Having a casting focus or a component pouch as stand in for material components is mostly a tool focused around roleplay flavour and ease of play; having a casting focus to equip would be nice but equally, having a video game, specifically, not worry about that is no great loss either.
Remember also that a material component is only consumed
IF the spell says it is; the pearl for identify is requisite and cannot be substituted with a focus, but it is also not consumed, and one peal is all you need. Similarly, the tiny diamond used in chromatic orb is not consumed either, and one diamond is all you ever need. (on that note, chromatic orb is not really anything particularly special; it's a 1st level spell that deals 3 dice of damage to a single target, with an average damage of ~14, and no damage at all on a miss, and doesn't upcast efficiently (example; at 4th level it deals 6d8, average 27, to a single target, while a 4th level single target damage spell traditionally deals 8d8, average 36, the discrepancy only grows). Chromatic Orb's value lies in its flexibility for damage type, more than anything else, and any spellcaster who wishes to use the spell as a staple will use 50g of their starting gold equipment to ensure they've got the diamond for it from the outset)
==
That said - yes, it would be nice to have that degree of flavour present in the world and a valid option to engage with, for players who want to book-keep it that closely; I probably would. It's one of those elements, however, that can be more of a frustration, or simply a disincentive to engage with a large number of spells (this is the failing that other D&D video games faced with restricted spells - people just didn't use them), specifically in the translation of table top to a video game format - so if the option is present it should be a rule that can be set on or off.
==
Edit: The hype article that D&D beyond wrote for the spell was interesting, but it wasn't entirely honest; they used the generous averages method for talking about CO, but the reserved averages method for talking about other spells. Generous method says that you assume all attack rolls hit, all saves fail, and AoEs hit an average of 3 targets. Reserved method assumes that attack rolls hit 50% of the time, targets save 50% of the time, and AoEs hit 2 targets.... So, on generous method, the 2-turn damage output of CO is 28 damage, while burning hands is 60 damage or 20 over 3 targets (even if fire is resisted, it still wins here), and ice knife is 53 (25 + 14 +14). By reserved method, the 2-turn damage output of CO is 14, while burning hands is 30 (or 15 over 2; once again, even if the fire is resisted, it still wins over CO) and ice knife is 19 (12 + 7). CO actually loses out in both methods of averaging - its main selling point is its flexibility, which shroud make it more reliable, but this is countered by the inherent unreliability of attack roll spells compared to saving throw spells... which makes it, overall, not actually a great spell, all told. It's flashy and makes big, temping promises, but it doesn't live up to them overall.
