When about a month ago I decided to preview Soulspark – Battle Cards (Free), a new F2P real-time card battling game by Copenhagen Creators and Wizkids, I did so because I always look for games by designers who are trying to innovate or, at least, spice up genre conventions. I was very interested in the way SoulSpark‘s developers wanted to infuse card-battlers – which are usually defined by slow deliberation – with the element of timing and rapid decision-making. I was especially excited about the prospect of a multiplayer component in the game, which the developers have said they are working on for a future update. Now that I’ve spent more time with the game, I’m still loving the concept behind the game as well as the visuals, but there are some questionable, yet not game-breaking, design choices that detract from the experience as well as some hard paywalls that make SoulSpark more of a free-to-try rather than a free-to-play game.
Let’s start at the beginning, shall we? In SoulSpark, you lead a team of heroes (of the usual fantasy fare such as knights, rangers, and mages) which you equip with various cards – weapons, potions, spells, magic items – that you either buy from a store or earn along the way. The game’s equipment system is an interesting one: you start with a few cards, and each card has a Mana Cost and a Cast Time (the time in seconds between casting the card and seeing its effects). The wrinkle in the equipment system is that if you want the card to be a permanent part of your deck, you have to spend in-game gold to study it, otherwise it’s a perishable item that can only be used once. As you can imagine, this system “gently" pushes players to use their in-game gold to study the various cards, and while most of the cards are reasonably priced, the gold you get from winning battles isn’t that much.
After you finish equipping your heroes, you get to move from battle to battle along a map. The map exploration and the occasional encounters with the various companions and monsters act as the game’s main storytelling device, a story that’s entertaining and occasionally humorous but, as to be expected from most fantasy games, not the most original. Once you encounter enemies on the map, you get to battle them, which is where you’ll find SoulSpark‘s biggest design departure from most other card games on the App Store because your heroes’ clashes with the waves of enemies are real time rather than turn-based. You have up to three cards in your hand, and you continuously discard the ones that are either not useful in the current situation or you lack the mana to cast.
Speaking of mana, SoulSpark‘s mana system is quite clever: you start with one mana “globe," and as time passes, the globes increase one at a time. However, when they appear, they are empty and useless. If you want to cast a card with let’s say 1 mana cost, such as a basic Heal spell, you have to discard a card that costs 1 mana. If you want to use a card that costs 2 mana, you have to discard two 1-mana cards or one 2-mana card, and so on. SoulSpark‘s mana system, then, forces players to make some interesting tactical decisions regarding when to discard a card, when to keep it, and when to play it.
When you have enough mana available, or you just want to play a zero-cost card, you drag the card to its intended enemy, and when the card’s cast time is over, the card action is executed (an attack, a heal, a spell, etc). You have to time your attacks well otherwise your fifteen-second wait for your knight to attack with his huge sword might have no effect because you didn’t consider the seventeen-second armor spell the enemy had cast before you attacked him. While in general the real-time system works great, I found that timing actions during battle wasn’t always easy because the cast time indicator doesn’t stand out as much as it should (it’s a little white circle in the center of the Hero portrait). I guess the more you play the game, the more you’ll be able to time the various cards, but a clearer visual aid in addition – or instead of – the white circle would have been of great help.
The game increases in complexity as buffs and debuffs are introduced that, because of the game’s real-time nature, can render an enemy untouchable for a number of seconds, especially in the early fights. These protection or curse cards often dominate the battle, and there are some great ideas here that marry theme and mechanics well, like enemies who can hide for a few seconds or a resurrection spell that can bring an enemy back to battle. However, I felt that the enemies used these buffs and tricks way too often, which resulted in long staring contests with my screen while I would wait for buffs to fizzle out so I could attack again. As an idea, these buffing and debuffing cards work great, but in practice I felt that they broke the game’s rhythm a bit and made the battles drag.
My issue with the cast time indicator aside, the developers did an overall great job at creating a UI that’s clear and cohesive. I do wish they had used the iPad screen’s space differently though by making the game play in landscape rather than portrait mode so the cards would be at each side of the heroes and enemies rather than above and below. The reason is that on my iPad, I had to make an effort to look at my opponent’s cards because they are all the way to the top of the screen while everything else takes place on the bottom half of the screen. This spatial arrangement might work great on the iPhone, because the screen’s smaller size allows players to take in everything in one gaze, but it doesn’t work as well on the iPad’s larger screen.
