The danger of adding game dynamics to sites is that it changes the motivators for doing an action. By it’s very nature, the incentives make you more likely to do the behavior the designers are targeting. The designers think… This is great! More people are interacting with our thing we built. Fantastic! We won teh internets!
Down this road lies the problem. Foursquare incentivizes you to check into places. The big sell for Foursquare is the social interaction layer. The BIG PROMISE of Foursquare is that you’ll have serendipitous interactions because you’ll see that your buddy is at the coffee shop just down the street from you. I’ve never seen this promise delivered on in Portland simply because we don’t have enough density. It does work in one place for a few days each year, Austin, TX at SXSWi.
The game layer is added to keep Foursquare interesting for the other 360 days a year for those of use who don’t live in NYC or SF.
The problem, as Beasley sees it -- and her post has a great anecdote about this -- is that checking in for points can break Foursquare's big promise.
She ends with a great caution: be careful not to spend dev time on game mechanics until you know your product's value -- and can be sure the game won't work against that.
