>I haven't.
I have. Quite a number in fact, despite me wishing it didn't. Elden Ring used EAC to huge effect here.
Anti-cheat works to reduce the number and frequency of cheaters, not to eliminate cheating completely. It means the difference between meeting cheaters every single game vs meeting cheaters once every 20 games. One means your game is mostly playable and the other means the game is completely unplayable.
This is reasoning of yours is like: "Why use vaccines at all?" "Why use anti-virus programs at all?" "Why use seat belts at all?"
None of these completely eliminate infection, being hacked, and fatalities in motor accidents. But they vastly reduce the number of them occurring.
I find them to be rare, but I consider the existence of both cheating and anti-cheat software to be a symptom of a bigger problem: shitty games and shitty game mechanics.
If cheats maximize enjoyment for the cheater playing your game, your game sucks and you should focus on retooling the game to deliver that experience without third party tools.
I won't argue your assessment, but I've played and cheated in enough games to have an experienced opinion. Games can embrace designs that obviate the use of cheats, but this takes a lot of work. It's far easier to create a zero-sum multiplayer experience instead.
simple question : have you encountered an anti-cheat mechanism that works to stop cheaters?
I haven't.
The damage that DRM causes is almost entirely one-sided towards the consumer, aside from the pocketbooks of executives that want to boast about their games licensed anti-cheat mechanisms.
Those that want to cheat may be thrown through another loop, but it doesn't meaningfully stop them -- these people are often technical and interested , anyway. A new challenge for credit on underground forums -- great!