I never said a game has to be hard to be good. But, right now the games with the best designed mechanics don't have any hard option. So it's like "I could be loving this game, only they decided to make it completely inaccessible to me". Where is my "Second Quest"?
And there is definitely a line. A Link To The Past as I said is not a hard game, anyone can beat it. But, there are some parts where you might get stuck for a bit and have to figure out how to get through. If there isn't a single point in the game where I ever feel like I'm at risk of dying or ever have to get better at the game or figure anything out to move through, am I really playing a game? Or am I just jamming buttons on a controller to pass the time? Those moments of frustration and subsequent overcoming of that frustration is what made me love video games to begin with. And you don't need 'Hardcore' level of difficulty to get those moments.
Also, I hate this trend in games that companies think every level of the game should be the same difficulty level. Instead of actual increases in challenge throughout the game, you get the perception of increased challenge through scaling up enemy strength and player level together. Why not have level 1 be super-easy and level 20 be hardcore? Scale up the challenge smartly, teach the player a skill in a context where it's easy, then pull out a situation where you have to apply the same skill where it's more difficult. That's difficulty scaling 101. That way anybody who beats the early levels will then be ready for the hard levels. That's how 80s kids learned to deal with challenging games, and there's no reason 00s kids can't learn the same way. And I bet if they did it this way they'd enjoy the games way more in the long run.