Despite my relatively-small issues with the UI and with the orientation choice, I foundSoulSpark‘s overall art design lovely, with Steve Prescott’s hand-drawn art really helping the game stand out. The characters don’t feel like generic fantasy cutouts (even if their classes are), and in general the art design is lovely full of vibrant colors and terrific animations. Same goes for the music and sound effects, which create a vivid atmosphere without becoming overbearing. For those who enjoy game art, Copenhagen Creators is running a competition for TouchArcade visitors with the prize being an original piece of SoulSpark artwork signed by Steve Prescott, who’s a very well-known artist in the world of fantasy and of Magic the Gathering.
Now, this being a F2P game, I’m sure many are wondering how the game’s monetization works, and my answer to that is that you should treat SoulSpark as a free-to-try game rather than a F2P because you’ll hit some paywalls quite early and quite hard. There is, of course, an energy system, which would be fine except you don’t have enough heroes at the start of the game to be able to continue playing while the “tired" ones are resting (keep in mind that the game doesn’t make the tired heroes unavailable but, rather, they fight with less initial health). The other issue is that about ten battles in, you’ll start fighting enemies that can literally one-hit your heroes (they hit for ten damage and your starting heroes have twelve, nine, and eight health), so your heroes will die in battle, a lot, unless you are amazing at using your protection spells and buffs. You can, of course, use one gem mid-battle to resurrect your dead heroes every time they die, and there are always other heroes with higher HP that you can buy for about a dollar.
Bear in mind that I’m not criticizing SoulSpark‘s monetization system. I’m fine with F2P games and many of the card games I play are F2P (Hearthstone and Solforge being two of them), but there are F2P games that you can play for free as long as you are willing to wait and grind a lot (like World of Tanks Blitz), and then there are games like SoulSpark that will use pay walls to keep you from devouring the content in one sitting. At the same time, gaming’s a business and developers need to make money from their games (and most premium games from companies not called Firaxis or without long pedigrees don’t make much money). SoulSpark is a very entertaining game, so download it, try it, and if you are enjoying it, which I believe you will, buy some gems so you can get the most out of it.





Gosh I hope not Andrew, Project Cars, The Witcher 3, or Clash of Clans?!!
The problem here is we're not all the customers so we can't exactly point to superior games as a reason the tides won't shift.
Out of the closest 100 people I know, maybe 5-10 will want to play Witcher 3 (including me!), another 5-10 car enthusiasts and non-RPG gamers will love Project Cars. And out of those 3, probably 80-90 of those 100 will choose to play Clash of Clans.
While it sucks, if they found success in the market segment, moving to mobile is a logical business decision.
For those that came to the comments to find out what oligopolistic meant, it means a state of limited competition, in which a market is shared by a small number of sellers. 😁
it also has the same root as the word oligarchy, which means:
a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution.
Ahhh so that's what it means.
Thanks, mate.
Now I know!
I don't know why you are getting down voted.
Cuz knowledge suckz, dood!
Ditto, I couldn't imagine there's too many people who knew the definition immediately.
They don't even want to think about big words becuz F2P man!!! Market? Share? App Store?
Upvoted to restore balance! \o/
I don't think console gaming is going anywhere. Most of the people I know just have a phone for social media, not gaming. Hopefully we could see the rest of the ff series on the mobile scene!!
That's so weird. The ten people you know don't play mobile games, but Square had a massive revenue boost moving to mobile. How can we rectify these two divergent perspectives?!
Don't know why you're getting down voted considering how many DQ games have been ported: seems like that would indicate successful sales!
Ahhhh the good ole' fallacy of anecdotal evidence.
The new consoles do not have good sales numbers.
Aside from PS4 that is.
No thanks - they can out their f2p garbage titles on mobile all they want but I want my real final fantasy games on my big screen tv at home
Does this mean Square will no longer develop numbered Final Fantasies, beyond FF15?
I've waited over 6 years for FF15 or so called FF13 Versus.... That probably means we will habe to wait 20 years for a new game on console....
With how long FF15 has been in development it does make you wonder
Historically, Dragon Quest series has always been exclusive to the console with the highest install base, i'm wondering if the next will indeed be on mobile.
