If you mean roguelites, yeah I could agree on that and those being the new arcade games, just with more meat to them thanks to the added sense of progression.
But a roguelike is something completely different. I was developing one and when interacting with communities that play those types of games (the actual roguelikes) they could get quite picky with what is a roguelike and what isn't a roguelike, even considering mine to not be one just for the inclusion of Action Points into the combat.
You are speaking more in terms of what they contain, but I am talking about progression.
I have always considered roguelikes to have a 'full reset' when it comes to progression, linear or non linear. Once you die, regardless of randomization or variety, you start
all the way over.
Those are what I am talking about.
Roguelites on the other hand feel like you're making progress and will eventually reach an end, which makes sense with the "-lite".
It's why I technically consider the Arcade games of long ago their own version of roguelike, especially if they were on console because the console ports didn't let you use quarters to continue and you had no choice but to start over. And the progression was more linear so all you were doing is seeing the same progress over and over again, but experiences of what happens could technically change depending on if the game has branching paths or secret enemy types, etc.
Those experiences were more frustrating than fun, which why I was going on about the landscape of roguelikes changing in the past decade, because I don't think it's fair to the new, good roguelikes out there that they are constantly criticized for something they have evolved from, and a simple playthrough is what it would take to show that.
Edit: If people are going to start using the old school, technical term for rogue and roguelike, then the entire genre needs to be renamed. But that clearly isn't happening so I'm operating within it's modern definition.