And the general argument that providing both - for example, both team initiative and individual initiative - somehow reduces quality or is "irresponsible" I reject as fallacy because there is no meaningful reason why that should be the case.
Double the development time of that feature, double the QA, increased complexity of balancing encounters, arguments or feedback about changing something don't disappear if you keep the original system and add a different option, etc.
Perfectly valid points sometimes, but not always. Some altenatives are subtle variations more than outright differences. There should also be consideration of whether the player base expands or contracts based on inclusion or exclusion of options.
Not infrequently, there is a default set of options around which a game is based, balanced and tested heavily, with "at your own risk" variations allowed. I think D:OS did something similar with camera rotation for those that didn't like the fixed orientation.
