Criticism. "Wanting it all" is not the basis for many games, and also contributes to feature creep if it is not managed properly. The writer may consider replacing it with freedom of choice in game design, which is the closest thing I can come up with. Also, while free to play opens up opportunities which I will underline as POSSIBLE TO BE POSITIVE FOR PLAYERS if handled responsibly, these models are also very susceptible to the same types of abuse engendered by the previous two categories that are described. Additionally, baseline difficulty of accessing game interfaces will vary based on their systems, and are not a solid indicator of success if they are targeting a niche market with, say, a highly detailed flight sim, although efficiency in interface design should always be a factor. This extends to platform availability. While increasing the accessibility to the experience through wider platform distribution can reach more audience members, the platform itself also factors into the experience and may change it beyond initial recognition, so this may or may not be detrimental to what the developer wants to deliver, and should also be considered carefully instead of blanketing the market with subpar shoehorned products.
The new games are being led by folks who have honest expectations of their own capabilities, and specific intents for their creations, and the experiences that they want to create with them. The experiences that are delivered and distributed the most efficiently and effectively to the audience that they are designed for will be the most "successful" in terms of intent and profit, but the real "winner" must be the user (specifically by enriching their life experiences), as this is the intent of the medium, and will continue to be such, save for experimental projects which might introduce new, unexplored factors into the mix.