I honestly dont get this. Who is taking away your hard/default mode? It's still there for you.
Do you disagree with the statement that for an inexperienced player an easier difficulty is a similar challenge to the one you are having?
Finish this statement and see how it sounds "I don't want a less skilled player than me to be able to play a game we both bought because...."
How can I finish the statement when it's not my opinion at all?
You are looking at it from completely the wrong perspective and the fact that you want to dishonestly frame it as "you don't want a less skilled player to be able to play the game" really illustrates that so well.
For you, it's about people being big bad meanies for wanting FromSoftware to just keep doing their thing.
You have nothing to offer in terms of looking at the design philosophy behind these games and their difficulty.
You have nothing to offer in terms of how games can be made differently from other forms of entertainment and how using concepts such as challenge and difficulty can offer unique aspects that movies etc cannot provide.
Literally all you've got to offer here is "you don't lose any enjoyment if there is an easy mode".
The conversation is not about me wanting a hard mode or not wanting an easy mode or whatever. That's daft. I play plenty of games that have difficulty options and I've never been bothered by it. Why would I care? Those developers wanted to include options and that's fine.
Now, I would say that for the vast majority of games I would rather play the game as the developers intended. If the difficulty options are too many or there is too much "have it your way" then I kind of feel like I am not sure if I am getting the intended experience. Kind of like if you watch a big blockbuster movie on IMAX or if you just watch a dodgy pirated version on your phone. You might still enjoy the movie either way but the intended experience was the big screen etc.
The way I see this thing with Sekiro is that the developers have a very clear philosophy. The games have their difficulty for a reason and the developers want players to meet the challenge head on and they want all players to face the same challenge.
I see your argument as basically "please developers, would you mind actually undermining one of your core philosophies for me".
There are plenty of developers for whom difficulty is not a big deal. They want to offer options and they do. That's fine.
Does that mean that the view "we want all players to face the same challenge from the game" should never be allowed?
You ask "why do you want to stop people from having an easy mode" but I could easily ask you "why can't we just have a few developers who want to make difficult games that don't allow you to just decrease the difficulty".
Do you think that "the player must overcome the challenges in the game to proceed" is a bad design philosophy? Or, to go even further, is that a videogame philosophy that should never even be considered.
I mean, what I am basically saying at the end of the day is if a developer releases a game that has no difficulty options, and the only way for me to beat the game is to... wait for it... get good, then I am OK with that. If it's really not my thing then I'll give it a miss. After all there are plenty of games that do allow players to just dial down the difficulty and enjoy the story or the entertainment or whatever.
I put it to you that difficulty is a valid design choice.
I put it to you that challenge is an area where games can differentiate themselves from other forms of media.
Your reaction to that is "but it doesn't affect you if the developer includes an easy mode".
I'm not talking about me though.
It's not about my preferences.
I am arguing in favor of giving developers the space and freedom to create whatever game they want. If a developer comes up with a concept that is "the game is very tough and there are no cheats or options to avoid the challenge because we want to create games with a reputation for being challenging and we want to see the player step up to face that challenge" then I am interested in that.
Surely it's not a big deal if a handful of games every year try to see what they can do with that kind of approach to games?
I don't particularly think it's good for gaming if a bunch of whiners start crying and crying in the hope that they can influence a developer to put an easy mode in a game. If you can't beat the game then that's fine.
I don't see how the inability of some players to beat the game is grounds for approaching the developer and saying "you should change the game". Why not just play another game?
It's not like we are short on games here. If anything there are more great games out there than anyone would ever have enough time to play. Why not let some of those games start with the idea of creating a challenging game with no options to lower the challenge?
I don't even see how it's worthy of criticism to be honest.
Sometimes achievements are satisfying precisely because they are so difficult to achieve.
Like, running a marathon we all have to do the same distance. You can't just get a taxi to the finish line.
Or climbing a difficult mountain or winning a local tennis tournament or something.
Nobody should ever be allowed to create a game that tries to recreate that kind of thing as videogame experience?
Every game must say "oh now little Jimmy can't beat the game so he needs to have difficulty options"?
Nah. Let From Software do their thing.