Nobody normal would complain about the lack of bad games compared to good games as a lack of variety.
I would argue that, since "good" and "bad" are subjective, and one person's "good" game could be "bad" for another one, having a healthy mix of good and bad games both is actually
vital to variety. To provide an extreme example, I consider most modern RTS games to be "bad". They all moved too far towards eSports, towards rapid action and micromanagement, they've become a spectator sport (or at least, tried to copy the few that have) and I
hate this turn of events. I want more games like Total Annihilation, where large-scale management of your economy and industry, and controlling the flow (both of resources and your units, both of them infinite) are the name of the game, without taking away from attention to small details and consistency of the game's environment. But after Supreme Commander failed and other copycats went back to trying to be eSports games, I now know I'll never see the genre return to its height again. Nobody - no big company - wants to devote the money to make another silly but awesome RTS like Submarine Titans, nobody has the will to try and copy Homeworld, because "everybody knows it'll never be good".
I spoke of a genre here, a genre being overtaken by a predisposition towards the "right" ways of doing things, but it can and will apply to everything. And it's started already, with making "easy" games and "easy modes" being seen as "right", and it's slowly eating away at everything too. Games
should be difficult, they
should put up a challenge. Beating a game should be an achievement, a real one rather than a little digital plaque saying you've gotten to the end. And much like you wouldn't send a novice skier careening down the Death Gorge (or whatever silly name people come up for such things in movies), there could - should - exist games that cater to specific levels of play. Difficult games should have the right to exist, just like easy ones.
But personally I think a total refusal to offer any sort of concession to worse players is unnecessarily purist in this day and age.
On the contrary, I think that
especially in this day and age a good helping of purism is very necessary. The gaming industry is
losing entire genres to the ongoing campaign of all-encompassing inclusivity and the ever-continuing search for more profit. That's why the games that buck the trend always stand out, the Metroids, the Dark Souls(es?), the occasional Meat Boy or Celeste. Games that position themselves as more than just interactive experiences, not as things to consume and throw away but as things to be beaten for a sense of achievement (and/or wonder, and/or a spot on the scoreboard).
Like, I get it, you want the industry to cater to everyone. I just think "everyone" should include people that, no matter how unreasonably, want their own Death Gorges to conquer.