The point of the trilogy was to have fun and experience a cool story and interact with cool characters. The ending of ME3 wasn't the whole trilogy. Simplifying the endings is not at all comparable to not having them at all - it just makes them easier to incorporate them into a sequel and still have it actually be feasible.
Yeah. Mass Effect has always been about the characters and story telling. The choice mechanic has never made a big difference to the outcome. I think it was always intended to make the games interesting and more replayable. If choices actually made a big difference to outcomes, then ME2 would have needed to be 2 separate games. One for saving the council, and one for letting them die. And then at least four separate games for ME3 once you factor in the Collector base mission. The time and resources needed for development would have been too hard to justify, so a line had to be drawn. As it was, ME3 ran over time and even still arguably needed more work. The game we got is ****** huge.
I know there are people who want ME:N's development to run into 2016/17 precisely so the game can deal with wildly diverging outcomes, but Bioware can't justify that from a financial perspective. EA is happy to dole out a big whack of money for a successful franchise, but being a company based on profit making for shareholders, they will want a significant return on that investment in a reasonable period of time.
So what we're going to get is a game which tries to deal with the ending choice (and the other major choices) in a way which satisfies fans as best as possible, but the outcomes will probably converge to a degree. The talk of having a plan makes me think a canon hasn't been chosen, so we can at least stop worrying about that. Your choice did happen, unless you chose refuse of course.