One of the biggest complaints in modern online multiplayer games is the prevalence of cheaters. At a fundamental level what cheaters really do is that they imbalance the ecosystem. Games are their own universe whose physics are defined by the developers and competing within a certain skill gap is what makes players play it. So when they see someone circumventing the rules and destabilizing the order they are deflated and often leave the game or end up griefing other players as an act of venting out the frustration.
So why can't we just prevent cheating completely? Well for one, code is fragile and exploiters will always find gaps. In a perfect world sure, but a completely cheat proof system looks unlikely, especially with some of the new hardware based exploits emerging today.
Okay then why don't we just ban cheaters? Well they could always create a new account and there is a lot of whack-a-mole to be done to completely fix it. But on a closer look, it is also a business decision. Cheaters who spend thousands of dollars on these programs often buy expensive in-game items. There is one clear signal cheaters provide - they are willing to pay their way to the top. This is what creates the game dev dilemma.
Michael Jordan famously quipped - "Republicans buy sneakers too" when asked about being on a side of the political spectrum. For the game devs the reality is that cheaters buy skins too—and a lot of them. This puts them in a spot where having strict systems can lead to drop in revenue (as well as a lot of false positives potentially).
Making a 'fair' game is close to impossible now, but maybe the pay-to-win structure of some of the mobile games is a better model? At least it is transparent how the game is won compared to the paranoid mindset of the gamer who ends up thinking every good player is a hacker just because the game is infested with cheaters.