Foamstars Seems Cool. Foamstars Seems Doomed.

The Foamstars Open Beta Was A Good Time

There's no denying that this game has STYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYLE!

Recently, from September 29th until October 1st, Foamstars hosted an open beta. The event allowed people to get through the game's tutorial, review its cast of characters and their unique abilities, and have a trial run with its slew of multiplayer match types and modes. When the beta closed, Square Enix, the developer and publisher of the project, announced that the next we would see the game would be its release in 2024. Were there occasional server issues or matchmaking downtime problems? Sure, but those problems are par for the course when joining or participating in a free open beta. A common complaint from those who played the game stemmed from some people feeling that certain characters were more powerful or felt unbalanced than others, resulting in a fair amount of repetition or monotony during competitive matches. While I have my fair share of concerns about the game's long-term viability, I also do not think this is an issue that cannot be fixed and would add that this is a common issue with EVERY GAME that hosts a public beta, regardless of genre. Even fighting games from Namco, Capcom, and NetherRealm pull data and input from open betas to rebalance moves and character power levels before a game's official release.

And before I start my screed about why I have zero faith in the game, I must admit it is fun. What impressed me most was how easy it was for people to get the game's core gimmick of needing to build walls and heaps of different colored foams to complete tasks and edge out opposing teams. The various playable characters had unique synergies, and even though you were largely forced to work with random players during the beta, that did not stunt the ability for people to get highly competitive or pick up on team tasks as much as I initially worried it would. Foamstars has drawn obvious comparisons to Splatoon, but it stands reasonably well as its own thing. There are slight modifications on how foam works in contrast to Splatoon's paint-based system, which addresses some of my skill gap quibbles with the latter. Because the foam in Foamstars is three-dimensional, there's more wiggle room for strategy and team-oriented cooperation rather than brute forcing things through min-maxery or "pro-moves" only a handful of ultra-serious players can perform that still have their youthful dexterity on their side. I don't want anyone to interpret that last sentence to mean I don't currently have fun with Splatoon 2 or that you can't. Regardless, the game's ravenous online community takes things too seriously. It also maintains a sizable skill gap between those who want to have mindless fun and those who want to see their numbers go up on the global leaderboard. To Splatoon's defense, this issue develops with any online-focused multiplayer game that lasts more than two to three months.

When things really pop off in Foamstars, it is a sight to see!

Foamstar's foam-based system allows you to move around more freely and readily because there are more opportunities for intermixing opposing colors, thanks to its 3D nature. Rarely, if ever, will there not be at least one smidge of your team's colors on any quadrant of a map, which allows you to perform impressive surfboard-based tricks or pop off special moves whenever you need them. Rarely was I blocked from unleashing an ability to surf into the sky to pivot and rain death upon my foes. There's a Lego-like sensibility with the mechanic as well. You can immediately build walls to protect yourself when surrounded or create ramps to allow surfing teammates to throttle themselves into enemy bases or territory. When looking at the game's preview coverage, some modes require teams to attack or protect VIPs, and in these modes, the use of abilities is far more critical than the free-form movement. But the core of the game, which involves offing opponents by dousing them in foam, is equally fun. I found it novel that you cannot kill enemies with your foam. Instead, you must ram your surfboard into them after immobilizing them. It addresses the issue of getting sniped and that never feeling great when you are the recipient and adds a risk-reward element to those that usually engage in turtling or keep-away tactics.

Also, the game's style is impeccable. Many people thought the game looked terrible in its first trailer, and I was one of them. Having played it, it makes much more sense when you see it up close and in person. The synth-pop music and the way the surrounding visuals seem to mimic the action make it feel like an early-phase Harmonix rhythm game (i.e., Frequency and Amplitude). The characters available during the beta felt different enough that the game provided me with multiple ways to solve problems on the battlefield using alternate tactics or strategies. You can have the same problem or scenario in front of you a dozen times, but how you solve it depends entirely on who you control. Likewise, the maps and match types show promise and already seem like they have been modified from the standard array of multiplayer team-based shooter match types to ensure they take advantage of the foam-based mechanics and each character's unique abilities. And again, it was magical playing Foamstars and having people you were playing with and against knowing their role or niche in real-time, even if you had no idea who they were. I thought the open beta was a blast, but more than the game's promise is needed to ensure its success in a cramped and brutal market.

