From a PC development standpoint that squeezes the generalist out from relevance & strongly pushes players to maxing out their primary stat before making other investments like feats. While the generalist might be able to hold their own alongside most specialists with magic items & do reasonably ok in a pinch compared to the PCs specialized away from a given area they no longer need that equipment& a +/-1 isn’t even meaningful alongside the d20 roll. The specialist by extension starts out not all that different in their niche & never really feels any pain for their “weak” area with a whole -1 on it so any gear that shoes up their weakness at all is only worthy of consideration if there is zero cost
I am not sure I agree with this hypothesis for a couple reasons.
First any character can be a generalist by investing in proficiency with a dump stat. For example my 8 strength, 7th level Ranger has proficiency in Athletics for +2 and he has a +3 in Acrobatics due to his 16 Dexterity. So he is a generalist and he is good enough at those two skills that he uses them both frequently, to include using shove in combat occasionally. If he invested in proficiency in acrobatics instead I would argue that he would be more of a specialist and while he would be great in acrobatics he would not be very good in athletics.
Second it entirely depends on the party size. The aforementioned Ranger is in a party that includes only 2 other players - a Druid and a Warlock. So he is also the "generalist" front liner and frankly below average at that. The Druid is the actual tank but it is quite often my Ranger is in melee sporting a shilaleagh. I could have built a Barbarian or Fighter or taken heavy Armor or medium armor master at 4th level instead of the Dragonfear feat and I could have a 14 Con and 12 Charisma instead of the other way around and if I did that he would be a much, much better tank, althoug still a "generalist". Of course he would not be the "specialist" face he currently is (sporting +8 Intimidation and Persuasion) or the generalist "Gish" he is now if I did that and throwing fear like it is going out of style.
Which would be better for the party overall? I would argue in that 3-person party having a lights out face with a bit of spell control and a bit of melee is better than having a great tank with no control and relying on our Warlock as the face. I would also argue that having a 2nd character who is "ok" in athletics and one who is ok in acrobatics is better than having one 1 character that is "ok" in athletics (the druid) and one that is good in acrobatics.
Finally in terms of feats vs ASIs I certainly take feats more often. Easily 3-to-1, although most are half feats and a lot of them come at 1st or 4th level in a "planned" upgrade that boosts an odd stat. In the least 7 characters I have played (14th level, 14th level, 7th level, 7th level, 7th level, 8th level, 5th level), I took 2 ASIs and 10 feats, not including 1st level feats.
The feats I took were: Fey touched (3 times), Shadow Touched (2 times), Telepathic (2 times), Tavern Brawler, magic initiate, dragonfear.