Gamification Workshop with Amy Jo Kim:

THE SLIDES WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE BY AJK ON SLIDESHARE!!!

http://www.slideshare.net/amyjokim

1. Definitions of gamification -- its a matter of perspectives

a. Loyalty program on steroids
b. Using game techniques to turbo-charge their products e.g., ChoreWars
c. Use levels and rewards to drive behavior e.g., karate belts in real life
d. Turning real-world activities into “games” e.g., Nike Plus, Foursquare
2. Gamification currently experiencing a hype cycle - near the “Peak of inflated
expectations”.
3. Community has different players - game designers, user experience folks etc. The goal
is not necessarily to make a game but to make a compelling experience that unfolds
over time and your playes will be more engaged.

GAMIFICATION GLOSSARY

GAMIFICATION: using game techniques to make activities more engaging and fun

a. GetGlue (AJK client) -- core experience is ‘checking in to TV shows, movies etc.’

- extension of the 4sq model. Is it compelling? Remains to be seen. But what
they’ve done is added game techniques like quests/badges to “amplify” the user
experience
b. You really need to have a CORE EXPERIENCE THAT DELIVERS VALUE
before you jump into “gamifying” it
c. Game design and UX overlap here - player-centered vs. user-centered design
4. Extrinisc vs. Intrinsic Rewards
a. Daniel Pink book “Drive” -- read it!! Or watch his 15-min TED video. Punchline:
Extrinsic rewards are limited in their ability to motivate behavior. Intrinsic better.
b. Intrinsic examples = autonomy, mastery, satisfaction, learning, meaning etc.
c. Extrinsic motivators are very good at taskification -- i.e., completing tasks by
providing visualization of progress. What they won’t get you is LONG TERM
ENGAGEMENT.
d. Intrinsic motivators Case Study: ModCloth “Be The Buyer” program. The intrinsci
motivator is the power to crowd-source, influence, “belonging” to something
larger than themselves

PLAYER: Someone who’s playing your game AKA user, consumer

● Good games balance Skill & Challenges to keep players engaged
● “Flow” by Mihaly Czi... Flow is when skill balances challenge.
● Skills get better with practice. Game needs to present more and aggressive challenges
to keep that person engaged
JOURNEY: a player’s experience or progressing over time AKA lifecycle
● Everyone is a newbie ONCE.
● Journey = lifecycle + progressing. The unfolding of experience and greater challenges
as skill grows.
● It’s NOT as simple as novice/expert/master granularity. Its more a continuum.
● Good games give players something to master. It doesn’t have to be complicated ..
but the more you give people to aspire to, the more they will stay engaged
● “Master” is the 2-5% of players that get really enthusiastic about the game and will do
things like answer questions or post tips just because its fun

THINK LIKE A GAME DESIGNER

● It’s not a 1-day workshop

● Intersection of Dynamics, Mechanics, Aesthetics = Player Journey
● Use game techniques to GUIDE AND MOTIVATE THE PLAYER JOURNEY

DYNAMICS: the time-based patterns and systems in your game.

● Things like pacing, appoiintments, progressive unlocks, rewards schedules ..
● Patterns are programmed into game systems.
● Chart on behavioral psychology Y (cumulative number of responses) vs X (time)
○ Variable Reinforcement - most addictive reward schedule. Both the size and
timing of the reward is varied. e.g., One-Armed Bandit.
○ Fixed Interval -- least addictive reward schedule. Its predictable.
● Rewards Schedules -> Habits, Surprise, Addiction
● Game mechanics is NOT about manipulating people.

MECHANICS - the system and features that make progress visible

● Point, levels, leaderboards, missions, etc. are all mechanics
● Dynamics are about how you express them over time..
● Mechanics are about “lighting the way” in a player’s journey. How do players know
where they are, what they’ve accomplished

AESTHETICS - the overall experience that yields emotional engagement

● quality of the xperience - the sounds, the visuals, good loading times in experience etc.
● it’s important to make the experience compelling - it could be through game mechanics
but also through other things
● Yieds emotions like curiosity, delight, pride, satisfaction
● EMOTION DRIVES ACTION AND ENGAGEMENT
● A good game takes the player on some emotional journey over time.
● Knowing what emotions you want to elicit will help you decide what or how you want to
design.

