Unless one platform limiting the potential of another platform for that game.
That is my concern. Not that the devs are starting with a non-PC platform here, but I do think many design decisions (UI anyone) were limited to allow for multi-platform release.
For me, Civ 6 is at the minimum desired threshhold of complexity desired for this game. I personally would like to see more complexity -- more units, technologies, and strategies. However, with R&F, it is at a good level. But it is less than V, which was in turn less (far less) than IV. A continued trend of "simplification" here, whether for inclusion of new players, or compatibility for other platforms, would not likely be what I would want to see.
Who here would be okay with CiVII having a $90 price tag, our of curiosity?
.
As crazy as this sounds, I would likely pay 90$ right now to simply -continue- playing Civ VI -- so I would pay a 90$ price tag for Civ VII (assuming it is as complex as Civ VI).
I'm (just) in the 2000h club, tho probably actually maybe 800 real hours and 1200 idle hours. Let's say 900 "real hours" -- which would mean I am would be paying $.10 an hour for Civ VI. Most players are probably at <100 hours, but even then, it is less than $1/hr, which is great entertainment value.
I've been a long-time proponent of the DLC model being applied to the Civ franchise. It's practically begging for the $8-10 semi-monthly DLC cash cows like Sims-style games. Civ-packs, map packs, scenario packs. The way that Civ6 has R+F bundled as a "Rule Set" even suggests that it was built on the idea of Paradox-style expansion ideas.
They just never did it. I really have no idea how 2K can be so eager to exploit the daylights out of 99% of their properties, even ones that they have to bolt on stupid extras that seem to make no sense whatsoever, but a franchise that is SCREAMING for obvious optional add-ons they leave without them. It literally boggles my mind.
2K. Leaving money on the table. Think that thought through for a moment.
I have thought about this very thing a lot -- 2k is leaving a lot of money on the table. But I also believe that there is a certain "communal" feel about Civilization as a whole -- and by having too much DLC, it will just alienate and/or upset many players that cannot or choose not to afford it. I'm blessed to be able to buy DLC on announcement and it is no big deal if it is any good or not. But I wasn't that way all of my life, and had Civilization I had this model, it might be likely that I abandoned it.
As someone that has owned every iteration of the franchise (and all related except (gasp!), Alpha Centauri), I know I will get value for $ and as such, am very willing to purchase. In fact, my first experience with Civilization was from a software rental house -- where the guy running the desk suggested the game to me and my friends. We installed it, and I think we ran the game continuously until the rental expired and we had to return. 4 of us chipped in to buy it outright at $19. (those were the days, huh) Since, every Civilization release I purchased on or near day of release without hesitation. Including some duds.
Relaizing this, I am still likely very much in the minority of the install base -- and by having too much DLC, they risk alienating folks that don't want to constantly pay an extra $5-$10 to have a groovy new civilization or wonder. As much as I would -WANT- Firaxis to do more, I think the model of limited DLC and expansions is likely a more sane approach for the majority of the install base.