The Octalysis framework is a gamification framework used for the design and evaluation of “human-focused” systems. Although several practitioners have applied it within their daily work, only a few academic articles have reflected on its applicability. With this study, we present how and where the framework is currently applied based on a large-scale literature study and reflect on the potentials and obstacles of using it within a Human Computer Interaction (HCI) master's class. Our empirical findings show that the use of the Octalysis framework is often simplified and can also be overwhelming. The results further reveal that the framework itself can be helpful in the creation and evaluation of concepts, especially when extensive user research is not possible (e.g., due to time constraints). We contribute to the field of gamification by critically reflecting on the use of the Octalysis framework.
Even if there is no agreed definition of the term
gamification, the most popular agreed definition
is ”the use of game design elements in non-game
contexts” [
With this paper we would like to focus more on the design process of gamification using such frameworks and investigate how one of these frameworks translates into the “real world” as well as which impact such a gamification framework has on the design practices. Since we 6th International GamiFIN Conference 2022 (GamiFIN 2022), April 26-29 2022, Finland EMAIL: philip.weber@uni-siegen.de (A. 1); laura.groenewald@uni-siegen.de (A. 2); thomas.ludwig@unisiegen.de (A. 3) ORCID: 0000-0003-4020-6321 (A. 3) ️© 2022 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org) see that this particular discourse currently plays a rather underrepresented role in gamification research, we would like to pave the way for fostering this discussion. We therefore examine the Octalysis Framework as it gains a lot of attention among practitioners [28]. We ourselves have already used the framework a few times in projects and thus gained hands-on experience with it.
Although the Octalysis framework is attracting attention and adoption among practitioners [27,40], we are not aware of any academic study that has reflected on its usage and on its real-world applicability as well as impact on the design of gamified systems. We consider this an important research gap that we would like to address with this paper. 2.
The Octalysis framework is a gamification
framework developed by Yu-kai Chou [
Chou identified and collected more than 100 game design elements that he mapped to one or more core drives to increase the motivational affordances of specific core drives. As an example, the use of “Easter Eggs/Sudden Rewards” addresses and increases the core drive of “Unpredictability and Curiosity” (CD7). The strength of the motivation based on the individual core is measured by the Octalysis Score ranging from 0 to 10, where 0 indicates that the core drive is not addressed within a system and 10 means that there is no potential for further improving the core drive. This results in differently shaped octagons as the height of the Octalysis Scores can be illustrated for each core drive (Figure 1). There are many other nuances that go beyond the scope of this paper (e.g., a distinction between extrinsic/intrinsic motivation within the individual core drives, black and white hat gamification, implicit and explicit gamification, and a very briefly covered ninth “hidden” core drive called “sensation”).
The examination of the eight core drives can
be broken down into four phases of a user journey
(Discovery, Onboarding, Scaffolding, Endgame)
which are labeled as Octalysis Level 2. In
addition, if different needs of diverse target
groups are considered, Octalysis Level 3 can also
be used, in which the four phases are linked to an
individual user group [
To investigate the Octalysis framework from a scientific point of view, we have chosen a twostep methodology. First, we present a large-scale literature review on the applicability of the Octalysis framework within different domains. Here, we will outline why the framework was used (reasons for using the model) and summarize the scattered articles on its usage. To better reflect on the use of the framework, we then introduced the Octalysis framework to a Human Computer Interaction (HCI) master’s course at our home university. The ten students of this course evaluated existing apps based on the Octalysis framework and afterwards designed and justified their own gamified app experience. Afterwards, students shared their experiences with the framework in a focus group before handing in written reports, where we asked them to reflect on the role of the Octalysis framework during their design processes. Based on the students’ experiences and our assessment of their created designs, we discuss the benefits and drawbacks of using the Octalysis framework.
To obtain a complete picture of the current use of the Octalysis framework, we conducted a largescale literature review (Figure 2). For this purpose, we examined in total 344 results found in Google Scholar using the search term “Octalysis framework” on October 1, 2020. After excluding results that did not met minimum academic standards (e.g., presentation slides), 280 results remained. We further excluded results that we either could not understand due to language barriers or that only mentioned the Octalysis framework in passing (e.g., a mere explanation of the framework), resulting in 101 papers. As a final restriction to increase scientific rigor, we excluded undergraduate theses, narrowing down our analysis to 67 academic publications (and an additional four doctoral theses). We repeated the same steps again on November 10, 2021 for recently published papers, increasing the total number of papers by 22 to 366 and the relevant papers by seven to a total of 78 publications.
