I didn't look at the article but I think that quote that you provided really is at odds with what makes a good game. If you give the player everything at the start, most gamers would quickly begin complaining that the game gets boring and repetitive. Good game design is about variety and reward. Giving up everything up front works against that in many cases.
I know that there is a large group of gamers that tend to just play a game for five or so hours and want to see everything the game offers before moving on, but I finish most of the games that I play and I really appreciate games that do a great job of rewarding the player with new items/tools and then sets up interesting scenarios that have to be solved with those tools.
I think this is one of the reasons why I disliked Halo 2 so much. By about the third level I had used every weapon that the game offers and piloted every vehicle. The rest of the game was just a slog through essentially identical firefights with only slight variations in the type of enemies that you face.
I disagree. I think developers can work different weapons into different situations and keep it fresh.
Say different damage by different weapons against different monsters. Or different speads of damage.
I think it is possible to really put some thought into why one weapon should be used over another. RPGs already do that. Some monsters have certain resistances, etc. FPS could do that, but they chose not to.