For this final segment on design, I wanted you to hear from someone who actually works in the field of game design professionally. Amy Jo Kim is an expert in the development of social architectures. In addition to her game design work, she's also an author, and the organizer of workshops on applied game design and gamification. As you'll see from my interview with her many, of her ideas track the concepts that I've been discussing in the course so far. Amy Jo thanks so much for joining us. >> My pleasure. >> You're one of the first people that I came across talking about using game design in other contexts. Way before anyone was using the term gamification. So, I'm curious what you make of the current gamification phenomenon. Both, both how people are describing it and what people are actually doing. >> That's a great question. So to me it's a great wave of interest in gaming that I think is happening because of all the same reasons we see. You know, how many people grew up with games, how much the mechanics are now easier to use. Some of them are getting standardized into EPI's and tool kits. So I see that there's tremendous interest. And I love that interest. I think the word gamification will end up going away, and that this will be part of the tool kit of many different types of design. In the similar way that AI went away. We don't think of Amazon as an AI system, although it does have what used to be called artificial intelligence in it, with its collaborative filtering mechanisms, right? >> Mm-hm. >> That evolution I think will also happen with gamification. I think what we see right now is the awakening, of what will be a much bigger and longer trend. And I don't think it will be called gamification because I don't think it'll be one thing. I think it will be many different techniques that are inspired by games, that get embedded in different ways in software. So short answer is, I think the word will go away but the wave will only grow bigger and will become an integral part of most software. >> Well, so let me ask you about something specific that we hear a lot about in gamification circles, which is Richard Bartle's notion of player types. That you know, pretty much every presentation that I've heard on gamification that gpes into detail says that the core issue is these, these different kinds of players and we can design for them. You actually I think have a have a slightly different perspective on that. >> I have a, game designer's perspective. I know Richard Bartle. I know where those come from. And I also can you know, repeat some of what he said publicly which is, taking his structures and applying it to all gamification is silly. And the reason is, that's a model of a certain kind of emergent human behavior that he saw as a pattern in the number of MUDs, multi-user dimensions, which are the text precursors to games like WOW. So that is very true. And when I worked on designing MMOs, I worked on [UNKNOWN] Online, I worked on Earth and Beyond, I've done Sims online. Those were particularly useful player types. There are many systems. There's the, you know, Meyers-Briggs system. That's another system for, there's all kinds of systems that say here's how people are. Systems are for utility. But they never describe the be all and end all of all human behavior. So if you're building an MMO or something that has those dynamics, those four player types are extremely useful. And I think appropriate to use as a model. If you're working on something else, which is what most of gamification is, then, they actually don't work. And the reason I know this is because I have a consulting business. And I've had, you know, used player types with what, maybe 20, maybe 30 different clients? And what I've learned is that they only work for a small segment of games, and game-like structures. I've developed a different take on player types that's much more about what I see in social media, and social gaming, very similar to Bartle. Inspired by Bartle. I always start by saying here's Bartle's player types. Here's why they don't work for what we're doing. Here's how to tweak them to make them work for what you're doing. So here's Bartle's player types. And what I found, and what he said publicly is that, points, badges, levels, and leaderboards, which are the tropes of gamification, fundamentally appeal to achievers, which is a small segment. And here's my take on Bartle's, which I call, which I structure around social engagement verbs. Because it's actually easier to apply. Very similar there's competing, collaborating, exploring and expressing. Explore is right out of Bartle. So that one is similar. Competing is similar to the achievers, but more specific. Collaborating is very much what he calls socializers, but with a very game perspective. And the reason is that if you're trying to choose which game mechanics and which strategy to adopt for your gamification, understanding this is extremely useful. And then what Bartle didn't talk about at all, that is a huge driver in social media and social gaming is self-expression. That one was missing. And the drive towards self-expression. Well for many people that's a primary player type. That there's people that will just play with their avatars and their Miis on the Wii. And that's a very, very much a part of how social games in particular monetize. So these are the four words that I find particularly useful. And then here's very specific words built around those. And one of the exercises that I do with my clients, is to map out the core actions in their product against this chart and see where they fall. And then map that against who they're who they're trying to reach. For example, if you're trying to reach females, you always ask at the beginning, who's participating in this? And how is it they like to engage? If you're doing, if it's an all-male situation, and let's say it's a bunch of sales guys, they're going to be really compet really comfortable with friendly competition in a competitive trope. If it's females, predictably say middle-aged moms, or young moms, in general they're going to respond much better to collaborative mechanics and