The argument made in this article isn't very strong, but from what I can tell it boils down to "games are for children, so gamification is disrespectful." I'm guessing many of us would take issue with that premise. Isn't bad software disrespectful of people whether or not gamification is an element?
"Gamification" is just bringing loyalty programs into the 21st century. I can't think of anything disrespectful about that. When a hair salon or restaurant gives you a punch card, or an airline gives you frequent-flyer miles, do you feel manipulated? You realize they're just trying to get you to return and spend money, right? In that case, sure, gamification isn't for you.
In our A/B testing, we've got a little problem with the numbers we're seeing. No, it's not that it's hard to find impressive stats to show our VCs and clients. It's that the numbers are so good – such a huge departure from our control group – that they're simply hard to believe. If we posted them, you'd think we were lying or cherry-picking.
I'm talking about metrics like how many users return to the site, number of actions taken, time spent, number of links shared. And this is without forcing users into anything; participation is totally optional. If users are feeling infantilized and manipulated, they're showing it in an awfully strange way.
If you're going to claim that gamification sucks, give us some examples, numbers, or a bit of research.
"I can’t prove that good software respects people, but I can look at good software and show how it respects people. I can look at bad software and show how it doesn’t respect people."
(All the more important now that Gruber linked to this too: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/12/24/gamification.)