SOCIAL ACTIONS - how players engage with each other in your game
● one of the most useful actionable things is how social interactions affect gameplay
 ● WHO am I playing with? HOW are we engaging? WHAT are we engaging aroun?
● Player journey -- {Killers, Socializers, Achievers, Explorers}
● Interactions - help, comment, like, share, view, compare, explore, express, taunt, show
off, competem challenge, harass
● Design for the right play style -- KNOW YOUR PLAYERS!!
● Play styles: Competitive, Collaborative
● Why are the playing? What problem are they trying to solve?
● What game are they ALREADY playing? What activity are they optimizing through
playing the game? -- e.g., ModCloth, Social Shopping
● What game are people playing already around shopping? “How much can I
save?” “What is the best deal?” -- if you look at the forum chatter, that’s what they are
talking about. If you hone in on that and design around it, you will reduce FRICTION
FOR ADOPTION of that game.
● e.g., Foursquare “Mayor” mechanics -- what people are optimizing is “Getting recognition
for things they already do. “I’m a regular, I should be rewarded for this”. Asking the
question is about learning motivations

What are your business/revenue goals?

● Who’s funding this project? Why? What’s the payoff?
● Especially in the era of free-to-play games and metrics-driven valuation, you need to
know what
● The goal is to find the magic overlap between Player Needs and Business Goals. That
overlap is Smart Gamification.

Exercise: Elevator Pitch

● Goal: create a short compelling elevator pitch
● Purpose: clarify and articulate your project vision
● Players: 1-8
● Duration: 20-30 min
● Rules: Fill in the boxes below with these caveats:
○ The pitch is directed at people who can greenlight and join your project
○ your secret sauce CANNOT reference game mechanics
● PITCH EXAMPLE
○ My company is developing (a defined offering) to help (target player) (solve a
problem) using (secret sauce / unique differentiator)
● Do this WITHOUT referencing game mechanics.. everyone is doing ‘game mechanics’.
That is not the differentiator.

Design Over Time

● As they progress, players have different needs
● Novices need onboarding: welcome + goals + progress + achievable rewards. It’s
about solving the cold-start problem.
○ Ex: GetGlue badges and content on check-in.
○ The closer a user is to “new” the more structure they need in the experience.
 Tell them ‘here’s what you do, here’s what you get...”. e.g., if your onboarding is
levels-driven, you want them to level-up quickly at first.
○ It’s also awesome to have some easy-to-get rewards. Outside of badges/points -
nothing wrong with them but they are being overused. What about free media?
○ Note: The better the onboarding, the better the potential for getting larger experts
and masters population. So pay attention!!
○ “Claim the newbie” - ideas around matching up experts or masters with newbies
to support onboarding. Like a mentorship program.
● Experts need fresh content/activities/people. Also status/customization/powertools
○ Ex: NetFlix (AJK client). The new content is what people stick around for.
○ Status: people like to get credit for the things they do. Part of lighting the way
along the journey is to tell you what you achieved.
○ Experts also like some customization. It’s harder to leave something when you
put something into it. A big part of game design is WHAT DO YOU HOLD BACK
from the “new” experience so you have something to give people when they
progress. Frame it as a reward - you’ve earned the right to customize because
you did so much.
○ Experts like power tools - things that let them make “macros” to simplify actions
in the game. Parcel it out. DONT BE AFRAID TO LET THE INTERFACE
EVOLVE. Interface consistency is good but add-on with evolution is not bad.
○ Experts = “regular” users
● Masters need exclusive access, activities, unlocks
○ Masters = “enthusiasts”
○ Is there any role in my system that I could let my players earn the right to own or
do? e.g., curators, editors, ..
○ Game designers may hesitate to allow users to modify aspects - but game
elements can be used to filter out expertise to the point where you have honed in
on users who CAN be trusted to do this.
○ Leaderboards = top performing people in your community. Most of the time
showing this to the community can be demotivating (I am too far away from the
top, so give up). BUT if masters were given the power to “unlock” access to the
leaderboard, win-win. Motivate people who are already there.
○ Masters are only 2-5% of players but they are incredibly motivated and high
quality participants.
○ Players have different needs over the game lifecycle - design the core system to
meet the evolving needs.
○ Easy win-win thing to do = give them an invite-only special communication area
where they can interact with the staff or provide direct feedback. But be careful.
Don’t go overboard designing for a population that is effectively 2-5%.

Your community has a lifecycle too.

