There is an emerging issue especially with GaaS where pro level balancing has a negative impact on the "non-pro" level experience.
I'll cite Siege and SFV as examples.
Siege is an exceptional game, but some of the decisions to balance around optimal play strategies arguably removes map diversity and removes design quirks or balancing issues that improve the experience for average players but are exploitable and unbalanced at a pro level.
SFV's entire experience was built around Pro level play, skill-gating content and wasting the average players time with a currency system built around high level play. Some will disagree, but this is my experience with the game.
Most people do not have time to invest in one game to get to "pro" level.
"Git gud" is not a design philosophy I am a fan of, because it contradicts what was widely regarded as good game design. Games should train the player to succeed, with integrated tutorial by design you barely notice. Nintendo is great at this. The alternative is frustrating for the player. I don't think the FROM games would lose anything offering a Tourist difficulty mode. I get no pleasure playing their games tbh, and find the critical and community praise perplexing. But I do not get any thrill from finally beating a difficult boss I've been stuck on for hours, so maybe my brain's reward system is wired differently.
Metroidvania's circumvent this issue by allowing the player to level up, or in the case of Hollow Knight, unlock power-up combinations to lower the skill-gating of a boss. However I've reached the endgame of HK and the difficulty has skyrocketed so I've got to accept I may never finish it.