social mechanics. And things like a leaderboard would be not the first thing to do for that kind of community. What I encourage all my clients to do and my students to do, is to take this and don't be afraid to tweak it. Take it as a starting point. Take Bartle as a starting point, and then say okay, in the world I'm living in with my product, what, you know, what describes [UNKNOWN]? There might actually be something that's much more specific to what you're doing that is more useful to you. So the, don't hold the sacred cow so sacred, would be my summary statement. >> It's always, always good advice. so, let me ask you to say a little bit more about, collaborative gaming. Because people often tend to assume that competition is just inherently something that'sat the part of game. So, what's the opportunity space around those more collaborative and self-expression types of games? >> Here's a particular definition that's taken from one of the earliest books on game design. A game is a system where players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, resulting in a quantifiable outcome. So that defines a whole host of games. But not all games, and increasingly not the games that in fact are being some of the biggest hits in the gaming world. So what that does define very well are zero-sum games. And in game theory, zero-sum games are simply games where we're opponents, or we're competing for scarce resources. If I win, you lose. Can, but you can, you can layer a team dynamic onto that, but that's fundamentally what a zero-sum game is. So the dynamics of head-to-head battles, any kind of battle, any war simulation, go, chess, polo. Anything like that. Any rank order competition, the Olympics. These are all zero-sum games. Most gambling games are also zero-sum games. But you're usually playing against the house. But again, it's a, finite pie, that needs to be divided up among winners and losers. So what I found, and some of the games I worked on that I loved the most, I found that there, that definition wasn't working. I worked on The Sims, and then The Sims Online. I worked on Ultima Online, I worked on Rock Band, probably one of my favorite all-time experiences. Those games, you can't, they don't have The Sims doesn't have a quantifiable outcome. You just keep playing. Neither does Ultima online. So I define those games as a structured experience with rules and goals that's fun to play. Which to me is a good working definition of a gamifiied system. Rules and goals are pretty critical. Fun to play is pretty critical or at least pleasant, engaging, and not a completely unstructured experience. But I realized, as I dug into game theory, that actually, was defining, sorry non-zero-sum games. In non-zero-sum games we are not opponents. We're partners. And it's a win-win or possibly lose-lose situation. Trading is a non-zero-sum game. Draw Something, is a perfect example, of a non-zero-sum game, because you either both lose or both win. so, other examples would be mini playground games, party games. I just mentioned Draw Something, which is Pictionary, in a mobile device. Martial arts are about personal advancement and achievement, but with a very supportive, you're winning doesn't make somebody else lose. Unless it's a head to head competition. The general martial arts is very non-zero-sum. And one of the best examples is a charity walk, where the more people you can get to join up, the more money you raise. We're all winning together. How many people can we bring in here to win together? That's really what non-zero-sum gaming is about. And to me, that's the heart of collaborative gaming. >> Since you have experience both on the website and in the games world, I'm curious if you feel like there is a particular mistake that people make when they come out of web design and social media, and those kinds of worlds, and try to engage in gamification. >> That's a great question. The thing I see the most, and I just saw this last week when I did an audit for a startup. I see it all the time. People in the web world are very good at understanding funnels and engagement loops. That's very natural, that's. Familiar to a lot of what they do. They also are often familiar with loyalty and basic concepts of loyalty. What they're not familiar with is the fact that a gaming experience changes over time. And that there are key stages of a player's life cycle. What we call the player journey. That require actually different set of features and a different set of powers to give the person. So the idea that you're creating an experience that unfolds over time and changes over time in response to someones increasing committment and skill is fundamental to a good game. Especially good computer game. And that's the mistake I see people seeing. They say look we've got the funnel, and we've got this habit loop built. And now we will drive habits. Well, you will for a little while And guess what? if you throw a bunch of points at people you'll get a short term life. I have no doubt and you'll see some nice metrics. But it's not sustainable. The thing that makes is sustainable is for the experience itself to evolve over time. So I used the three stages of newbie regular and expert as an analytic tool, to help you really think about, you know the first day or week, all which is a newbie experience. Not just that very first visit. And then the two month in, when someone has actually become a regular. And then the expert, what we in gaming called the elder game. What is it that the most dedicated and skillful of 2 to 5% of your players can do that everybody else can't do? What is it that keeps them hooked? It's the same thing as in earlier stage. So, I'm really thinking about that life cycle. And thinking about your engagement with that each stage of your life cycle, not just at that very first stage, will dramatically impact your ability to drive retention in the [UNKNOWN]. >> Now, that's very good advice. And of course, I think what we're all looking for is ways to make this sustainable and engaging. So, very much appreciate you sharing your insights with the class. Thanks for joining us. >> Thanks for having me.