This Game Seems Doomed

Ah shit, here we go again?

I'm going to shoot my shot right from the start. If Foamstars is going to be a PlayStation console exclusive, whether it be a timed exclusivity deal or a permanent one, the game's launch needs to have a PlayStation Plus release like Fall Guys. Without some version of this that is readily available as part of a subscription service, especially if Square Enix is going to continue to be mum about whether or not it will have a PC release with cross-play support later down the line, this game seems to be edging towards one of three possible doomed pathways. In scenario one, the game launches with an initial $60 price tag, and upon booting it up, there are additional microtransactions for skin packs, decals, and possibly new characters that you can "save" money on if you buy a season pass at or near launch (i.e., the NBA 2K model). In scenario two, the game launches for free but is way more blunt about its microtransactions and season pass (i.e., the traditional F2P model). In scenario three, the game launches with a price tag but immediately starts as a "games as a service" or "living game" affair and, upon launching with a small package of features and content, it morphs and expands over time (i.e., the modern Tom Clancy/Ubisoft Shooter model). Regardless of which of these three models you prefer, and this blog isn't about discussing the merits of any of them, Foamstars is pitting itself against insurmountable odds and competition.

Foamstars needs to get a stable online community right from the rip. Otherwise, it is dead on arrival. Suppose it is not a PlayStation Plus freebie the month it launches. In that case, the only way for that to happen is if Square Enix has Sony as a partner in promoting it, which might be the case given its console exclusivity, which, might I add, will only make things more challenging. Games of these type are dying left and right when they simultaneously release on Xbox, PlayStation, and Windows; how does Square Enix think limiting Foamstars to just two Sony consoles will allow them to avoid this same fate? This game is not Splatoon. Yes, I understand Splatoon is also an online-focused console exclusive, and there might be room in this universe for a derivative of it to exist on non-Nintendo platforms. Nonetheless, Foamstars will not inherit Splatoon's advantage of being absent of competition on its platform of choice. Even if you enjoy the game's visual charm, style, and gameplay, if you are stuck waiting for matchmaking or struggling to find people to play with, there are other alternatives to turn to and play on PlayStation, and that's something I think everyone knows.

It's not like Square Enix has a ton of goodwill to give about supporting their online-focused video games.

And then there's the Square Enix element to this puzzle. Square Enix doesn't have a stellar track record when launching and supporting its online-focused video game projects. We are, of course, talking about the publisher of Babylon's Fall, which was released on PlayStation 4, PlayStation 5, and Windows and had cross-play support, which did not move the needle on that game at all. Oh, and let's recall how dated their notions are of structuring "games as a service" projects when we look back at their management of Marvel's Avengers, which just got delisted on all marketplaces this year. In both cases, despite repeat promises that they were invested in a road map to right the ship, everyone knew Square Enix would shit can the games after incredibly problematic launches. And guess what? They did in SIX MONTHS! When you include their gacha games, their record becomes even more wishy-washy. There might be games like Opera Omnia and Brave Exvius that are still printing money years after release, but you also have games like First Soldier, which flamed out in record time. No one knows how long Square Enix is ever committed to an online-focused game, even if it comes from one of their internal outfits. Square Enix continues to invest in the "games as a service" model, but they have yet to hit it out of the park with one of their investments in this field, and they know that. Hence, they have a tendency to cut bait when they see the writing on the wall instead of sticking it out to see if a roadmap can do a proper course correction. And no, I'm not going to count Final Fantasy XIV as a counter-narrative because I have zero confidence the current leaders in charge of Square Enix understand why Final Fantasy XIV's roadmap worked. And with the company just now ushering in a new President whose entire mantra is to emphasize profitability, remasters of classic titles, and exploring pre-existing properties that can become AAA in the immediate future, Foamstars feels like it doesn't have the corporate confidence to weather any of the expected storms associated with new multiplayer-focused game launches.

