Copyright infringement laws, at least in the US (I assume Australia has analogous laws) prohibit reverse engineering in many circumstances. Profiting by creatin

Copyright infringement laws, at least in the US (I assume Australia has analogous laws) prohibit reverse engineering in many circumstances. Profiting by creating tools to bypass anti-cheat mechanisms in games is one of them. I don't know exactly if profiting off cheats puts this in a different category of violation, but it does signal that the developer is aware of the fact that these cheats are giving players an advantage significant enough for people to want to pay. It also gives the publisher grounds to sue in civil court for lost sales. Even in Assassin's Creed Origins' case, the EULA prohibits development or use of cheats or trainers. Companies generally do not pursue people who violate this in single player games, as it would be seen as heavy handed, but ostensibly Ubisoft could go after me in civil court for using a memory editor to give myself EXP and mats. You and I may not agree with these laws, but that does not change the fact that these laws and EULA provisions exist.