Tactical vs strategic prioritisation

We can portray potential features in a 2x2 matrix of value vs effort:

It seems easy enough to say that the first things we do should be the low-effort, high-value features and we should not bother with the high-effort, low-value features.  Then we make judgments on high-effort high-value features vs the low-effort low-value features on a case-by-case basis.

Seem reasonable?

On the other hand, will this feature-by-feature approach actually produce the best product result?

In practice, how much trust do we have in the value assessment? Will we systematically undervalue certain types of features due to biases for faster ROI? Or to phrase that more generally...  Do humans have a tendency to systematically undervalue long-term investments due to biases for faster ROI?

What about features that have no or minimal value on their own but, when combined with other features, create a large aggregate value?  After all, we are not creating a bag of features so much as an overall product/service experience.

(Fantasy)

"I like this product because it has more features than the others." 

(Reality)

"I like this product because it's better than the others."

"What does 'better' mean?"

"Exactly."

I suspect feature-by-feature prioritisation is a good tactical prioritisation approach but is inadequate as a strategic prioritisation approach.

Instead of feature-by-feature, perhaps prioritise using aggregates of features where the aggregates are steps toward the True North (aka perfect) vision of the product.  Within the aggregates, we do feature-by-feature prioritisation.

Note: By "feature", I mean a Minimum Marketable Feature, that is, something that is independently valuable and releasable.  A Feature Aggregate is a collection of MMFs.  I'm also assuming that each MMF is released so Feature Aggregate is not synonymous with Release.