My point is, maybe we'll see numbered FFs on mobile, just look at what they are trying to do with Mobius.
Gods, I sure hope not. Mobile will never have the same processing power as a dedicated gaming console. As to the long wait for FF15, they did how many sequels to FF13? I'm sure that was taking up their time.
It won't they already said its being developed for regular console - maybe the one after that though will be mobile
Here we go again. Predicting 'the end of video game consoles' in a period when they have never been stronger and when video console manufacturers are posting profits due to the increased sales of video game consoles.
Relevant article with a incredibly flawed opinion attached.
Couldn't agree more. While mobile is a huge profit generator for a lot of these game companies, console gaming will not be going away any time soon.
Let me give you an analogy;
Google is present on all sides of the globe, however in Europe, it always managed to find itself having to pay fine after fine. Should google forget the European market and leave it for its competitors? Of course not, it still makes a heck ton of profit from it. (Bad analogy, I know)
Not that bad an analogy, it works 😁
The article is flawed but it certainly raises an ever more pressing issue with console gaming that the profits are increasingly concentrated among the top few sellers.
I imagine they would still make FFs and DQs and the major money making titles, just diminishing their overall presence in the console market.
So... You're saying that there hasn't been a resurgence of indie developers on console and that indie games has not been a point of contest between XB1 and PS4?
Me thinks you are incorrect.
I don't disagree that indie is gaining traction on all platforms - console or otherwise - but I'm not really sure whether it's relevant to the issue at hand.
Indie is great but ultimately I find it hard to imagine indie sells consoles like the Square Enix titles of old. It may very well be that the consoles gain and lose cred based on their reputation among indies but the mass market hardly cares.
Indie, even when they succeed, are misleading also. Because for every success we see, there's a dozen who fail that we don't. And the ones that succeed will rarely do the business that regular AAA devs do.
Outside of a few small notable indies, console game sales are almost always concentrated with big name companies, big name sequels and games with marketing budgets in the millions.... and yet, even the big companies have projects that cost millions and don't make back the millions they need.
Square Enix has been a fledging company for a while now. They found quick cash through a nostalgic F2P title and are now making a quick decision to to get more of that money.
I don't see this as a move away from console dominance, as it is an attempt to right the ship of consistently losing money, that Square Enix has been sailing.
Yep, and where you say "fledgling," I think we could replace it with "floundering." If they went back to making small, really good games for their fanbase (similar to what Atlus does)... but they've gotten too big for their britches.
And where you say "britches", I think we could replace it with... oh forget it.
This would be relevant if SE were anywhere near being the system selling company they used to be. It's just the inevitable outcome of another once great Japanese game developer that's steadily been declining in influence over the last decade. Last I checked, there are more people developing for consoles than ever before and this is one of the fastest selling generations ever.
I am not even gonna consider buying a new console unless Fallout 4 comes out. I have invested too much and have a huge backlog of games for my Xbox 360. I am sure many people hold this same thought process.
Totally agree with you, I've been waiting until there is enough good releases to purchase a next gen console
Even with Fallout 4 no reason to not pick it up on the PC as opposed to a console where you can't play with the mods.
I got a huge 360 backlog as well. Not to mention all the PS2 games standing in my bookshelf (I haven't even finished Persona 4 or Dragon Quest 8 yet >.<)
Oh yeah? Any chance of fixing 'the world ends with you'? - probably not as they've made their priorities clear - make piles of cash and to hell with the paying customer. Hope they crash and burn.
Paying and refunded. At the end, the game was free....but yeah. You dont care about reality.
Most people who bought the game. couldn't get a refund. That IS the reality.
Oh please. SE's profits fell because dedicated gamers lost their faith in having good games from these people. Steaming crap bundled in super pretty graphics is still steaming crap you can smell from a mile away.
So they had no other choice but to move to mobile, where mobile gamers can be sucked dry coz of their sub-par tastes and expectations.
Atlus and other similar have been gaining power and delivering A+ JRPGs one after the other. SE...not so much.
Not to mention their crappy ethics on mobile: did anyone forget TWEWY that no longer plays after updating your iOS?
Thi article steams from fanboy reassurance, and a little perspective and second opinion couldn't have hurt.
