It's irrelevant, IMHO. We're not going backwards. It might be some things could be simplified, but as goes engine requirements, the impetus of the audience in general will always be to demand more. Whether, as a whole, they're willing to accept the sacrifice- often response time, think package trades -is another matter altogether.
You're misrepresenting the idea of options, too, I think. Just because one exists doesn't mean it's exerting a force on engine energies. Wow. That's a phrase.
It has to be turned on to integrate with other options and only if they're interconnected. Options alone don't mean complexity, but using a combination of options, the nature of which are misunderstood, may be likely to create unexpected consequences. More related to this a bit later.
Also,
lots of mistakes is a bit misleading, as well. Generally speaking, with the exception of the last couple of patches maybe, any specific game error is typically isolated to the area in which it occurs and can, once it's logged, replicated, and proven, be remedied with relative ease.
On the table for many versions has been the idea of a difficulty scaling for the user ranging from Basic to Expert or the like on the front end, offering a nearly automatic selection of options on/off. In the niche we represent, we always want more complexity, more options, more customizations and more, gradually, mirroring of real world baseball, minus the tedium that is not adding any fun or enjoyment factor to the game, but added just for the sake of realism. That's rarely good.
Back on point. Complexity alone does not generate mistakes. It's a matter of having more opportunities for enjoyment and possibility for error, but an error that arises out of a compartment, not out of structure. Think of a class of students. Sure, a 10 chair classroom is easier to control and manage, but is unlikely to match the diversity of a 35 chair classroom in terms of viewpoints, exchanges, and opportunities to explore one's own interaction with the class, potentially learning more. I'd go so far as to say will likely learn more, just like Everyday Joe clicks a button he's never tried before, asks questions on the forum and, Voila!, finds a new feature that adds to his game. In that same classroom, more responses may be wrong, but it doesn't have to affect the rest of the students. In fact, they can learn from the errant response, much like we learn (and improve) the game from the Bug Reports. The instructor (developer) is not without blame or exempt from due praise. What is designed / taught should be done so with clarity and definition. We don't always do that or provide that, but we're working on getting better at it. Can't know what's wrong if you're not sure what's right.
Okay, rambled a bit there. Apologies. Complexity is not cause.