Then we are not really talking about a genre but a specific target audience. If you narrow down that much, then just list a few games. I don't play this kind of games, I don't know why some people would play them and I don't really care if they have fun. I like to target specific achievements in Europa Universalis IV, some tries are taking 30h+ but I can understand why some people wouldn't do that.
But the main point is still here: if a specific game has a very narrow target audience, where is the problem? To be honest, I get it: random player A doesn't have enough time/motivation/skill/willpower/etc to play a specific game, while many people are liking that specific game. So he wants an easy mode, i.e. several changes in the game to suit him, without even noticing that the game could be less popular for the current players. He could play another games instead, but no.
This is exactly the case with Sekiro. A part of the hype around the game is the difficulty (or in a simRacing game, an ultra-realistic setting). By asking for an easy mode (or in a simRacing game, a less realistic setting) you are asking for a change in the core of the game. This is getting boring, again there are enough games. They could just stop to be selfish and claim "every game should be for me".
If you look at the amount of Souls-like games that are out there today, compared to when it was simply just Demon Souls, then yes, you could consider it a mini genre of it's own. There's a reason why people, even a storefront like Steam calls and has the tag "souls-like", rather than "crushingly difficult", because that doesn't roll off the tongue, nor sound like a fitting sub genre name.
I know you do not play these games, and neither do I, but it's not hard to see what they are and what's transpired since the first ever Souls game.
There is no problem, but there is also no problem when a dev offers a differing difficulty mode, or when people simply mod one in themselves. Hell, I just posted about the devs behind Dying Light putting in an even easier option, years after the game's release, and that game is known and heavily implied to be a "survival" game, as in you fear for your life during the day and the night, yet they have added an option that does away with that very thing, and it isn't harming anyone in the slightest, because people that want to play things on a harder difficulty can simply choose that option, and those that don't can choose the latter.
Do you understand why we as a species try to make our lives a little easier, or does that not come natural to your line of thought?. Yes, the human race does love a few challenges here and there, but at the same time we also like to make things easier for ourselves, from understanding methods to general science, and obviously to games explaining mechanics and tutorials, that have evolved over time.
The thing is, is that those who do not want said game to be changed to suit others, is that they also want other games to be changed to suit them. We have those same people bickering about games being "watered down", and that they want them to stay stagnant and the same, or made more difficult, to which we end up seeing the excuse "game doesn't need to be for you, but I want it to be for me" being used.
What's getting boring, is watching a minority whine about how they want games to suit their tastes over others, but claiming they aren't harming anyone themselves. It'd be less insulting if they weren't so self aware of their obnoxious elitist bs.
I have every DS. I still need to find time to play Sekiro.
But, again, for the 1000th time, if only a handful of games are too difficult for you, this isn't a problem. This isn't about elitism, this is about a gaming experience. If you could understand that different gamers are expecting different things from different games, it would help a lot. This is getting boring:
-I don't like the difficulty in THAT game, NERF!
-You could simply play another game ...
-No I want to play THAT game and THAT game is too difficult for ME, NERF
-But why do you want to play THAT game? The difficulty is part of THAT game
-You are an spouting some obnoxious elitist bs. NERF THAT game for me!
Oh, and we don't harm ourselves, the challenge is part of what we like in games. I don't want to see EVERY SINGLE GAME made for ME. Ah "The thing is, is that those who do not want said game to be changed to suit others, is that they also want other games to be changed to suit them." is pure BS. There is a set of people who don't want to see an easy mode in DS. There is a set of people who want to see other games changed. These 2 sets have an intersection but ar different sets. This thread is about letting the devs chose, so obviously we are not asking to change any game.
Again, this is getting boring. I am tired to read the same folks FORCING their way of playing games. No, we aren't doing that, we are simply telling you that there are enough games to suit your taste and you shouldn't FORCE your way of enjoying games into EVEY SINGLE GAME.
Ah, and one last thing: DS games are not even that difficult compared to, let's say Kazio Mario games. Of course you die and retry a lot, but the skill needed to beat the game isn't that high. You don't need frame perfect inputs, pixel perfect moves, deep knowledge of the game mechanics, various speedrunning techniques, etc. The bosses have a clear (and quite slow) pattern and you can take it slow.
One major difficulty in DS (if you are going blind) are the stats. You don't know what the stats do and new players usualy do a bad build, and either they do little damage (so they need to dodge a lot to beat bosses) or take too much damage (and they don't have much room for error). But you can always grind to fix your build.