means applying game mechanics to tasks, but game mechanics are themselves often attempts to simulate accomplishing real world tasks (though admittedly in a pleasurable way). The idea of a progress bar is often used as an example of simple gamification, but surely lumping in a progress bar, which is genuinely useful so you know how many forms you have left to fill or whatever, with the patronizing condescension of many of these mechanics isn’t a particlarly useful grouping.

Because of my work (I do software consulting for nonprofits and do-gooders), I often get asked about “gamification,” so I’ve done several dives into the scientific literature about whether it actually works. Here’s a typical example of what you’ll always find if you do that:

The paper examines the state of current research on the topic and points out gaps in existing literature. The review indicates that gamification provides positive effects, however, the effects are greatly dependent on the context in which the gamification is being implemented, as well as on the users using it. The findings of the review provide insight for further studies as well as for the design of gamified systems.

And of course it depends on the context. All those work-productivity schemes described in the linked piece are so obviously bullshit cooked up by some b2b consultancy. Every single person who has ever had a job knows in their bones it’s bullshit.

I’ve put forth what I think is a more useful framing here. Very, very short version: Computers are general-purpose machines capable of doing many simple tasks very quickly. Their primary purpose is to simplifiy a lot of inputs into fewer outputs, thus allowing their human users to make sense of a complex world by simplifying it. Capitalism tends to use computers backwards, such that we end up being simplified, rather than being presented with a simplified world. Being simplified is a bad user experience.

I think framing might help explain the debate happening in the comments here, too. “Gamification” can be used to make apps more addictive, but they can also be used to motivate people to do things they want to do. The question isn’t whether gamification itself is bad, but whether computers are being used to help us or extract from us. In the latter case, dressing them up like a game is demeaning and dystopian.