They can make more money on mobile and put less work and effort into it. Let's not forget they are one of the highest priced developers in the App Store.
Assuming that Square Enix falling in line with the other struggling former console titans means console development is on the outs is silly. All it means is that they are failing to reach the ridiculous profit margins AAA titles seem to require these days. People salivate today over Witcher and Fallout news the way they once did over Final Fantasy. PC and console still have their blockbusters... They just usually don't come from Square Enix, Konami, etc. Not as often as they used to.
Konami isn't really struggling though. They make a ton of money off of their gambling machine business. I think they are just getting out of games. Which is weird cause Iga just had a kickstarter for a new spiritual successor to Castlevania and it made 1 million bucks in less then 24 hours. 1 MILLION! (insert Dr. Evil smiley)
I should specify "in the console gaming market," lol
:D I'm gonna be upset if they stop making games. MGS V seems like it will be the final one though.
Unless they sell off PES they will continue to make that also but that may be the only game they make.
As I almost never touch a console these days, and mainly play on iPad with an occasional iPhone, I thinks this might be good because it suits my way of playing right now. I just hope they can keep good production values.
Maybe Square just can't put out decent games anymore and has shot themselves in the foot with AAA nonsense. I can't really remember the last great Square-Enix game I really, truly enjoyed. Dragon Quest VIII?
What I would love to see is these AAA game developers use the rise of F2P successes to fund standalone titles for gamers that enjoy those, as well. Are they as profitable? No. But 20 years from now, no one will be talking about how great Final Fantasy Record Keeper was. But they will still be talking about Chrono Trigger (and maybe even Chaos Rings, even though it pales in comparison to most Final Fantasy titles).
If any company can make compelling premium titles for iOS, though, it's Square. Sure, they've dropped the ball in the last decade when it comes to Final Fantasy, but Chaos Rings, Omega, and II were all pretty fun. If Chaos Rings III eliminates the most repetitive parts of the game, it will likely be their biggest original, premium mobile game, yet.
Of course, only time will tell. A company can be massively profitable and still release games I find terrible year-in, year-out (take EA for example). Square could live on for another 30 years making crap I don't want to play, no matter what the platform.
Saying no one will be talking about Record Keeper is under the myopic assumption of your specific taste in video games is shared by everyone. The reason free to play is gaining so much steam is because it has opened the accessibility of gaming up to everyone. For a lot of people, these free to play games are their first exposure to gaming, as many of them don't even identify as a gamer.
Like it or not, games like Record Keeper are playing the same role in some people's lives as the NES Super Mario Bros / Duck Hunt / World Class Track Meet cartridge may have for you.
Do you still talk about Super Mario?
Eli, down boy. I LOVE Record Keeper. I've been playing it since its release. I never said anything about not liking F2P games (though I can see how my mention of games I don't like could be construed as such—I was referring specifically to games like All The Bravest, Sliding Heroes, or Bloodmasque). I prefer standalone experiences, but I mostly like things that are fun.
Hyperbole aside, my statement about FFRK in 30 years has to do with the (to-date) transient and temporary nature of F2P. These are games that, by their very nature, almost certainly cease to exist in a playable form. That is not the case with standalone titles. People will play and replay games like Chaos Rings and Final Fantasy: Dimensions (hell, probably even Drakerider, even if only for an episode of How Did This Get Made: iPhone Edition) as they have with Final Fantasy titles.
As a parent of children that are growing up on these games, I fully understand that they will have an impact in their lives. But, I've also watched them move on from one F2P game to another F2P game and never look back. And with some titles, they couldn't look back if they wanted to, as the servers have been shut down for good. F2P games will obviously still be discussed for their impact. Hell, retro gamers still discuss the Satellaview and SEGA Channel, despite a very limited reach and window of availability.
And yes. I do still talk about Super Mario. Why don't you?
I think that much of Record Keeper's success is because of it's inclusion of content from Square's golden age past. I know I wouldn't have touched the game if not for the fact that I've played half a dozen FF titles and RK gives me the chance to see my favorite characters again, if only in a limited capacity.
To further the comparison: I've purchased Chrono Trigger about 5 times over the years on various platforms, and I'll wager I may buy it again someday. I haven't dropped a cent on Record Keeper, and so long as their prices stay so gouge-y (and rewards so terrible) I never will. Games like Chrono Trigger and other classic Square games were masterpieces for their time. Mechanics, graphics, story, music, everything was perfect. I dare say there's few people who would say the same about Record Keeper... If you want to make money making games today, don't make a masterpiece, make a pack of gum.