● Build social systems that identify & leverage your highest-value players
● “Staff” have consistent infleunce/contributions over time. “Members” can cross over
(after a certain time playing the game) and leap over staff contributions exponentially.
● Is social critical to onboarding? Only if having a social engagement aspect is CRITICAL
to the CORE DESIGN. Don’t try to get users to bring in social networks just for the sake
of stickiness.
● “If you shine a spotlight on the behavior you are trying to surface, then you will increase
that behavior simply because more users are aware of it”
● Design is 10% -- 90% of the work is in testing, iteration and evolution!!
● Malicious behavior from players - needs more discussion. Two ways to minimize it
○ Some trolls you just need to ban
○ Best thing you can do is to convert them to policeman

GET GLUE CASE STUDY

● They “pivoted” -- they’ve evolved to support new needs.

● Onboarding is interesting - get you to “like” things up front. Populate their DB about what
you like - solve the cold start problem in profiling
● Quest system (AJK designed it) -- “Done with this list? Pick another..” builds your taste
profile
● Key goal: Explore content and other people
● Lightweight quests suggest what to do next
○ GetGlue had badges but had problem. They had a “dropoff” - the ‘now what’
problem (after getting badges) and badge clutter (overuse = boredom)
○ Iterate and refine the lightweight quests system - put people on a longer journey
to Mastery
○ Like/Review -- points for this. Stickers for everything -- they found it DOES move
to task completion but what it DIDN”T DO is drive long term engagement.
○ Number of stickers automatically gives sense of expertise/mastery
○ Recommends ‘neighbors’ similar to you -- AJK: this really doesn’t work. I don;t
care about the people. What’s the value-add? Genres matter - music may work
(Last.FM recommender) but not in others.
○ (Participant comment) - useful data is there. They are just not presenting it in a
useful manner for users.
○ Look at “http://www.tagged.com”
○ AJK: Just because you have data, don’t put it all in a dashboard!! Know what
to leave out. Know who your players are. Understand the social needs of your
audience.
○ GetGlue “Guru” - mayor model. Becaome Guru by interacting the most with that
content in every way.
■ It worked for 4 square because it mapped to existing desires (loyalty) but
what does it mean to be “Guru” of a movie?
■ But this ended up being the centerpiece of the Business model. GURUS
have special privileges - update pages and have chances to win stuff.
■ Business model = content partners coming to identify “taste-makers” from
Gurus to provide free stuff or provide access to sponsors to enable viral
enagement.
 ○ Currently GetGlue has no way to actually verify that user inputs are true. AJK
doesn’t think they have ways to identify folks gaming the system but doesn’t
know for sure.

BIG DOOR PLATFORM PRESENTATION

● Presenter talking about gamification background...

● Gamification bridges the gap between goal and result
○ Publishers ==> want ATTENDANCE (repeat visits to site), ENGAGEMENT,
EVANGELISM (viral conversation beyond website)
○ End Users Want ==> Fun, Rewarding Experiences, Social Connection
○ Gamification as a bridge between publishers and end users - get users to invest
more in the properties from the publisher.
● BigDoor provides a framework to achieve this
● CASE STUDY 1: Website “The Tech Scoop”
○ Straightforward check-in game mechanic for engagement. Check-in button on
the site - checkin at least once a day and earn rewards.
● CASE STUDY 2: “Cheezburger” - goal is to provide 5 mins of fun to visitors every day
○ 20 million uniques across their sites
○ Challenge: most users are drive-by viewers who just come by the site, see the
content and leave. No subscription or community participation.
○ Goal: move drive-bys into registered subscribers. Get folks to sign in.
○ Mechanic 1: Get users to vote - earn “trophies”. Need to login to claim the trophy.
○ Most coveted “Cheezburger” - implies your content made it to the homepage.
Reminds me of Slideshare ‘top presentations’ wall status (but without the badge)
○ Results: User registrations doubled. 65 mil user actions rewarded, 1.5 mil
trophies earned in first 4 months.
● CASE STUDY 3: Blogger Feld.com
○ FeldThoughts -- minibar (overlay) showing checkins, shares, badges, bigdeal
and leaderboards.
○ Blogger goal - find out who his most valuable subscribers are. Shares via the
minibar allows for trackability of influence by creating referrer URL - if your
shared URL is clicked or re-shared, you get more points. (Influence points).
Current user interface had two options for users to “tweet or share” - he will be
moving towards an integrated single way that uses the trackability.

