> Whether you dig the Kardashian clan or not, it’s undeniable that they are a marketing force to be reckoned with. They’ve even had an impact on the world of gaming. The Kim Kardashian: Hollywood app has been installed over 23,000,000 times since it debuted in the summer of 2014, and grossed over $43.4 million in the third quarter of that year alone, which is more than ten other Glu Mobile apps combined. Most interesting of all is that the game’s popularity points to an underserved market for games specifically geared toward women.
Why are there so few female focused games? The Kardashian game makes more in a quarter than Bloodborne has in its entire life. Candy Crush makes more in a year than CoD but there a few other games like them...
>>316468593
Not gonna lie, but I would buy aTaylor Swiftgame
And what does it say about an "underserved" market when a Kardashian-based mobile game is what they need served to them?
>>316468593
Its not that its just a female. its because its kim kardashian. I liked mirrors edge and I sometimes make female characters so id be cool with more female characters. BUT vidya narrative needs to take some leaps so their is solid characters
>>316468858
What does it say when "hardcore" gamers lap up buggy messes like Fallout 4 or microtransaction shitfests like Halo?
>People are upset they dont live in communist russia
There are shitloads of games like Kim Kardashians - it's a VN.
And Candy Crush is not a new or unique game, nor are puzzle games rare, and people make lots of them.
In game demographics, women are more likely to play games on their phones than AAA titles on console.
While the whole ">50% of gamers are female" shtick may be true, the demographics for core gamers are much more male-skewed.
As for mobile vs. console, mobile games typically feature exploitative microtransactions that normies fall for. You can thank them for the rise of microtransactions in bigger titles.
>>316468593
Wait, I'm confused. Are they saying the mobile market is so big because women don't have AAA games to play? That's fucking retarded.
This doesn't tell us anything about a mysteriously untapped market or the preferences of women when it comes to video games.
This tells us that retards will buy literally anything with the name of celebreties slapped on it, no matter how low the quality.
>>316468593
>Why are there so few female focused games?
But there are. The mobile market is bloated with games for pretty much every audience, with knockoffs around every corner.
The problem with that very few of them are marketed well, with the examples given being successful either based on celebrity recognition or word-of-mouth. Mobile gamers are pretty casual and don't want to go through the hassle of wading through all the crap on offer in the odds of finding something to invest 10-15 minutes a day into. I'd say perhaps 95%+ of mobile developers just don't have the money to do widespread marketing across a variety of media to attract a casual audience or get a celebrity on board to get that mainstream recognition.
Over the next few years I can certainly see the industry giants like EA and Ubisoft throwing their weight around in the mobile market with big celebrity promotions and advertising campaigns but at the moment I think they're just watching the market and observing the successes and failures of others to determine which way the market is going.
>>316469220
They're saying there's not enough console/PC games made specifically to exploit that demographic.
Since everyone has a smartphone now, this comes at no suprise. My little 9 year old cousin has a smartphone ffs. Little girls like my cousin love Kim kardashian and all that stupid shit. Quality doesnt matter. Lack of knowledge and need for more Kim is what really matters to the large demographic. These games cater to women just because of the sheer fact that women love stupid shit.
>>316468593
Isn't that the old article from some idiot who can't do research, calling it game of the year or whatever, that got utterly picked apart like a million times?
>"12/11/15"
What the fuck, a new one?
>>316469508
>women love stupid shit.
I hate to tell you this but it's not just women. Take a look at most of the threads on here, then neogaf/reddit/etc. Stupidity knows no gender boundary, and there is a lot of it going around.
>>316470353
I think what anon is saying is that you're a lot more likely to find men in the NOT liking stupid shit category and in the liking good shit category, Not that there are no stupid men.
>>316468593
>Why are there so few female focused games?
What is a female-focused game?
Games based on celebrities?
Puzzle games with f2p options?
Sure, there could be more (and there will be in time) celebrity focused games on smartphones, but if you're saying there's not enough puzzle games on smartphones then you've clearly not looked.
>>316468593
>"why didn't you guys make a pay to keep playing dating simulator with real people, poor writing, and terrible art?"
There have been female aimed dating simulators for years. The problem is they were either free or premium and didn't star a literally who attention whore.
>>316469337
It's harder to exploit the female demogrpahic through consoles.
Phones games work because phones aren't considered nerd shit and phone games are something to do while waiting around in public, where you'd get attention.
ya'll need to stop it with this normies bullshit
