The complete lack of logic is what's hard to understand.

So you consider that YOUR way of enjoying games IS universal and refuse to understand that some people don't enjoy games the way you do, and call it "lack of logic". Great. So you refuse to understand that I can accept that some games have an easy mode but I also don't want an easy mode in every game. 

Yes, when at the beggining I have to decide a level of difficulty, it affects me. I don't have a clue if hard means "just a bit harder" or "your tears will be made of blood". So I have to decide. If the game is too easy/hard, I either have to restart from the beggining or not fully enjoy the game. And I don't even know if after that point, the game will be harder or keep a similar level of difficulty.

Yes, when the game dynamically adjust the difficulty, it affects me. I never asked them to hold my hand.

Yes, when I was looking for tips for a specific type of builds in Path of Ecile, I won't have to dismiss 90% of them because they were from people playing in "normal" mode and not "hardcore" (you are a lot more defensive when you can't die even once).

Yes it affects me when I have to faceroll a game to have access to some "hard mode" (and usually more than just harder and not even balanced).

https://www.makinggames.biz/news/debating-difficulty-settings-in-game-design11134.html

But yeah, the best argument when you don't understand something is "your complete lack of logic". If the game doesn't suit you, don't play that game. Simple and easy. Again, just don't play that game and play something else.

I lack self control to resist the temptation so I demand that they aren't put in the games.

Just to pitch in something: wouldn't it also be "selfish" to demand the dev to put in more "features"(since options make it like its something that everyone would like and wouldn't harm the game in any way for others, which is not the case), when it is clearly that they don't want to, whatever the reason may be?

Or rather, since you are getting old and thus don't have the reflexes you claim you once had, you want those features in so that you(and emphasis on that) can enjoy them better, even against the wishes of the creator himself?(which admittedly have more right, and moral grounds, than you and me to do anything they want with their games)Wouldn't you say you are being as "selfish" as us, as you are claiming?

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".

So you consider that YOUR way of enjoying games IS universal and refuse to understand that some people don't enjoy games the way you do, and call it "lack of logic". Great. So you refuse to understand that I can accept that some games have an easy mode but I also don't want an easy mode in every game. 

Yes, when at the beggining I have to decide a level of difficulty, it affects me. I don't have a clue if hard means "just a bit harder" or "your tears will be made of blood". So I have to decide. If the game is too easy/hard, I either have to restart from the beggining or not fully enjoy the game. And I don't even know if after that point, the game will be harder or keep a similar level of difficulty.

Yes, when the game dynamically adjust the difficulty, it affects me. I never asked them to hold my hand.

Yes, when I was looking for tips for a specific type of builds in Path of Ecile, I won't have to dismiss 90% of them because they were from people playing in "normal" mode and not "hardcore" (you are a lot more defensive when you can't die even once).

Yes it affects me when I have to faceroll a game to have access to some "hard mode" (and usually more than just harder and not even balanced).

https://www.makinggames.biz/news/debating-difficulty-settings-in-game-design11134.html

But yeah, the best argument when you don't understand something is "your complete lack of logic". If the game doesn't suit you, don't play that game. Simple and easy. Again, just don't play that game and play something else.

It depends, when does it become ageism. Nobody seems to have an issues with color blind options or subtitles for the hard of hearing. Actually a lot seem to applaud accessibility options. Speed is one of them and will be more relevant as gamers get older.

Because color plind options or subtitles are tools that allow players to play at their fullest.Tools that makes them play with 100% of their power, so to say.These are true acessibility options. Ageism is unfortunely not like them.Until today, we haven't found a solution to getting old, and as much as people who play football professionally needs to retire once they get old, games don't need to cater to old people because its not their fault that you got old.

Now that attitude is ageism! Professional football players often become trainers and can still play friendly games in lower leagues. That's all people are asking, a friendlier version for those that want that. Old doesn't mean obsolete. Reaction time and strength may go down, patience and experience still counts.

Games don't need to cater to old people, but as gamers are growing older, it would be a shame to leave that market behind.

That's exactly my point.Old football players retire as players, but still are inside the "football cosmos": They become teachers, trainers, narrators, club presidents.They use the experience they have and go to a tangent field, thats still related to football bvut isn't football per se.

That's the same for games.You either use that experience to compansate for the reflexes, or you move on to other, different genres.Or play games in the same genre that the devs intended to be either easier, or to have a different experience compared to "pure hard" games.(more focus in exploration, story and less on reflex-like gameplay)