Not even in reverse, this is literally DRM.

Can't help but ask myself sometimes... why would users want to pay in the first place, for the content of someone who invests more money and leverage that some people see in their entire lives, in delivering user-hostile technical countermeasures that most of the time are ultimately futile?

What is the so valuable thing that one is supposed to get out of the work of someone who treats their audience this way, awesomely as their stuff might've been made? That's what doesn't make the most sense to me. But then I remember how most people aren't very intentional about most of their preferences and will accept whatever as long as it's served by an unaccountable industry into everyone's lives at the same time in a predictable manner, and I despair.

Funnily enough, there is also the exact opposite discurse in the US regarding firearms; where one side says: that firearms need to somehow be restricted and and it needs more checks to buy a gun. But then the Industry tells the story that in that case only the 'good guys' get restricted, since the 'bad guys' don't really follow the law anyways.

Where with Anti-cheat and DRM only the 'good guys' get hit, since the 'bad guys' don't follow "the law" anyways.

Yeah. Anticheat systems are the "think of the children" of DRM. It's the one scenario where you can sell users the hostile takeover of their own computer as actually beneficial for them - because cheaters in multiplayer are a genuine annoyance - while ignoring anything else.

Of course the argument falls flat on multiple levels: It ignores other ways to prevent cheaters, like server-side detection or maybe developing a gameplay that is not based on channeling masses of anonymous strangers through the game world. It ignores that it doesn't actually solve the problem of cheaters. And it ignores that many games use anticheat for reasons that don't have to do with multiplayer at all, e.g. to keep players from bypassing in-game purchases.