The Online-only Team-Based Shooter Market Is DIRE

I bet this is the first time a lot of you thought about CrossfireX in a long while.

Even if you want to push back on my qualms that this genre's unstableness is a problem that clouds any excitement one could have for Foamstars, the lifespan for most of these games outside the big ones (i.e., Fortnite, Destiny 2, Apex, Call of Duty, and Splatoon) is under one year. That's not a lot of time to have a fun romp with Foamstars. Speaking of which, not only does Foamstars need to compete against a slurry of cheap knock-offs and clones of pre-existing team-based shooters, but it also is going to pit itself against the likes of Apex, Fortnite, and Call of Duty because its target audience is the PlayStation 4 and 5 online demographic. That will take a lot of work, underscoring why so few of these games surpass the one-year mark. They are not just competing against each other; they are also competing against unmovable titans that have massive coin purses and coffers to throw at any problems they might face. Rocket Arena, Knockout City, Rumbleverse, Bleeding Edge, Destruction AllStars, Breach, Disintegration, Crucible, Lemnis Gate, Babylon's Fall, Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodhunt, Rogue Company, Hyper Scape, and CrossfireX all currently reside in the multiplayer team-based shooter graveyard, and all of them either shuttered their doors or ceased updates within one year of their release. You may want to contend that the failure of some of these games stems from extenuating circumstances beyond the crowded market, but even that highlights another issue that is bound to plague Foamstars. Even after a successful public beta, these games always have rough launches beset by the same server or community-related issues, which are nigh impossible to recover from unless you have a massive war chest or fresh bodies to throw at the problem. Square Enix is already in the middle of completing multiple AAA projects, meaning that when Foamstars has the inevitable issues with overwhelmed servers, it will unlikely get the fast development response to keep its community together.

And I hate to sound like a broken record, but I'm simply not buying the promise that Foamstars can surmount all its challenges because it looks good and has unique gameplay ideas and mechanics. I love Jeff Gerstamnn, like many of you, and continue to follow his podcasts and content. However, it was ROUGH last year listening as he was doing his 2022 GOTY podcasts to hear him glow about Rumbleverse, only for that game to die less than a month after his podcast dropped. Following the team-based shooter genre news cycle, even from a distant vantage point, only to watch games that seem even remotely appealing or attractive die within months is emotionally draining. The result is that I don't get excited about any of these games because I know whatever effort I put into them will be for naught at the drop of a hat. Sure, there has always been an element of that in the games industry, what with Madden and FIFA requiring you to upgrade every year and other multiplayer games like Call of Duty and Halo expecting you to start from scratch with each subsequent release. However, at least with those examples, I have something to return to, whereas games like Rumbleverse or Babylon's Fall disappear into the ether. I still have nothing to point to for all of my time and attendance in Lawbreakers and Marvel Heroes Omega, whereas I can do that with NBA 2K16 even if its online servers are down.

Yeah, this market in the video game industry can only go up and get bigger at this point!

I mention this in a blog about Foamstars because consumer confidence in this genre is at an all-time low. When most of us hear about a new "one of these," I think our immediate reaction is to groan because not only is the sub-genre itself getting tiresome, but we have been through this song and dance before. We have seen games with unique attributes meant to spice things up in the online team-based shooter scene, only to have these novelties snatched away because the game in question was shut down in less than a year. Likewise, unless a game like Destiny 2 or Warframe thoroughly shits the bed, there's no slot for Foamstars to inhabit to guarantee it can court a long-term audience that sustains it. And it is not like this part of the industry is getting bigger. One of the primary reasons why Epic announced its recent batch of layoffs stemmed from Fortnite failing to meet growth targets. Sega reportedly is taking a $100 million hit after canceling Hyenas, even though the game was practically finished. Likewise, I have yet to learn what the post-release budget is to keep Foamstars running and active post-release, but with Nexon pushing The Finals hard, it's not like this market is getting less competitive in 2024.