The 78 papers were evaluated and analyzed by the group of authors who collectively coded the first papers, thereby inductively establishing a coding system by mutual agreement. This was followed by individual coding of the remaining papers and the subsequent reconciliation of the results.
To test the applicability, learnability, and possible difficulties involved in the use of the Octalysis framework, we introduced the framework to a group of 10 master’s students (seven males, three females) as part of an HCI master’s course in summer 2020. The course, held entirely in English, was an elective in the respective HCI curriculum. Two of the authors prepared, taught, and supervised the course, which was held from mid-April of 2020 to the end of September 2020. Due to the ongoing Covid 19pandemic, the course was held remotely.
Participating students had varying previous experiences due to their different academic backgrounds. Most of the students came from the fields of psychology, interaction design, and computer science. While some of the students had a basic knowledge of gamification as well as motivation and design models, none knew or had used the Octalysis framework previously. Most of them were aware of the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and had a general knowledge of the self-determination theory of Ryan and Deci [36]. Thus, the students could be described as “young professionals” who had already been exposed to related motivational and HCI topics due to their interest and expertise but who were not yet familiar with the Octalysis framework.
The course consisted of several introductory
sessions to explain the Octalysis framework,
particularly the different core drives, levels 2 and
3 of the framework, and most of the major game
techniques [
Based on these discussions, all students had to
develop their own idea, flesh out a concept with a
UX story [33], create a video prototype [23], and
justify the key design decisions using the
Octalysis framework [
This exercise was audio-recorded, and key passages were partially transcribed. The verbatim quotes used in this paper are attributed to the students (P01 to P10) and are taken from the project reports as well as from these documentations. The resulting material was iteratively coded and verified in several meetings among the authors. 4.
To understand in detail how the Octalysis framework was previously utilized, we identified in the literature the different application domains in which the Octalysis framework was used (Table 1). The framework is predominantly used in the context of gamified educational experiences. Examples are Rohr and Fischer [35], who used the framework to generate qualitativeempirical user requirements from students to better understand the target group and derive appropriate requirements for a gamified elearning platform and Mårell-Olsson [25], who introduced the framework to university students, enabling them to act as cocreators to design gamified teaching activities for middle-school students.
Some of the papers we analyzed did not focus
on a specific domain but rather investigated the
Octalysis framework and gamification from a
rather holistic perspective. Tondello et al. [38]
used the framework as a starting point for the
development of their gameful design heuristics
and compared the Octalysis framework with other
well-known frameworks and methods, such as the
“Hexad” framework by Marczewski [24], the
“Kaleidoscope of effective gamification" by
Kappen and Nacke [
Seven papers were related to the domain of healthcare, where the Octalysis framework was used, for example, to increase the motivation of patients with physical disabilities to perform exercises [9,10]. Six studies were in the area of marketing, e-commerce, and customer loyalty, an example of which is the use of the Octalysis framework by Fathian et al. [13] to develop a model that maps the relationship between game mechanics and elements of customer loyalty.
Additionally, some papers address topics of
organizational management. For instance,
Ellenberger et al. [12] used the Octalysis
framework to analyze the integration of
gamification in a company and its influence on
company culture. While Korn et al. [21] used the
Octalysis framework as a foundation to develop a
model for the description and analysis of
recrutainment applications, Sanchez-Gordón et al.
[
Other specific topic areas were also identified, including social media [42], conversational agents [8], and promotion of pro-environmental behavior (e.g., [32]), where only one to three publications existed that were grouped under the label of “other domains”.
We analyzed how the Octalysis framework was approached and deployed within the reviewed studies. We discovered four primary practices (Table 2). Since the practices are not mutually exclusive, we marked in a few cases papers with more than one practice. In most cases, we identified a paper as addressing only one of the practices.
The most common practice is using the
Octalysis framework for designing new ideas,
systems, and applications and justifying the
selection of game elements by assigning them to
core drives. The ideation process usually takes
place within the author’s working group (e.g.,
[
Another common practice is to use the
Octalysis framework to align it with other models,
frameworks, and methods, usually with the intent
of deriving new methods (e.g., “gameful design
heuristics” [38], or “gamification characteristics
measurement scale for mobile application users”
[
Furthermore, the framework was used to
analyze existing applications, such as sports apps
[40] or video-sharing platforms [42]. More rarely,
the Octalysis framework was used to obtain
insights about users. Here, the most common
approach was to create questionnaires on the basis
of the framework and use them to conduct
quantitative surveys (e.g., [
The literature shows that reflections on the use of the Octalysis framework as a methodology, the reasons for its selection, or remarks on the exclusion of the framework are rare. Only 13 of the 78 publications mentioned those reasons; but often only with a sentence or short paragraph. One reason to use the Octalysis framework could be its good reputation among gamification practitioners [28], as it bridges psychology and game elements [3]. Recently, the framework has also been used in academic publications, which Karać and Stabauer [20] mention as a reason for their choice.
