Why should I not expect both? The false ending is a trope that has been used across all forms of media, including games. I'm not saying that should have been the only option but it should have been one of them.
Because like my game developer article states, in order to accommodate something like this, they wouldn't just tweak the final cutscene cinematic. The entire game is based around finding the plans for the Crucible, gathering people to help build it, and setting it off at the end. You'd have to make an entirely different game essentially. That is why it wasn't feasible to do so. It would blow the budget and deadline for the game.
Bioware in telling their grand ending, forgot the characters that made us want to get there. Which is why I find the Extended Cut so good, it added back the personal to the grand.
I didn't need to have the game show everyone's plans after the war. They kind of touch on it earlier in the game if you talk to them. So they're just regurgitating the same information.
I wasn't there to save the Quarians, I was there because of Tali. I wasn't fighting side by side with the turians, I was there with my brother Garrus.
The Quarian arc isn't really about hanging out with Tali. The point of it was to make a truce between the Geth and Quarians to help take on the Reapers. If you are only able to convince one side, then your chances against the Reapers will diminish.
Garrus' story wasn't really about hanging out with Garrus either.
You needed Turian support for the Reaper war, and in order to get it, you had to do them a few favors. In addition to if you wanted the Krogan, Salarians, and Turians to work together for the war, these jobs had to be done. Say without Turians getting along, you might not be able to cure the Genophage, which would result in less Krogran & Turian troops, which in turn would affect how you fare with the Reapers.
If Mordin is dead in ME2, and you destroyed Maelons' data, your chances of getting everyone to work together to fight the Reapers are even slimmer.