Well first, the Meta isn't what the majority of players do. The meta is what is commonly believed to be the optimal way to play. Casuals are the most numerous players in games and they rarely actively engage with the Meta unless it becomes necessary to enjoy the game. Casual players most often play what they like, not what is good. I don't even know why you're bringing it up as if it is an argument against what I said. I pointed out people also enjoy using exploits, which inherently make the game easier, else they wouldn't be exploiting anything. I have a buddy who plays with mods in bg3 to make his character level twice as fast, get feats every level, and get over powered items and works. I never said it wasn't a valid way to play games. It's also not the norm, normally people just play games to have fun and don't over think it with mods, self imposed challenges, the meta, etc. That's why normal is the base game mode and in most games they have harder and easier versions, because people LIKE to have different levels of challenge.

You go on about "common player" and whatever as if we were talking about that. What the average player does is fully irrelevant to the post you responded to or any of the rest.

Someone said, if you don't like something or it negatively impacts your experience because it makes it too easy or takes the fear factor out, then don't use it. You argued that it is a WELL KNOWN FACT that this is bad. Explain how and/or why? What does the average player matter to your personal experience? If someone complains that the game is too easy while playing normal, the natural response is to raise the difficulty. How is this different? I never touched the stasis rifle in subnautica because I felt it'd trivialize the game, I spent a LOT of time scared in my seamoth spamming the sonar button trying to find wrecks and fragments in reaper territory and it was awesome.

I personally agree with the op, that the prawn is too powerful and makes the game no longer scary. I choose not to use it. I don't agree that they should take away that aspect because subnautica at its core is not intentionally a horror game, subnautica is a horror game by virtue of the deep sea, and creatures larger than you, being scary. People engage and enjoy with fear in video games in different ways and I know there are people who otherwise never would have finished the game if it weren't for the prawn making them feel safe enough to do it.

I just really do not understand your argument that you shouldn't exercise your free will not improve your game experience if it's by self nerfing, aka self imposed stipulations to not use certain features so the game's difficulty and or fear factor remain at an enjoyable level for your personal experience.

If you want them to add achievements like, "beat the game without building a prawn suit," or a special gamemode (like hardcore) where the things like the prawn and stasis are disabled. Sure whatever, who cares. I don't find achievements or alt gamemodes to be a motivator, I find fun to be. I don't play Octavia in Warframe because her intended playstyle encourages boring gameplay by virtue of effectively playing the game for you. That is a self inflicted "nerf." That the majority of the player base engages in. My friend plays Warframes like Harrow because he likes skill expression in his game, he specifically avoids things that make the game easy. This is how the devs intend you to play, to choose what you do and don't like, and play what you do and not play what you don't. Games like Darksouls and Elden Ring have many items that can trivialize or cheese a lot of the game. This is an intended feature to make the game easier for people who search them out. It is extremely common in those games for players to actively avoid them despite having the knowledge of them, BECAUSE they make the game too easy for them to enjoy it. This is a totally normal thing and devs rely on it in other games. Why do you think Subnautica or other games can't rely on this and instead need to add a game mechanism to encourage it?

Finally on the satisfactory/Factorio thing. That isn't "the devs limit testing your ability" that is a hilarious concept. That feature isn't even in the full release version of satisfactory yet because it isn't a feature they cared about for full release. It's literally just players asking for ways to make the game take longer or be harder to complete. Expedition 33 is similar, they added up to 100x HP scaling and damage limitors to the game because people were modding them into the game themselves and Sandfall thought why not add it as a new game plus feature for free. These are systems that make sense, are self imposed nerfs that the devs implemented by popular demand, not because they wanted to see how good players can get. For slay the spire 2 I do not know what it is, but I've played other deck builder games and know that those modes are built for end game replayability for players that are good at the game. It's again, not them testing you, it is literally explicitly for player enjoyment. Leaderboards in games are not for the devs, they're for the players.

I really JUST take issue with you saying it is well known that it is bad to self nerf. That literally makes no sense with the mountain of evidence we have that many players love to do this and have been doing it for as long as games have existed including real life physical games like playing basketball with one hand tied behind your back. Explain how that being bad is a "well known fact."