"I don't mind the skills have been reduced from 21 to 18"
[Gives reason why]
"Well, we may as well have one skill then, let's call it awesomeness, and let it apply to the one weapon, and one spell in the game."
Why does this argument keep cropping up?
Because anyone can come up with a weak subjective reasoning as to why a feature was "superfluous". I can come up with weak subjective reasoning for the removal of nearly every feature in the game. The natural conclusion is that every feature is somewhat superfluous by someone's reasoning and could be removed if these are the reasons why they were removed.
So, the features that were removed in this iteration of the game were just the features that happened to be removed, not the features that absolutely had to be removed. Simply, it's very doubtful that with Skyrim, Bethesda has found the perfect balance of features and in TESVI there will be no further reduction in content.
So from point A. "This feature is [somewhat] superfluous" to point B. "All features are [somewhat] superfluous" is not that much of a stretch.
Okay, only because they get money and Korean groupies. And if we want to expand the argument, hacking into government databases (either illegally or in the service of another government) is also pretty hardcoe.
But playing a single player game, where no money/competition/fate of nations is involved, can not be hardcoe. No matter how hard that puzzle box is to find.
Stop arguing about the semantics of the word "hardcoe"; you have your imaginary definition and the dictionary has the one everyone else uses, leave it at that.