Indeed, there were other reasons for those Epic layoffs. Epic's rationale was far from consistent when you looked at the facts, especially Fortnite's 2022 daily user peaks reaching 34.3 million people. Nonetheless, there's no denying that the market for another multiplayer team-based shooter is not getting bigger, and there is the odd feeling that, once again, Square Enix is about a year or two behind on catching or mimicking a popular trend in gaming. Fortnite is one of many games struggling to maintain large online communities or meet growth targets post-pandemic. Call of Duty and Halo have recently struggled to implement multiplayer-based content roadmaps, and the situation with Destiny 2 is equally controversial. It's almost admirable that Foamstars is jumping into this market, knowing that the audience for these games can be fickle, brimming with enthusiasm. Still, admiration will only take things so far.

How Many Of These Sorts Of Games Do We All Have Room For?

Man... I really want to root for this game.

Let's be generous in a world where the Xbox One/PC MOBA Gigantic is eyeing a re-release and imagine a scenario where Foamstars launches without a single technical hiccup, and there's plenty of content in it to enjoy. Where is its player base coming from? How many disgruntled Destiny 2 or Overwatch 2 fans can you reasonably bank on to support Foamstars in the scant amount of time they need to migrate, given that Square Enix likely isn't giving Foamstars a ton of time to prove itself? And it might sound weird talking about a game needing to poach its audience to sustain itself, but that's how things are working these days in the multiplayer scene. Games like Destiny 2, Overwatch 2, Fortnite, Warframe, et al. provide you with an inundation of content and options that require you to have them be the only games in your rotation to get everything they offer. The news cycle for any of these games and following updates, new map announcements, character additions, and cosmetic and mechanical upgrades and how to unlock them feels like a full-time job at times, which speaks to the challenge of most of us only having the mental capacity to play one or two of these "games as a service" or "living games" within our wheelhouse.

I tried my best to follow Destiny and Warframe, but I enjoy playing new and old games on the side. When I took a reasonable break from both for about a month and a half, I needed to spend upwards of ten minutes processing what was new and what I needed to do to get back into their current meta. If you want to be in the good graces of any of the games of this type, you need them to be your top priority. Even in the open beta, I could see how Foamstars would likely follow that template rather than mimic Splatoon's "Just have as much fun as you can for as long as you want" model. My solution to this struggle for the past two years has been to avoid every single one of these games as they always fall to my periphery due to life obligations or other games coming out, and that means I am the target demographic to adopt and jump into Foamstars when it launches. However, I'm not excited because unless I see that the game isn't going to require those steep expectations, then I don't know if it's worth my time only being partially invested in it.

If you honestly pushed me to hazard a scenario where Foamstars crosses the one-year mark, it would be if it launched with stable servers, was included in PlayStation Plus, and seriously curtailed the barrier to re-entry, not just the barrier to adopting the game at the start. Specific changes and balance reforms are necessary to keep any multiplayer-focused game healthy and enjoyable. I'm not advising against those sorts of content updates. Nonetheless, suppose this game hits you with microtransactions for new skins and character packs on day one. In that case, especially if it charges money for the initial game, I think Foamstars will immediately become flagged as "another one of those," and that would be the kiss of death because it has zero goodwill to spend. It's going to die a death by a thousand cuts after that. If they make it known soon how the game will be monetized and how things will be different from the norm, there's a chance. Unfortunately, the window of opportunity and Square Enix's runway to release this game and not have it flounder is scant, and I wonder if they even know that. It doesn't seem very certain when you consider they are still confident they can release their NFT game despite all signs pointing to NFTs being a boondoggle across the board. I want to root for Foamstars, don't get me wrong, but that seems nigh untenable at this point.

I still have no idea what Square Enix's NFT game is even about.