It is a noticeable pattern that, whenever a design decision comes up, someone sooner or later suggests that the game should support both options of the decision. In the hex tiles vs. square tiles discussion, some people suggested: why not make a game that supports both hexes and squares? In the sequential turns vs. "plan and go" turns discussion, people suggested: why don't we make a game that supports both these turn modes? And now, people are suggesting that the game should have both a finite and an infinite resource system.
If the team were to follow all these suggestions, the workload would double. Actually, it would probably more than double, because designing one game that works well with different tile formats, turn formats etc. is more complex than simply designing two separate games - you have to make sure that all the different features integrate well into the whole, you have to test and balance a much more feature-bloated game, and so forth.
The other danger I see is that, if we try to cram all these different options into one game (hex tiles, square tiles, sequential turns, plan-and-go turns, finite resources, infinite resources...), we end up with a game that has no discernible identity, no "face". My experience is that, when you try to please everyone with a design, you often end up pleasing no one.
I'm not saying that having different options is a bad idea per se, I'm just pointing out the dangers I see, especially if we go down the route of "Oh, let's just have both options!" every time.
]