I agree with you on the gouging in FFRK. Fantastic game but the prices to draw gear are miserable, and the chances of getting anything you won't use for fusion fodder are dank. I think Square Enix thinks they can make bank off nostalgia (and they probably are in some way) but most people are going see those prices and turn their nose up at it regardless of their favorite FF character being in the game or not.
You're not wrong in a certain broad sense. My six year old looks on PvZ 1 and 2 the way I look back on many NES classics. That said, he also enjoys many classics as well. Thanks to a mix of enduring hardware and digital re-releases, a lot of that stuff lives on. Children don't even necessarily care for the order and history behind it. My son plays Harvest Moon: A New Beginning on the 3DS obsessively. He later found I had the original HM via Virtual Console on the Wii U. He thinks of that as the second game, between his order of discovery and that he plays it on the TV.
But that's my point. In 2014 Nintendo put Mario 3 back out. People bought it, and young children experienced and enjoyed it. Through the years these games find an audience through a mix not only of nostalgia but also of support from publishers (or at least fan community) and the games' own ingenuity and mechanics. Let's go play any Ninja Gaiden or Devil May Cry game. Very easily found on various platforms. Let's go play Bloodmasque. Oh wait, it's gone forever and nobody cares.
Square Enix is leaving the console market for the "competition"? That makes no sense considering how saturated, overcrowded, and competitive the mobile market is. I mean, it's smart if you are targeting the Asian demographic, but tbh, I'm focusing primarily on consoles rather than mobile except for when targeting Asia.
Saturated, overcrowded, and competitive for small developers. SE already has a gigantic fanbase and a huge marketing budget, so they don't face the same obstacles a smaller developer does.
Though Bravely Default (and it's sequel that's still coming) was successful on 3DS...
I love Bravely Default. Such a fantastic game, and proof that Square is still capable of making compelling, original content. I keep hoping that someone will find a way to revive the Crystal Chronicles series (I didn't play the latest Wii release, though I wanted to, despite reviews), but it seems unlikely that it will ever exist outside of Nintendo's playground (a shame, since fewer and fewer of my friends are purchasing Nintendo hardware).
I have a feeling that Nintendo's decision to move away from consoles is not going to be a move away from handheld systems like the 3DS (though the Vita is a bit up in the air, as I don't know how successful they've been on that system—it has a comparatively small install base compared to the 3DS and is almost non-existent compared to iOS and Android). It will be an interesting next few years.
I hope this means that FF VII & X will come to iOS in the near future.
id like to see 9 show up :) the last true old school rpg sony ever made :)
Hope it will be FF VII TO X.
Meh. Nowhere in that earnings release does it state they're not going to develop console games anymore. Just a strong implication that they'll be more (not exclusively) focused on mobile development going forward. Console gaming won't be disappearing anytime soon..
*sony board meeting*
"Ok folks, we are not making as money as we could on consoles.. Maybe it's time to start listening to the fans and actually giving them what they want.. Crisis Core on PSN, remake of FFVII and VIII and some new decent IP"
* door bursts open*
"Pant pant... Sir, someone just paid £69 for a bunch of digital currency on Record Keepr so they could get a buster sword on the relic rolls"
"What!? Why didn't they just play FFVII again if they wanted to relive the game... OMG.. Ok f**k everything.. Get our worst artists on making retro versions of the ff graphics.. And let's get some of e popular ones out there.. Oh, make the events harder so people are even more tempted to throw money at the game.. Stuff what the fans want lets MILK THE MORONS BY Reusing old content in a game with zero challenge"
"Yes sir.. Oh, and sir I have this great plan that involves final fantasy VII remake and IAP..."
