I've been an outsider to this debate (havent played Sekiro yet. just finally beat DMC5 last night), but damn everywhere there seems to be strawman-ing.
That or pretending there's some third side that's actually just another argument of one of the two sides.
My thoughts as an outsider who has not even played Sekiro yet:
1. I think I'm leaning towards the "easy modes are cool" side.
2. I don't use easy modes almost ever (except for the rare occasion a game I've already played has a good story, and I mostly just want to experience that, but I dont have time for those playthroughs as often as I'd like).
3. However, I don't care if anyone else uses an easy mode. In fact, when available, sometimes I suggest them if I know somebody's play ability well enough. If they're not ready for a more complex or demanding game, why tell them to do something they wont enjoy? Folks have limited time, and as an ambassador of the medium to many friends who are new to games, I try to make folks have a good time. I don't expect kids to love 1984 more than The Cat in the Hat. The Cat in the Hat is still a damn good book. However, this might be part of why I don't like kids. I'm getting off-topic here.
4. I don't think anyone is going to make From Software change their game. The Kempeitai aren't going to come and behead anybody. So nobody needs to protect the artist here. Especially when their work is both critically acclaimed and financially successful.
5. As someone who wants to make games, I don't think I would want to spend much time making easy mode balances in my own game. Balancing and development overall is complicated and tiring enough as it is.
6. I'm probably going to have a good time with Sekiro in its current form, but would love for folks with disabilties or even who just cant be bothered to train their "action game literacy" to have fun, even if it's a different fun.
7. I'm not sure if anyone really knows what the creator's intentions were with the game. Seems like a lot of guessing out there from both sides. I'm sure the difficulty is intentional, though personally, I don't think most of their games are all that difficult. Punishing, definitely. Complex, to an extent. I mean, I thought Demon's Souls was hard for a while...but then I thought it was easy once I moved through the learning curve, and every other Souls game was immediately no problem for me. Bloodborne had some hard bosses, but for the most part, the game was pretty easy. Just time consuming.
I don't know how you'd make those games easier without making them boring. They don't have exceptional AI, so if you simply just weaken enemies or buff the players defense, a lot of what the game has going for it (the mystery of what's ahead behind the next boss) might fall apart.
EDIT:
8. I think Complexity and Difficulty in games are 2 different design tools( maybe not the best word), but not the same thing.
I think From games are somewhat complicated, but moderate in difficulty.
I think Ghosts and Goblins for NES is simple but super difficult, if not unfair.
I think Streets of Rage 2 is just about as simple, but less difficult, while still being hard.
I think Devil Mary Cry 5 is very complicated, but somewhat easy.
I think games are the most engaging for the most people when there's a good balance of both. Too complicated might bore someone if there's no challenge worthy of the investment put into it, and too difficult will make folks feel like they never stood a chance if they dont see much room for improvement.
Maybe that's a different topic altogether, but as someone interesting in game design, it interests me greatly.
So I don't really see what's at stake either way. If From makes changes to their game, I dont think much is lost by that. If they dont and you cant enjoy Sekiro, you can always just avoid From games. They dont make any, and if they want your dollars back, they can fight for them.
So yeah, there's my uninformed take. I'll probably start the game this weekend.
