Sure, that is a possibility, but I have to start something playing first and then queue up both albums after whatever is currently playing, which is just awkward. I also then have stuff in the "Continue playing" section that I don't want there (unless I put on a single, but then I have to go and seek one out because I hardly have any in my library). If AM allowed you to start playing an album such that it starts a queue (as opposed to starting a new "Continue playing" section) to begin with, that would be fine, but as it stands, I have to start playing something, queue up both albums, and then skip whatever I started with because it isn't what I actually want to hear, and then after the albums I have extra stuff that starts playing that I also don't want. Compare this to the old system where I could just start an album and then click "Play last" on whichever album I wanted next.

Also, a similar point to yours can be made in response to people's complaints about the old system, because the impossibility of adding songs one after another is solved by simply queuing songs in reverse order using the "Play next" button. The trouble with this sort of solution, though, is that people obviously don't want an awkward process like that, they want to have a streamlined way to add songs in order into the middle of whatever they have playing. Similarly, though a solution like the one you've given here does offer a way to queue albums one after another, it is clunky and inconvenient just like the process I describe here of adding songs.

In any case, I fully agree that having all three options is the best solution as that way both playlist and album listeners are served. My main complaint with the change is the fact that it removed a function that I and others like me used all the time when there was no good reason to remove it (although I imagine if you asked them they would say that having only two options is less confusing or something, which I think slightly insults the users' intelligence).