I don't think this is particularly good news, it's probably the final nail in the coffin of anything good coming out of Square Enix. It goes back to the last Tomb Raider game, it sold well but Square Enix had totally unrealistic expectations as to what they would make from that game, and came out almost immediately talking about it's "disappointing" sales
I used to buy loads of Square Enix games, but they have such a half assed approach to mobile, they don't understand iOS or Android.The World Ends With You is a particularly big issue for me, the iOS version was out for over 2-3 years which I paid for but I also bought the Android version when I owned a Nexus 5, they released it for Android in like June 2014 and when I got the Android 5 update in like September/october last year the game broke and they've done nothing to patch it, they don't respond to emails and nothing on Google Play indicates they have plans to fix it. The Android 5 update didn't magically drop out of nowhere, Google had stated way back in 2013 that they were going to change the Android Runtime from Dalvik to ART and in Android 4.4 it was already there so both the public and devs could test it, there literally is no excuse for Square Enix here as they had the best part of a year to test their game and make sure it was compatible when they released it.
I have an iPhone 6 now, and can safely say I will never pay for a Square Enix product ever again. I get why they wanna focus on mobile, it's cheap to make mobile games and carries a low risk for them, Tomb Raider cost like a 100 million dollars to make which is a huge gamble, and in general Japanese games companies are being destroyed by games coming out of American and European companies in terms of sales, I mean just look at 2014's best selling console games, there's 1 Japanese game that makes the top 10 bestselling list and that's from Nintendo, the rest of the games are from EA, Activision, Ubisoft and 2K with Minecraft making up the other position
I dunno, to me this sounds more like a moment where they've seen they can milk more out of small games with micro-transactions then a huge Ps4 FF game. Sad, but probably true.
The reason square Enix is focusing on mobile is because a lot of Japanese devs and publishers are losing the fans of the west due to the increase of western developers making games to our taste. On the other hand for the majority of Asia mobile gaming is the main form of game consumption, over here it's very different, the sales of next gen consoles show us that the console industrynis stronger than ever. We still crave those big experiences in our living rooms as well as the on the go mobile games, for them it's mainly just mobile. So all in all it makes sense for square Enix to do this because they no longer sell consoles, they aren't too dog here anymore. They need to find a new home and it very well might be on mobile. Konami is experiencing a similar situation
Mind you, "moving away" is not "leaving".
So, while they will surely focus more of their efforts on mobile games and less on publishing things like Tomb Raider, Murdered and Sleeping Dogs.
However, I can't imagine they wouldn't still aim to develop titles in their proven core franchises like Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy,
The comments section of this thread isn't long enough.
It'll be very interesting to see how their upcoming console games FFXV, Kingdom Hearts 3 and Star Ocean 5 will sell.
Particularly FFXV - and all the years that's spent in development - I'm concerned it won't be able to sell enough to turn a profit.
Overall I assume the three will sell pretty well, but not make the sort of return they're making on mobile.
I think FFXV will sell very well. That carrot has been dangling for 6 yrs. So many people will be buying that game. I'm probably gonna buy a PS4 just to play it. KH3 and SC, too. These are huge IPs that always net the most sells. I don't see that changing any time soon.
Yeah, I hope you're right.
Fingers crossed, would love to see FFXV sell a million or more in it's first week.
I am expecting all 3 of those games will sell noticeably less than their predecessors though.
I've owned every major console since the NES (except TG16 and NeoGeo). This generation of consoles will be the first that I pass on. I feel zero hype at seeing games still played at 1080p when I've been gaming at 1440p on PC. Between that and mobile games getting so good I think I'm done with consoles.
Consoles haven't been dominating the market for few years.PCgaming is the biggest platform now. Consoles will probably slowly fade away and all that will be left is pc and mobile gaming.
I doubt that. Consoles in general are still more user and budget friendly than a great gaming PC that currently starts at 1k+ in price. I don't see the majority of current console owners moving away from it at all.
Just so long as efforts like Bravely Default never get more IAP-y than that did. (...and perhaps still make showings in 3DS...and Vita?)
This company has gone down the pooper I'm not surprised - ffxv will probably be their last huge console release. Not surprised, they got a taste of the money they can make from f2p trash and they are probably wondering why put in all the effort when we can out in minimal on an iap heavy game and make more money. Oh well we have new companies we can count on for solid RPGs anyway like cd projekt and so forth
So does this mean we won't get anything from Square Enix unless it's f2p games? If the future of gaming is f2p mobile ports and browser/Facebook games I'll happily leave it to the casual gamers. I have many hobbies and don't mind saving money by dropping one. This looks like the crash of the 80s all over again. Shovelware games aren't fun no matter how they're dressed.