raincoleYou ignored what I said right after that, about the need of higher level tools, which I think is what you're also saying.
Also I strongly disagree with all the "if Houdini is simpler, it will be less powerful". Like... really? In what way? Do you have a different definition of "powerful"?
In this case, powerful means the versatility to change what's under the hood of that tool if said tool doesn't quite meet your needs right of the box. That implies complexity as you have to know what's going on there in order to modify it properly. As far as I know, no other 3d package offers you that power to this level, you get a black-boxed tool which, if it's well built, will serve you in 90%-ish of the time, but when it doesn't, you're out of luck.
To reiterate my point, complexity is not the issue as that arises from the procedural atomized nature of the package, which is what gives technically inclined users the power (this word again) to create or adjust tools to meet their needs. But yes, again, I strongly agree with the fact that Houdini needs more love for the less technically inclined users, especially in the areas in which Houdini's not absolute king - sims.