BUNCHBALL

Rajat Paharia
● Background: Stanford, iDEO, design and engineering
● Lessons learnt “Being early is the same as being wrong”
● Trend: release game, usage spike, then drop-off. What can you do to counteract that?? EA’s
 casual gaming site was a stand-out, integrating the portal with engagement-driving game
mechanics for stickiness.
● Next aha moment: This can be applied to any domain not just games.
● First customer: NBC “Dunder Mifflin Infinity.com” site for the Office. Looked at virtual currency
(Schrutebucks) to get users to create and share content via the site.
● Game mechanics was never on the priority list of ‘needed’ items for applications. “We were wrong
for years, until one day, we were right!”
● Seth Godin “Movement” definition (YouTube) -- takes a third person to do something before it
becomes a movement. Frameworks are invaluable.
● The Problem: Three legs of the stool
○ Traffic Optimization = Abstract (SEO, SEM)
○ Content Optimization = Satisfy
○ User Optimization = Influence = the missing piece
● Give business owners real-time influence over consumer behaviors
● Gamification satisfies human needs
○ X-Axis = Reward, Status, Achievement, Self-expression, Competiton. Altruism
○ Y-Axis = Points, Levles, Challenges, Virtual Goods, Leaderboards, Charity
○ Sweetspot = diagonal
● Bunchball Nitro:
○ User Optimization Through Gamification
○ Made for the business owners - ‘if you’re at the mercy of engineers in your group, you’re
screwed” - need something to get engineers in, get them out fast - then hand off to
business folks to actually work on selling/monetization
○ Customer Results:
■ 40% increase in unique visitors
■ Increase ad revenue, time on site, page views
● VIRTUAL CURRENCY
○ For User:
■ A number, goes up and down, indicates how much you have, how much you can
spend, something that has value.
■ Names (points, credits, coins, cash, bucks, xp)
○ For Business
■ Way to track/score user attributes (XP, likes)
■ way to reward user for doing soemthing of value
■ way for users to reward each other
■ give users more spending power to engage more with site
○ 3 facets of point systemas {earn, burn, stats)
● CASE STUDY 1: Desperate Housewives Atlanta for BravoTV (rajatrocks)
○ Build a loyalty program. Bravo goal: want people consuming more content.
○ Instrumented all behaviors on their website, give points for doing them.
○ Users use points to customize housewives, compete in throwdown (Hot or Not)
○ Motivates self-expression, engagement
○ Avatar builder, Bravo bucks can be used to buy things in Bravo store for avatars
○ Throwdown statistics
○ Summary: 2-tier currency, encourages media consumption
○ SMS voting (direct revenue), Buy bravo bucks
○ Burn = buy avatar stuff
○ Status = point balance, investment in community, “reputation” via throwndowns
● CASE STUDY 2: IM Home Media
 ○ “Paywalls” in publishing industry
○ IMHome made this paywall a virtual currency -- IMHOs can be bought (credit card),
earned (through social activity), won (challenges) and spent (on content)
○ Status feedback on progess, Reputation levels powered by points
○ Leaderboards around various vectors of activity
○ Challenges give you specific tasks to do in each panel
○ Summary
■ earn IMHOs so you can consume content
■ alternative to paywalls
■ direct and indirect revenues
● CASE STUDY 3: Yelp! (not a customer)
○ Currency for people and for reviews (useful, funny, cool)
○ Profile pages are full of data (completely social currency)
○ Interesting because business is not driving the creation of credits - users give it directly ot
each other
○ No way to burn the points.
