Fine, but again I think this is subjective. "Quality" in a game's context is especially subjective.
Is it though?
I like having 1 thing but of highest quality possible. You prefer to have a multiple versions to choose from. That is a subjective preference and benefits of both could be argued for.
However:
If you work on 2 or 3 things at the same time, it makes it impossible to give them all same attention, as if you worked on only 1 thing. That's just how things work. Then of course, add not only different reactions, but many different requests fans will have throughout the development and things can go out of hand.
But this based on looking at game development "time" or "attention" as a zero-sum thing, and that's what I'm not at all convinced of. I see the possibility of positive-sum where you only see zero-sum.
But going further, yes, if quality somehow ends up suffering, I am very much in favor of options for players EVEN IF it has to come at the cost of quality. I am quite happy to accept a "lower" quality if it means a greater number of people can be satisfied. I reject the principle of just satisfying the minimum number of people you need to satisfy, and embrace the principle of satisfying the maximum number of people as is reasonably possible. But my inclusion of the word 'reasonable' is important here, because I do agree you cannot satisfy every single person, and you cannot include every single possible option. But you should strive to satisfy as many people as possible while embracing common sense and good judgment to balance your cost versus benefit trade-off.