On the other hand, the framework is
sometimes criticized for not being
contextspecific. Korn et al. [21], for example, see a lack
of “‘serious’ business-related components” that
allow a proper evaluation of existing
recrutainment systems. Yfantis and Tseles [
Another criticism is the strong influence of the subjective perception when assessing core drives and game elements [3,12,30], which depends on personal experiences and intuition [3], making any objective comparisons between gamification approaches based on the Octalysis Gamification Score rather difficult [12]. Similarly, it is not possible to estimate the extent to which a design element has an impact on the fulfillment of a single core drive [3]. In addition, the framework could lead to implementing rather “fashionable” game elements without a prior understanding of customer needs through appropriate user research [20].
Broer [
Within the classroom study, students identified and communicated several advantages and disadvantages of using the Octalysis framework. In addition, we as lecturers made some interesting observations, which will be subsequently shared.
The overarching design principle of the Octalysis framework that puts human needs above functional aspects was appreciated (P8). Through analysis of the three different Octalysis levels (Levels 1, 2, and 3), one gets a new perspective on human motivation and the user journey (P8). The ideation phase appeared more structured; thus, ideas could be brought up more easily (P1, P5). The many different game techniques were particularly helpful in generating ideas (P2, P8) and were easy to understand through real-life scenarios that seemed to be transferable to many contexts (P5, P10). In addition, P4 and P10 said that the Octalysis framework made them aware of blackhat gamification techniques (such as “doom scrolling” [31]) and that they want to use them more consciously in their future designs. P5 describes the framework as a solid guideline that can help inspire new ideas. In general, most students saw the usefulness of the framework for developing new ideas instead of for evaluating existing concepts and ideas. However, P7 expressed a positive opinion of the framework for evaluation purposes, emphasizing the objectivity it provides: “Designing such an experience was considered to be subjective but with the Octalysis framework you can somehow evaluate the application.”
However, students (P5, P8) criticized the apparent objectivity of the framework when evaluating other concepts. P5 considered that even similar concepts could not be meaningfully evaluated and compared with the framework. This is due to the subjective nature of quantifying the individual design elements in a single gamification score, which was criticized by P8.
In relation to the conceptualization of applications using the Octalysis framework, students found that it is too general and does not sufficiently consider the design context (P2, P5). P2, for example, would still prefer to use the 6D framework [11] in the business context because it is specifically designed to be applied in this domain. Other students (P8, P10) expressed their fear that that the Octalysis framework could make them blind to key design challenges. In particular, CD5, where intrinsic elements (social relatedness) and extrinsic elements (social pressure) are combined under one core drive (“Social Influence and Relatedness”), is a big concern as it can lead to an oversimplification of human motivations. “Putting two very different types of motivation into the same category seems to oversimplify the nature of motivation and could lead to unintended user experiences if a distinction is not drawn during the design process” (P8). Furthermore, P5 notes that the framework did not help her select an appropriate number of game techniques or to link them in a meaningful way, nor did it provide much particular guidance on how to design and implement these elements.
Half of the students (P2, P4, P6, P8, P10) complained that the user perspective is not placed in a key position within the framework when designing with it. In particular, a “practice-based user research study” is missing (P6); this could have been achieved by conducting interviews beforehand (P2, P4) or by evaluating the prototype through usability tests (P6) and improving it by other types of user feedback (P8, P10).
One of the biggest criticisms mentioned by the students (P5, P8, P10) is the lack of scientific grounding of the Octalysis framework. This is expressed by a statement of P5: “Scientific approaches and references are seldom used within the framework.” P10 criticized that many passages in the book are either anecdotal or barely cited. For example, P10 sees strong similarities with the different types of “nudges” described by Thaler and Sunstein [34] and the game techniques of the Octalysis framework. P8 commented on the individual core drives and considers core drives 2, 5, and 7 to be particularly problematic for various reasons, referring to the works of Ryan and Deci [36] and Hassenzahl et al. [18], which partly overlap with the Octalysis framework.
