Foundation: Galactic Frontier review: TV-inspired iPhone game fails in so many ways

Macworld

At a glanceExpert's Rating

Pros

Technically well realized

Motivating game concept

Cons

Only loosely based on Foundation

In-game purchases everywhere

Our Verdict
An epic name, a big logo, and then a routine free-to-play game with aggressive monetization. Apple’s partnership with FunPlus raises questions: Why tie a top brand to the very business model that Apple Arcade is supposed to compete against?


Best Prices Today: Foundation Galactic Frontier






Retailer


Price









Check




Price comparison from over 24,000 stores worldwide






Product


Price




Price comparison from Backmarket



















Sometimes the name bears more weight than the content. This is doubly true for the iPhone game Foundation: Galactic Frontier (FGF). It plays off an epic template: Isaac Asimov’s Foundation cycle, one of the most important science fiction sagas of all time. And there’s another big name that flashes up when you start the game: the Apple TV logo.

When you see these two giants, you expect something big, epic, perhaps even revolutionary. What you get instead is a classic mobile construction game, like dozens of others, only with a thin coat of Foundation.

The game’s first impression is quite impressive. The trailers promise an immersive sci-fi experience, the graphics appear clean at first glance, and the Apple TV branding suggests a certain quality assurance. You are thrown into a world that speaks of the collapse of the empire, psychohistory, and brave traders who must find their way in the chaos. Sectors need to be explored, ships built, and heroes recruited. It all sounds like a real adventure.

But after a short time, an unpleasant familiarity sets in. Anyone who has ever played a FunPlus game will immediately recognise the pattern: base building with a timer, collecting resources, fleet management, repetitive quests, and an omnipresent feeling that you always have something to d but only if you are prepared to wait or pay.

A thin veneer for a masterpiece

The Foundation licence is the game’s biggest lure. You meet familiar characters such as Hari Seldon, and the story tells of the Trader Era, the collapse of the empire, and the Seldon plan. The problem is simple: the psycho-historical theories that make Asimov’s work so unique degenerate into loose accessories here. The dialogue is often generic, the missions are rarely really exciting, and the plot feels as if a standard sci-fi story was taken and a few Foundation names were simply sprinkled on top.

It’s not the depth you would expect from this template, but rather a shallow background noise. That’s a shame, because Asimov’s universe offers so much potential for complex storytelling. Instead, the glorious licence serves primarily to attract fans, who then find a routine mobile game. The psycho-historical tension–the real essence of Asimov–is completely missing.

Gameplay: Tried, tested, and tedious recipe

Mechanically, FGF is a prime example of the strategy-building games that have made FunPlus so successful. In base building, you build your spaceship, store resources, and wait for upgrades. Fleet management works similarly: assemble fleets, assign heroes, pay attention to synergies between the different ship types. There is also the obligatory gacha element, numerous characters to collect and level up, all of which you naturally want to collect. Ultimately, like Sea of Conquest, another title from the studio, only now in space instead of pirate ships.

A galactic map invites you to explore, peppered with events, story missions, and PvP zones. The battles are visually appealing, but are often rather automatic, with little direct player influence. Tactical decisions tend to be made in advance through fleet composition. It all works, no question. But it’s also nothing new. Anyone hoping to find a fresh interpretation of strategy or even an innovative realisation of Asimov’s ideas will be disappointed. The game is designed to bind players to daily logins, events, and monetization in the long term, maximizing dependency, not enjoyment.

FGF runs very stably on the iPhone, even if some effects can cause minor stutters. The game runs exclusively in portrait format, which is interesting and new and not necessarily annoying on the iPhone. The biggest technical annoyance, however, is the lack of iPad optimization. On an iPad, the app is displayed upright, and there are large margins on the sides. For a game that thrives on overview and strategy, this is a missed opportunity and considerably reduces the fun of playing on Apple’s larger tablets. The UI/UX can feel cluttered in places, with too many pop-ups, icons, and offers flooding the screen.

Monetization: The real empire behind it

This is where the FunpPus DNA comes into its own. FGF is free-to-play, but the way to really progress or keep up with other players is quickly via the in-app shop. It starts after a few hours: Building lines get long, energy becomes scarce, new heroes or ships can only be obtained with luck–and a lot of grinding–or by spending real money. The game offers countless “packs”, time-limited offers, VIP levels, and aggressive cross-promotions.

If you want to survive in PvP battles or excel in events, you often have to dig deep into your pockets. The balance is clearly shifted in favor of the publisher. It’s not pay-to-win in the most blatant sense, but definitely pay-to-progress, where the fun depends heavily on how much you’re willing to invest, or how much patience you have for endless timers. The reality is brutally honest: those who don’t pay will always be a few steps behind those who do.

Screenshot
Screenshot
Screenshot
Screenshot

One question remains above all: why do we see the Apple TV logo on the game’s start screen? This suggests some kind of quality control or at least a close connection to the Apple brand. The logo implies, “Apple has approved this. This must be good.” It attracts people who love the TV series and gives the game an air of officiality and high quality.

But if you take a closer look at the game, the question arises: Why is Apple involved? Why is a company that sees itself as a curator of premium experiences supporting a game that is so exemplary of aggressive free-to-play models? It’s like a three-star restaurant sticking its logo on a microwave lasagne.

With Apple Arcade, Apple has created its own subscription model for games that promises exactly the opposite: no ads, no in-app purchases, and premium titles that run on all Apple devices. A narrative, strategic game in the Foundation universe would have been the perfect candidate for Apple Arcade.

Just imagine: a game commissioned by a top studio that picks up on Asimov’s complex story, offers a real iPad version, and doesn’t fragment the gaming experience with paywalls or timers. This would have fit perfectly with Apple Arcade’s philosophy and would have been a real reason to book the subscription. Instead, the TV branding is tied to a product that virtually undermines the core values of Apple Arcade.

There are, of course, rational explanations for Apple’s approach. A free-to-play game like FGF generates enormous revenues through in-app purchases, which directly benefit FunPlus and Apple (via the App Store share). This is much more lucrative and predictable in the short term than the fixed costs of an arcade title.

Licensing is also easier than development. Apple can give the game licence to an experienced publisher like FunPlus and hope that the deal makes money without having to finance a game studio for decades. The game also creates buzz around the Foundation brand and keeps the series in people’s minds. FunPlus is a master in building and monetising live service games, an expertise that Apple does not want to build up itself.

From a purely business perspective, this is understandable. From a brand and quality perspective, however, it is a disaster. If the game is perceived as a typical rip-off title–it is, to be honest–this will reflect negatively on Foundation and Apple TV. Apple’s marketing message for Arcade, which clearly positions itself against IAP madness, seems flimsy when simultaneously promoting a prominently branded game that pushes these very mechanics to excess.

It’s also a missed opportunity: Apple has the resources, platforms, and technological power to realize a truly outstanding Foundation game. A game that honors the series and explores Asimov’s ideas interactively. Instead, this opportunity is given up for a commercially safe but artistically unambitious solution.

The Empire still has a lot to learn

Foundation: Galactic Frontier is essentially a well-made mobile game that skilfully hides behind a big name. For fans of Asimov’s work, it is a disappointment; for mobile strategy fans, it is another fun plus option among many. The real problem is Apple’s role. This game ignores Apple’s quality standards. Economically, this may be attractive in the short term, but strategically it is a mistake. It shows that even the biggest tech giants sometimes chase the quick buck and forget what their brand is all about. With Apple, it’s always been the attention to detail, the willingness to take the harder path if it’s the better one. With Foundation: Galactic Frontier, you don’t see much of that. Too bad for Asimov. Too bad for Apple.