But I don't think there's one process that's better that the other - outputting new works frequently vs working many years on the same work - and this article felt quite biased against the latter. It never mentions how a work can remarkably stand out in beautiful ways when the author takes the time to let his work grow and evolve during development, even if that means giving into to obsession to details. Think of Kubrick's 2001 or The Shining, Valve's Portal 2. To turn like they did, these works could not have been rushed out. Or think about how the quality of Stephen King's Dark Tower arguably declined once the author decided to accelerate the writing of the last volumes (V, VI and VII) (on the side of that argument, Stephen King has recently stated in interviews that he's thinking about rewriting major parts of those last volumes, like removing himself as a character).
There are obviously many examples of amazing works that were created in a rush of luck and intuition, and of incredibly long processes that turned into failures. But some of the best works in history took years, and grew older alongside their artists before being released. In the end it's about the artist finding the right process for his work and career, whether or not that meets this article's definition of "prolific". Even if the audience has to wait a decade for a work, if the process was the right for that work, it will still be the most beneficial call for the audience.