This is exactly where game designers as well as game scholars/researchers disagree with you. Games and gamification are barely related, true, but what they have in common is NOT “at the roots” but just the opposite. Games and gamification are related by the superficial, surface aspects they both share. But the differences in how and why those elements are used (points, badges, leader boards, etc.) could not be more different.

Points, badges, and virtually all other “game mechanics” part of what is now called gamification, are based entirely on extrinsic rewards. In other words, operant conditioning (pure Skinner box +r reinforcement). Actual games, on the other hand, are designed to provide INTRINSIC rewards through a deeply pleasurable experience. The mechanics in a well-designed game are simply there to help support the intrinsically rewarding experience by providing the necessary feedback.

The biggest mistake of gamification is to cargo cult what makes real games compelling. This is not to suggest that extrinsic reward structures are not uniquely valuable on their own for a wide range of behaviors… Indeed Skinner gave us plenty of data to support that, and we all know it works. But to confuse engagement *around a reward structure* with *engagement with the real activity* can be a huge mistake when considering whether gamification makes sense for inspiring a given behavior. Some of the gamification proponents seem to believe that the extrinsic reward structures themselves are “intrinsically rewarding”, but that reflects a poor understanding of the science and theories around motivation.