● CASE STUDY: Club Psych
○ Need to provide instant feedback to users
○ USA network gives “toasts” on browser to give instant feedback on achievements
○ Not just rewards but also penalties (lose levels when you miss a day) - use positive and
negative feedback to increase returns
○ Summary
■ news feeds, leaderboards,
■ Group competition (launched wth Bravo around TopChef) - you pick a chef
whose team you want to join. Points are not just for you but contribute to pool for
that chef - your fan base contributes to win for virtual chef.
■ User can switch teams anytime and take their points with them. Entices Red-
Rover like behavior to incentivize last minute switches to get wins
■ Gifting
● TACTICS
○ Implementation questions
■ One point system or multiple
■ Earn/Burn or status
■ Poiints or social poijnts?
■ How do users earn? What actions
■ How important is each action to your busines relative to others
■ What is the point scale?
■ How do users burn? - virtual goods, media consumption. Sites full of content hat
users can “burn” on is ideal. Keeps engagement in the family. e.g., Greg Johnson
(Playboy) is a customer and looking at monetizing content
■ What’s in a name? If it’s spendable, make sure name reflects it (points vs. bucks)
- has intuitive meaning to users.
○ Iterate and Evolve
■ You wont get everything right on day 1
■ Build or buy a system that gives you flexibility to evolve quickly
■ Pay attention to metrics and be responsive to your community
 DESIGN FOR SOCIAL HANDS-ON WORKSHOP
(Amy Jo Kim)
DESIGN FOR SOCIAL
● Zynga “Kid on Lap” phenomenon. More folks playing with families.
● Designers know importance of tight-knit groups (crowdplay)
● Social can be {Friends, Families, Groups, Crowds}
● What are players engagign with? What is their style?
○ Competitive: Bragging, Taunting, Challenging. Most social games are designed for this.
Lots of emphasis on social connection
○ Cooperation: Sharing, Helping, Gifting, Greeting. e.g., CityVille. A “social leaderboard”
is one with just you and your contacts (not entire player universe). Top 2 games today
(Farmville, Cityville) are focused on cooperative not competitive
○ Self-Expressive: Customizing,Selecting, Designing, Creating. e.g., Farmville emergent
behavior where users created new things from farm (meta-games) e.g., mazes by
arranging garden elements.
● These are oversimplifications - should be seen as points on a continuum. Games can evolve or
mix styles. What is the CORE? Optimize for the core, support emergence.
● Bartles Player Types (1996)
○ Bartle was an inventor of MUDs
○ Four quadrants {Killers, Achievers, Socializers, Explorers}
○ Achievers care about leaderboards. They care about being on top. Competitive.
○ Socializers are motivated by Interactions. They are proud of their friend network,
being “in” with gossip etc. Social games like Zynga’s are lightweight social interactions
○ Explorers are motivated by figuring out nooks and crannies, discovering every feature.
They are not anti-social, they are just gratified by knowledge
○ Killers or Griefers are those motivated by chaos. Want to hack or mess with software,
come into communities and troll or disrupt experiences.
○ Acting vs. Interacting = individual or social
○ Players vs. World = focus on others (people) or information
● Social Actions (2010)
○ Achievers = Acting + World {win, challenge, create, showoff, compare}
○ Socializers = Players + Interacting {help, like, share, comment, gie, greet}
○ Explorers = {view, explore, …}
● Map the social actions to your player journey
○ Which ones are appropriate for novives, experts, masters

