Seems like you have higher issues, like lack of self-control.

No. I am also tired of "the game isn't made for ME, so they should change it to suit ME". FFS, we are in 2020, there are several THOUSANDS games available, if you find a game too hard, don't play it and move on. If you still want to play it, use a cheat engine. But stop asking "MAKE CHANGES FOR ME". If the game is not for you, find another games. There are plenty.

Extra Credits had a Video about that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJoax1Z1x4Y

They focus not only on difficulty, but also making games more accessible to people with disabilities or other problems like low reaction times.

Jim Sterling did one, too: www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIWivb-8C1w&list=PLlRceUcRZcK0E1Id3NHchFaxikvCvAVQe&index=46&t=0

He basically says that it's to the developers to include easy modes - but that they aren't obliged to. However, he lambasts the mentality that easy modes are ruining video games since you don't have to play on easy and thus wouldn't be affected by it - but it would allow others to play it who otherwise can't.

Edit: Both are also stressing one thing in particular: That gamers wouldn't lose a thing from it, but rather possibly gain something instead.

It seems to me that your rpoblem with it is more about how these games play out, rather than the difficulty itself.Which is fine, not every game appeals to everyone.

That logic is so flawed.If I like everything about a racing game(its graphics, atmosphere, story, RPG systems and so on) except the driving itself, it means that the devs screwed up?

Is it so hard to understand that some people just like it hard, and to make a truly hard game, it needs to be made hard from a level design point of view, which simply makes it impossible to have multiple levels of difficulty because its either financially prohibitive, or simply because the devs dont want to?

And I mean, regarding some things that I have seen written here: If the first Dark Souls had ssell well, but then the sequel had done badly, then that would have sent a message that yeah, the public hated the difficulty and just a tiny portion of gamers liked that way.But with every new From games, they jusst sell more and more, with Sekiro selling more than 4 million units, recalling from the top of my head.And thats in less than one year.And Im not even mentioning Nioh, Code Vein, Dead Cells, etc.

*sigh* Seems that many haven't read my original post.

Its not simply a matter of whether the devs should do it or not(though thats the most important point).Its a matter of being impossible to add one without ruining the whole experience, because the difficulty is built into the level design itself, and thus making an easy mode would either ruin the game, because you would become too strong and just breeze through the game, or you would have to make a whole new game, because since the difficulty lies within the level design, you would have to redesingn a good chunck of the game.Which requires money of course.

Some games manage to have multiple difficulty levels without ruining the core experience(though personally, the "hard difficulty" in many games is still easy or jut plain unfair(1 or 2 hit kills), which is why I like truly hard games so much, and kinda pisses me when people say that "But the devs just NEEDS to make a difficult that caters to you!" as if that was easy), but some don't.Its as simple as that.

*sigh* Seems like you didn't watch the videos.

Nobody says that you have to include an easy mode - just that it's normally not detrimental to the experience and that it doesn't affect those who don't play on easy or even storymode difficulty in any way. Also, Jim points out that game developers don't have to include easy difficulty if they don't want to. And Extra Credits just points out that including them is easier and less time consuming to do as many think it is.

And thats the key word: normally.Thats the whole point.Usually games that have different difficulty levels can do that, because its easier to modify the game to fit that bill, since the difficulty lies more on the skill of the player(and thus depends more in the overall damage and health of the enemies and the protagonist), rather than strategise and have quick reflexes to adapt to the situations you have on the fly.

Hard games that have just one standard difficulty are few, at least compared to the massive numbers of games being released nowadays.So "normally" dosent apply to them, because they take the difficulty to the next level, at least compared to the satndard difficulty that became the norm ever since the 5th gen.

And Im not even entering into the merit of games being hard because that helps the franchise built an identity, thus functioning as a marketing tool and helping the game sell better.Since thats a whole another discussion.

Yeah, that's pretty much how I see it.

If a game is trying to be bone crushingly difficult, to a point where it ultimately frustrates a use, and causes them to put the game down, then I would easily sum that up to bad game design. 

I know a few here would like to argue differently, but I'd also argue they know very little on how others perceive challenges differently from them. Life itself is considered one of the hardest of challenges, and well, our species works day in and out to make life "easier" for one another, instead of staying stuck in the same spot for centuries (like not including an option or the will to switch said difficulty).

People that think a game has to live by one difficulty setting, and that it's "tough tiddies" to change things up, then really they are no better than old guard gatekeepers, and well, gatekeepers in general are a loathsome lot.

I can understand a game being watered down, but allowing for very basic, very well known, very common staple options for a video game, isn't something that waters it down for everyone else. You just play the game on the difficulty you desire, and leave everyone else alone in their own ventures. 

I do find the Souls influence annoying though, because slowly over the past decade, it's been changing devs from those who allow for innovative and open designs, to "you die once game over" concepts, as well as mechanics that slow you down or try to make you look like some rich man's "whipping boy" (by that I specifically mean the combat mechanics of "commit to action").

I find repetitive tasks and mission structures similar to said tasks to being completely boring in a lot of games these days. It's why I'm still waiting for that RPG or MMO game to come out, that doesn't require me to fetch something for someone, or gather X amount of Y, or pressing/flipping X amount of buttons/switches at any given location, because you're apparently the only person allowed to do such a thing. I find those aspects scattered around a myriad of those two genres, that they more or less take over the missions/tasks that are actually fun and have some depth to them.

I look at Souls combat like I look at Fencing. It has some style, but like fencing it becomes predictable, and that becomes a bore, as well as something that cannot really evolve (fencing itself is defined by a very tight rule-set, and it hasn't exactly evolved in a massive way for centuries now).

A game that doesn't treat me like I'm the saviour of all humanity or a chump, is a game I'll likely keep playing.

There are those that can play the game on an easier setting and complain about it, but really they could just crank up the difficulty to a point where it suits their gameplay comfort zone.

Someone on the Internet said something (and in a really general matter), so it must be true for everything, right? He takes an example, QTE. Ok, I'll create a rythym game with an "easy" difficulty settings: you don't need to press the right button at the right moment, good idea right?

I just finished Hollow Knight. I was terribler at start and now I am bad. Of course, Team Cherry could add an "easy game mode", you have more health, you do more damage, etc. Sounds easy, right? Oh, I can actually face tank the final boss (for 2 endings) without problem already, so it would litteraly defeat a big part of the game, learning how to beat the bosses. They could simply add a "god mode option", it would be a lot easier.

But it doesn't matter, right? Do you know how the soul-likes were born? We were in an age where the difficulty was so low for most games that the whole notion was dead. Why would the developpers create a "balanced" hard mode if most players won't even use it? And if you lock some content behind a "difficulty gate", many will cry (like they are crying about the soul-likes now).

Sure, in theory "more options is better". But when one option is almost unused because it has no incentive to be used, the dev get lazy. And that's how "difficult games" can use it as a marketting tool. But you will never be happy, you don't want games for you, you want to have every single game made for you and you alone.

I have an easy solution for you. Really, an easy one:

DON'T PLAY THESE GAMES.

I told you, this is easy. There are thousands of games and if you cannot accept that some games are not for you, well you are the problem, not the games. We have seen what the "just some difficulty settings" made to the industry between the NES/SNES era and the PS2 era. From "finishing the game is difficult" to "killing the hardest content of the game can be done by anybody".

There are those that cannot play the game without an easier difficulty and complain about it, but really they could just play another game. Your sentence is basically "every single game should be made for ME and ME ALONE and if you want it to be more challenging, you should adjust to the game made for ME and ME ALONE".