I'm sure there's an argument in there. I only heard him trash the phrase and the supposed people who exploit the phrase. How about showing examples of gamification and explain why you think they are "bullshit?"
This is a follow-on piece from an article Bogost wrote in Gamasutra [1]. It doesn't make a lot of sense unless you are aware of Bogost's previous commentary.
His main point is that gamification is an empty relationship: nothing of value is exchanged by either party. That it "works" is an unfortunate product of our psychological wiring, and is thus more aptly described as "exploitationware."
It's important to note that Bogost has worked for many years on serious/persuasive games as a means of exposing systems. Allowing users to interact with those systems as a means of persuasion or education is, as far as he's concerned, a more enlightening experience.
Explitationware? Put that way, isn't every extrinsic motivator an exploit? Bonuses at work, financial targets set by others that are your responsibility, grades in school from the perspective of the student, "awards" in Khan Academy, all advertising, etc. Do you agree?
Yeah, to me it sounded like little more than "Marketing is bullshit and anything it touches becomes bullshit by association. And by the way, I don't have to prove any of this."
Yep, that's pretty much what I got out of it as well. My initial reaction, to be honest, was "the only bullshit I see around here, is this article."
I'm sure there are some elements of truth and some valid points in what he says, but the anti-marketing stuff is so over-the-top that it obscures the deeper point(s), IMO.
