Following a previous post (Survey: Which Definition of Gamification is the Best?), here is another recent definition for gamification:
"A process of enhancing a service with affordances for gameful experiences in order to support user’s overall value creation."
(Huotari K., & Hamari, J.)
This definition can be found in the authors' paper Defining Gamification - A Service Marketing Perspective.
The above definition gave rise to a recent debate on the "Gamification Research Network" Google group, led by Professor Richard Landers who considered that Huotari & Hamari's definition was "depressing".
The most controversial aspects on Huotari & Hamari's paper are these claims:
- There are no game elements, or if there are, they are not unique to games as we understand them.
- There are no non-game contexts.
- One can’t create “gameful experiences.
Their last claim is much more consensual:
- The goal of gamification is first and foremost to afford gameful experiences.
I have to agree with Professor Landers. My prefered definition ("The use of game design elements in non-game contexts, to drive game like engagement in order to promote desired behaviors.") is much more close to his own definition (of gamification or gameification):
"The adition of elements commonly associated with games (e.g. game mechanics) to an educational or training program in order to make the learning process more engaging."
(Landers & Callan)
This is, by the way, an education and training specific definition.
Huotari K., & Hamari, J. (2012). Defining Gamification - A Service Marketing Perspective. Proceedings of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference, Tampere, Finland, October 3-5, 2012.
Landers, R. N. & Callan, R. C. (2011). Casual social games as serious games: The psychology of gamification in undergraduate education and employee training. In M. Ma, A. Oikonomou, & L. C. Jain (Eds.), Serious Games and Edutainment Applications (pp. 399-424). Surrey, UK: Springer.