No matter which side of the coin you're on, there's always the question of focus. Developers have to work within a budget and have a limited amount of time. It influences the amount or type of content, as well as specific game design decisions.
So if you end up focusing on PvE, it inevitably means that you in some way have to compromise on PvP. This may translate into less PvP content, or perhaps specific gameplay mechanics that impose limitations on PvP. Obviously it also applies the other way around, where focusing on PvP inevitably means that there's less PvE.
Your doubt is naive and not well-considered. PVE and PVP are not opposing concepts. A player who plays PVE mode won’t stick to PVE forever—they might also play PVP. Similarly, a player who mainly plays PVP mode could also try PVE. These are two distinct gaming experiences, not an "either-or" choice. If PVE and PVP players end up being neglected due to an unbalanced focus, won’t the game lose players who enjoy the other mode entirely under a single-mode setup? If there’s only PVP mode, it will definitely lose players who like PVE. Conversely, if there’s only PVE mode, it may also lose players who favor PVP completely.
It's a bit rude to call my doubt naive and not well-considered, when you made no effort to ask me how I came to my conclusion. PvP and PvE aren't strictly opposing concepts, but at the same time, you shouldn't assume that players will like both equally and that the amount of cross-over would warrant equal distribution.
Even if players on average like PvE and PvP equally, there may still be plenty of individual players that have a stronger preference for one or the other. These players may want the developers to focus on whichever game mode that they prefer. Hence why there's always some friction.
If you look at the polling for pretty much any game regarding PvP/PvE distribution, the preferences are pretty much never perfectly equal. The community tends to gravitate one way or another. So if you end up focusing on one, then yes you do end up losing the players that prefer the other. At the same time there's also the chance to gain players whose preferences you do focus on.
Appealing to a broad audience is a strategy, but so is focusing on a particular target group. Whether the former works out, depends on the ability and resources that the developer has to produce something that can meet the competition.
Both PVP and PVE modes have their die-hard fans—they’re like the two ends of a stick. However, most of a game’s users fall into the "middle ground" category. The only difference among these middle-ground users is that some spend more time on PVP and less on PVE, while others do the opposite (more time on PVE, less on PVP). But there’s no need to force these middle-ground users, along with the die-hard fans at either end of the stick, to choose one mode or the other. For example, I might spend 70% of my time playing PVP and 30% on PVE, while someone else does the exact reverse. Why should we force users like this to make an "either-or" choice?
It's your assumption that most of a game's users fall into the middle ground category, but that isn't necessarily true. It depends on the game and we don't have the statistics or even a poll to confirm this for Battlefield 6.
Think of it like this, just because a player might spend 70% of the time playing PvP and 30% playing PvE, that says nothing about the available budget. If it requires 80% of the budget to create a PvP experience that can beat the competition and 40% of the budget to create PvE that's a commercial success, then you're stuck in a situation where you need 120% of the budget to do both.
Clearly these are just hypotheticals, but they do show why you can't always please everyone. Sometimes you need to make choices, even if that means that you'll lose some players.
