The Player: Not the same ol’ gamer: Mobile games better at winning hearts of women
My real-life cat, it appears, has been frustrated with me lately. Oh, she’s still spoiled, but there have been a couple of occasions in which my attention has been diverted from her to a wholly digital feline.
“Super Phantom Cat,” to be specific, has won my heart.
“Super Phantom Cat” even seems self-aware. “Love,” the game tells players, “lights up the sad and cold chamber of your heart.”
You know what else warms the soul? A fluffy, shape-shifting interactive cat that can jump on robots, pounce through rainbow-hued worlds and occasionally harness the power of magical sprites to blow up walls.
That means you can play it on your phone. Basically, it’s accessible to all, even those who insist, “Games are just not for me.” Nonsense, I say. Games are everyone, and increasingly, that special little game for you is likely to be found in the mobile space.
And recent game data hints that the most diverse playing audience lives on mobile. Or at least the game-playing audience that is no longer traditionally male.
At this month’s Game Developers Conference in San Francisco, gaming consultancy Electronic Entertainment Design and Research presented some illuminating data. While the industry as a whole is edging closer to gender parity, game consoles and gaming computers are still predominantly used by the male gamer.
It’s not that mobile games target one gender over another. It’s simply that a wider variety of game experiences seem to appeal to those who have not typically been game players.
“Part of the reason for this on mobile,” Zatkin said at a conference talk, “is that mobile is ... just doing a better job of marketing games that have broader appeal than handheld, console or PC.”
Certainly some of the most adventurous games of 2016 have been pocket-sized. Take the adorable, melancholic “Love You to Bits,” in which a young boy learns to live on his own after losing the love of his life, a robot female.
Or the tense minimalist action of “The Swords,” in which ink wash paintings jut out of the edges of an iPhone screen, forcing players to frantically swipe up, down, left or right. It looks as is though it should be hanging at LACMA, but its blurs of lines and splatters simulate the chaos of a sword fight. At least I think so. I’ve never been in a sword fight.
Like “Super Phantom Cat” and “Love You to Bits” before it, “The Swords” is only available for iOS. Though “Love You to Bits” is coming to other platforms this year, I’d argue it hit the most important one first.
Of course, game consoles and gaming computers are where the industry targets some of its biggest-budget games — the $100 million or so blockbusters that emphasize gunplay, such as the just-released “Tom Clancy’s The Division.”
Consider them games by gamers and for gamers. Not since the Nintendo Wii has a home video game console directly gone after a non-game-playing audience.
“The Wii,” Zatkin said, “was targeted at non-core game players, who over the last generation in a lot of cases have been migrating off of console and onto Web, social and mobile discretions.”
Me? I’m tired of guns. I want a phantom cat or some abstract swordplay. So it was distressing when Zatkin noted that just a small portion of the current generation of console titles has generated — by far — the lion’s share of retail revenue in North America since 2012. Get ready, perhaps, for more games that look the same.
“Another trend: We’re seeing the console shift from a balanced portfolio of games,” Zatkin said, “from both core and casual gaming, to a core-focused portfolio.”
The word “core” essentially means those focused on the hardcore gaming audience.
In 2007, for instance, top-selling genres such as shooters and action-adventure games accounted for 44% of the retail revenue for consoles. In 2014, they made up 61%. No wonder the market is constantly flush with games that encourage players to pull a trigger. It’s the safest bet.
And that’s a problem, especially when it comes to expanding the gaming audience. I long for a day when games are as vital a part of the morning conversation as an episode of “House of Cards,” “Master of None” or “Orphan Black.” That won’t happen unless the industry’s most powerful publishers look beyond the current established audience.
With fewer top-flight games made per year, the ones that do make it to market risk catering to a known audience rather than winning over a new one. If you’re turned off by guns and a complex control scheme, it’s easy to write off “The Division,” “Fallout 4,” a “Call of Duty Game” or “Star Wars: Battlefront” as simply not for you.
This isn’t to say there aren’t great games released on consoles.
I’m excited, for instance, for Naughty Dog’s “Uncharted 4,” as I do love me a big blockbuster. And the Santa Monica studio has shown an ability to craft well-paced stories. Additionally, my two favorite games of 2016 have homes on consoles — Night School’s teen thriller, “Oxenfree,” and Campo Santo’s spooky tale of loneliness, “Firewatch.”
But these latter two are titles that come from the still-burgeoning and typically risk-taking independent game sector. They’re also available on PCs. They’re games you should play, but I’m not so sure they’re going to move consoles.
On the flip side, mobile game stores can be overwhelming. Last year alone, Zatkin said, there were more than 100,000 iOS games released in North America. Whew. It takes work then to find the one about boy who is lovesick over a lost robot.
But it exists. And games like it exist, and not because one platform caters to men and another caters to women.
These games exist because, once again, there’s a platform that believes games belong to everyone.
From the Oscars to the Emmys.
Get the Envelope newsletter for exclusive awards season coverage, behind-the-scenes stories from the Envelope podcast and columnist Glenn Whipp’s must-read analysis.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.