That’s why you design for accessibility, and don’t try to cram it in at the last moment. It’s not actually difficult, it just requires engineering discipline.
There are also plenty of Dark Souls clones for people like you who demand nothing but punishment.
You had me in the second half
That sounds like an entirely surmountable engineering problem.
It’s not like games are being written in assembly any more.
The point I’m making is that you need not alter the painting. Adding an option to a game does not alter it for those that do not select it.
You’re arguing for letting perfect be the enemy of good. The fact that a blind person can’t perceive the visual aspect of an experience doesn’t mean that they should be excluded entirely.
The economics are similar, but the solutions do differ. In the case of housing, we can build up in desirable areas while using the NIMBYs as biofuel.
Adding an easy or “story” mode to a game doesn’t inherently make it worse. You can still play it with difficulty cranked up to “Dark Souls” or whatever. The fact that there is a separate mode that others can use does not affect you; you need not use it yourself.
“Story mode” is actually an accessibility option in disguise: it can let people who have difficulty with fine motor control, reaction times, or understanding visual and auditory prompts to enjoy the art alongside everyone else. Instead of cheapening the game, it actually expands its influence on the world.
All that being said, no, no game is strictly obligated to be accessible, but why cheapen your art by not making it so?
The pricing problem isn’t inherent; manufacturers could make cheaper EVs, but are making most of them as premium models instead because they think they can (and likely do) make more money that way - same reason that almost nobody is building affordable housing, but rather luxury apartments.
Or they could have thought it out even better and included difficulty settings.
They have every right to ignore accessibility, but it will always limit their audience.