DESIGN FOR PROGRESS

● Keeping score: points and progression iin the player’s journey
● When you show numbers that change, people will treat them as a game. Be careful if that is not
an intended effect
● Points track and define progress
○ Experience points (XP): earned directly via player actions. They are unidirection (always
gain, never lose). Use it to reflect persistence and skill. Measures overall lifetime activity
in the system. e.g., WOW points
○ Redeemable points (credits, coints): also earned via player actions but bi-directional.
Can be acquired and spent (go up and down. Measure of purchase potential within
game.
 ○ Currency (bucks, $$) : purchased via real money to acquire exclusive goods and
services
○ Skill Points (Score, Rank) - earned via interacting with game - reflects MASTERY of
game or activity and differs from XP in this manner.
○ Social Points (Reputation, Ratings, Social XP) -- earned via OTHER’s actions with your
artifacts. You don’t control it but has value because its a crowdsourced reflection of you.
e.g., Amazon Reviews, Flickr interestingness, StackOverflow reputation
● Not every community needs social points. But its a powerful way to recognize and reward value.
● Game Pacing ==> Flow
○ The better you get the harder you need to work to earn rewards
○ Challenge vs, Skills -- {anxiety, apathy, boredom} vs {flow}
○ Metrics: expected actions per level, leveling rate
○ Its something that needs to be iterated (trial-and-error).
○ (Audience) get them to level 10 as soon as possible. The idea is that level 10 is where
they feel invested in the game and can convert them to paying players
■ (My comment: aren’t you going against game designer rules by using the levels
to manipulate the user)
○ (AJK) Sid Meier keynote “You cannot over-reward the player in the first 15 minutes of
play”. Link to VentureBeat coverage of that keynote here.
○ Levels give you pacing, status, unlocks -- got the tension-release tradeoffs that make it
engaging
○ Global Leaderboards showcase your most skilled and devoted players. Scope access -
don’t demotivate your newbies
○ Social Leaderboards enable social actions - it’s more accessible and friendly. Actions in
your social leaderboard will be reflective of values in that community. Actions likely to be
more collaborative.
○ How to Play: Rules, hints, missions, tutorials. Little things that tell you what to do, and
help you complete small wins.
■ Transition to “elder game” - what your experts and masters do. What can they
do once it is no longer excited since they’ve done everything. In WOW (World of
Warcraft) it’s rating or purchase of rare items etc. BUT don’t promise what you
can’t deliver.
■ Tutorials provide newbie onboarding e.g., Netflix rate movies, GetGlue like
something etc. Note that newer social games have eschewed things like “on-
rails onboarding” (with explicit navigational cues to get things done) to move to
more quest-based approaches.
■ AJK Recommends Brian Reynolds (Zynga) GDC talk on Frontierville http://
www.gamesetwatch.com/2010/10/gdc_online_brian_reynolds_wild.php or http://
www.gdcvault.com/play/1013798/Bears-and-Snakes-The-Wild
■ GDC Vault has numerous good talks to watch http://www.gdconline.com/news/
■ Badges = the good is that they represent goals + progress + collection. Don’t
throw badges out (badge-fatigue) but know how to use them right. They also
give you a way to express your brand and space. Badges can be a great way to
reinforce visual identities.
■ Game-driven tutorial introduces key actions, system and rewards.
■ Gameplay designed around mix of collaborative and expressive play. All choices
about what/how elements exist contribute to the expressiveness of the game.
■ New goals unlocked as player progresses. Goals should show up only when I am
ready for them (reduce cognitive overload)
 ■ Rewards and reminders encourage you to check in daily. (My comment: hmm ..
is this manipulation or spam? Where is the line drawn?)
■ Collections add semi-random element. Referencing Brian Reynolds “Pinata
effect” - hit something and something interesting emerges. In CityVille, pinatas
are used for both experiences and coins (redeemable). Sometimes you
get “items” that are part of collections -- value for trade-ins.
■ Relates to Randomness vs. Addiction. Lightweight random elements add interest
without necessarily bordering on addiciton. Total randomness is not fun - it’s
the mixture of predictability with the occasional surprise is compelling. Total
unpredictability can make you uncomfortable.

DESIGN FOR CUSTOMIZATION

● Virtual goods are digital items that have contextual meaning e.g., Hot or Not ‘gifting’ is a form
of self-expression. The context is not just the gift but the “moment” - all the various things that
happened before, or now. As long as there is meaningful context..
● Useful to have a range of price-points. Give users a choice. The price-points are “social
signalling” - nuances to gift giving. People pay for experiences. Virtual goods provoke emotive
reactions - ergo: people pay for gift-giving.
● Virtual Economies drive economic usage. And require ongoing production and service. Needs
continuous involvement to generate new gifts, art etc. Stat: players hjave purchase 187 million
pairs of shows and 1.7 billion in games. Powerful technique.
● Q for design: What will you let youtr users customize? The webpage? The avatar?The location?
● CASE STUDY: Pogo
○ 20 million monthly active users. Lots of customization. Collection of lightweight casual
games with a meta-game layer - play games, win prizes. Redeem points by entering for
jackpot (sweepstakes). You can also purchase Pogo “gems” with real dollars.
○ Weekly contests to highlight users. Build daily, weekly, monthly rituals to get users to
engage.
○ Premium items add status, visual interest. Locked items “upsell” players to premium
service.
○ The more you allow someone to develop their identity, the harder it is for them to leave.
○ In-game chat facilitates meeting new people - make winners visible to motivate others
(aspirational)
● Game Design Q: WHAT SHOULD USERS BE ALLOWED TO CUSTOMIZE AND WHEN?

Design Assignment:
Make a persona. Take what you know about the target audience, write up a brief description, make it real.
What are her needs, what is she like etc?
● Craft a day-in-the-life of that user in your system
● What is the newbie experience? High-level emotion and motivation thinking
● Understand what the player journey is.
(In reality, a game will include 3-5 personas though there may be one persona that is core to your target
audience)