Despite the criticisms mentioned, most students concluded that the Octalysis framework helped them better understand human motivation in their design practice. Even P8, who raised some concerns, concluded that: “Ultimately, however, the Octalysis framework can be a helpful tool, if used with critical reflection and in combination with motivation frameworks that are scientifically more grounded.” (P8)
From the role of the lecturers and with a close look at the concepts and prototypes that were created, we made two complementary observations. It is striking that most of the students created their concepts only with the game techniques mentioned in the framework (even though we deliberately said that the core drives are more relevant and that new game techniques and ideas may also be explored and innovated within the course). In the end, this could lead to a decrease in creativity and diversity in future designs, perhaps hindering the development of novel approaches and thinking out of the box.
Although we were satisfied with the quality and elaboration of the work, it was noticeable, especially in the weaker projects, that students tried to incorporate as many game techniques as possible into their own concept, that way hoping to create an engaging experience. As a result, the individual elements of the concept sometimes seemed somewhat detached. One specific example is the game technique of mentorships, which was used in many concepts but was rarely conceived in a context-specific way or meaningfully integrated into the overall systems. The idea that more design elements will lead to more engagement might be a misconception, especially if the additional elements are poorly thought out.
Our classroom study confirmed all the mentioned criticisms from the literature review and portrayed them in greater detail. Only the statement that the framework is difficult to use for the evaluation of gameful applications [39] was not apparent since all of the students were able to communicate and justify their concepts through the lens of the Octalysis Framework very well. However, this was probably due to the rather experienced participants and the teaching format, which entailed several sessions to introduce the Octalysis framework to the students.
In addition to the existing literature, we identified some advantages and disadvantages of using the framework. We see it as problematic to become less innovative if designers only follow the given structure of the Octalysis framework for a project and does not think about other new game elements that are not (yet) included in the Octalysis framework. Here, other creative techniques could continue to be used and we see the empirical investigation of user needs and the unconstrained analysis of the given design space as highly important. Similar to [28], long-term research on the design practices of gamification practitioners and academics would be required to understand this dynamic.
Equally problematic is the potential
misconception that having as many gamification
elements as possible will necessarily result in
higher engagement and a better user experience.
To be fair, the gamification framework does not
mention it [
The Octalysis framework sensitizes for
elements of black hat gamification. Therefore, the
Octalysis framework could potentially be used as
a model to educate and raise awareness about
black hat gamification elements and closely
related concepts such as dark patterns [
It is important to point out some limitations of our work. These are mainly related to the conducted classroom study, in which we do not deal with objectively quantifiable outcomes, but rather with the articulation of subjective experiences of the participating students and our own perceptions. The style of didactic presentation, especially in the case of complex frameworks such as the Octalysis, definitely has some influence on the appraisal of this framework. With respect to this, we tried to introduce the majority of the framework to the students and did this in a way that was as nonjudgmental as possible.
Furthermore, there was no control group in our study (e.g., a second course with students who could have tackled the same challenge without the Octalysis framework). Also, in terms of fundamental understanding of gamification and user experience, it was a rather homogeneous group of HCI master’s students. It would be interesting to examine the influence of the Octalysis framework on the design practice of more digital-distant target groups and of gamification experts.
With regard to other widely used gamification frameworks, we also consider it useful to subject these frameworks to methodologically similar studies, in order to better understand and compare the design practices that result from the use of the respective frameworks. Only after extensive discussion along these lines it seem reasonable to us to derive practical implications and condense them into design guidelines for the use of these frameworks.
Since no academic studies on the use of the Octalysis framework as a design and evaluation tool exist, we have addressed this research gap in this paper. Based on a comprehensive literature study and the application of the Octalysis framework in the context of a master’s program course, we were able to show the challenges and the potential of the use of the Octalysis framework. We believe that the framework supports the design process, particularly for idea generation. However, there is an important need for empirical-based validation of the Octalysis framework. We also see the need for ongoing methodological reflections while using the framework to inform and guide the design practice of researchers and practitioners; this also holds true for other gamification frameworks and methods. We hope that our study has contributed to making the applicability of the Octalysis framework academically plausible and, thereby, providing benefits in the selection of gamification frameworks.
This work was carried out within the scope of
the project Rendezfood (EFRE-0801425), which
is funded by the European Regional Development
Fund. We sincerely thank Lea Michel for her
contribution to this work and the anonymous
reviewers for their constructive feedback, which
has improved our paper. Furthermore, we would
like to thank all participants who took part in the
study.
10. References
[