I think Patrick perhaps oversells the “impossibly hard” reputation of roguelikes and roguelites [and continues to, annoyingly, call Hades the former when it is very clearly the latter].
Even in the “true roguelikes” space, there’s a significant variation in difficulty - coffee break roguelikes are sometimes very completeable, the interest being in the varation between runs, or in an interesting mechanical concept, and more recent roguelikes - from the DoomRLs to Brogue - are usually much easier than their forebears. (Whilst, sure, Nethack and Angband, and that ilk have a reputation for needing a huge time investment for completion, even back then there was a certain negotiation within the community- Nethack has had Explorer Mode (essentially god mode) since pretty early in its existence).
In the wider Roguelite sense, I think part of this reputation has really come about because “roguelite” as a metagenre (it’s clearly not a genre in the same sense that “roguelike” is - roguelite is a modifier on other types of game) turned up as a popular concept around the time that “old school difficulty” was starting to be a thing, and the two are tightly bound in their development. (Indeed, the false reputation for the difficulty of roguelikes probably inspired their borrowing from in the roguelite metagenre.)
Still, “roguelites” can have very variable difficulty - I strongly dislike one of the metagenre stalwarts, Rogue Legacy, for its unfair difficulty curve; whilst I don’t think it’s particularly difficult to win at FTL, Into The Breach or a number of others.
So, it’s not clear to me if Patrick’s central thesis is really justified at all.