DESIGN FOR ENGAGEMENT

● AJK reference: GDC Vault as source of talks and experiences
● AJK client: http://lumosity.com organize marketing campaigns around Alzheimers
● (Audience Q) Are there guidelines for how you handle sensitive issues (e.g., health) in games?
 ○ (AJK) For gamification, you want to stay away from negative feedback. But in areas like
health, the brand may influence decisions. e.g., luminosity has strong reputed scientists
and data to back up campaigns so they don’t need to ‘game’ it.
○ Because users saw this as a “serious” experience they were against overt gaming
aesthetics (e.g., sound effects). Brands may also choose styles to reinforce the core
value - e.g., medical sites may want to reinforce a serious theme rather than a playful
vibe.
○ Useful to also level-set the user’s “emotional status” when they enter the game. What do
they want to get out of it - reassurance? comfort? Take this into account for onboarding.
● Player Journey + Social Actions = Social Engagement Loops
● Social actions drive social engagement. What are the social objects that we are using for our
interactions?
● CASE STUDY: Foursquare (seen through the lens of social engagement)
○ Its not perfect and it’s everyone’s whipping boy but it has value
○ Core activity = check in. It constrains this somehow (e.g., GPS). This is NOT game
mechanics in itslef.
○ Points = rewards earned for check in
○ Badges = mark progress and suggest goals. Discussion on how one earns badges. Is it
worth disclosing how you get the badge, or make it more serendipitous?
○ Had a similar conversation with GetGlue? “Foursquare didn’t tell people how to earn
badges, why should we?” - different solutions for different domains is okay.
○ Badges have personality, attitude and humor. The “copy” that you write is critical to
engaging with the audience. (Q: is copy changed to respond to different personas? Does
this help or hinder design/usage?)
○ Mayorship, rewards, loyalty, recency - drives competition. People who get into
mayorships really get into them. “Defending” mayorships is engaging.
○ Sharing checkins and badges promotoes social engagement.
○ Why does Foursquare work?
■ Core activity has intrinsic motivation -- checking into venues delivers lightweight
fun, has both personal and social value
■ Progress mechanics ‘light the way’ -- badges guide players towards clear
outcomes (action/completion) with an element of surprise. Mayorships mirror
real-world dynamics simulate loyalty & completion
■ Social Actions aligned with Social needs (explorem showoff, share, compare,
compete)
■ Metaphor for emergent behavior reinforcement -- paving the cowpaths model.
Must use metrics rather than intuition. Invest in communication channels and
metrics - know that you don’t have it all planned ahead. Design for flexibility but
adopt based on analysis. Invest in feedback loops. This will help you “pivot” later
to uncover new target markets or reinforce popular behaviors.
○ Social Engagement Loop
■ Motivating Emotion {fun/delight/trust/pride/curiosity} DRIVES
■ (social) Call to Action {customize/share/help/compete} LEADS TO
■ Player RE-engagement {task|mission|game|quiz} DRIVES
■ Visible Progress Reward {points/stats/awards/messages}
○ Mapping tot Foursquare
■ Newbie: Curiosity + Competion - Checkin - Earn badge
■ Experts COLLECT BADGES: Pride/Surprise - Share with friends - Checkin - earn
badges
 ■ Master: defend/earn mayorships -- get special privileges

Design Exercise: What is the core engagement loop in your project?

● What emotion am I going for? How does that setup the player’s readiness for the call to action?
● Fill in the boxes in the loop
○ What is the Motivation Emotion? (Fun Delight Trust Pride Curiosity)
○ What was the (social) Call to Action?
○ How are you motivating re-engagement?
● Then apply it to the player journey
○ What’s the novice engagement strategy/motivation? For experts? For masters?
○ What brings you back (re-engagement?)

GAMIFICATION IDOL :-)

● Step 1: Prepare your pitch
● Step 2: Pitch to Judges/Audience - get feedback
● WHAT IS THE JOURNEY FOR YOUR PLAYERS?

-- End of live blogging today -- Elvis has left the building... -------

Michael Alexander:
● Social game designer working in virtual worlds, Slide
● Focus on Game systems design - what does your player DO within the game. What is the repeatable index
withint he game.
● Facebook “SuperPoke” game - how game mechanics were used in a simple product to move people
forward. How can use different levels of incentivization.
○ Added a progress bar - visualize “completion” status to encourage users to add more data
○ Onboarding: sheer amount of content was overwhelming. Fixed by culling out all but 10 - if you
perform a number of actions, then you can get 10 more … solved two problems. Reduced initial
cognitive overload and gave people an aspirational goal for moving forward
○ People would get in SuperPoke for natural exchanges. We wanted to instituionalize this - basically
reward and reinforce emergent behaviors that we felt increased value

Vince Beerman
● Spectrum DNA - focuses on social dynamics