I don’t think you can make the argument that the amount of cheaters using DMA is “just as many” as in a game with a less restrictive anti cheat, allowing cheaters to simply download a program off the internet and run it to acquire cheats. The accessibility of DMA cheats is meaningfully reduced to the point that I would guess (only conjecture here, sorry) the amount of cheaters is orders of magnitude less in an otherwise equivalent comparison.
Now, the amount of DMA cheaters may still be unacceptably high, but that’s a different statement than “the same amount as”.
So, it’s not “giving up something for nothing”, it’s giving up something for something, whether that something is adequate for the trade offs required will of course be subjective.
I noticed the same behavior in my Vision Pro the other day. The conclusion I came to was actually that I was not seeing the boundaries of foveated rendering, but a UI element. When staring at touch targets, it projects an overlay over the target with a slightly bright large circle around your eyes, fading further away from your eyes. As you move your eyes around, the circle follows them. This is particularly noticeable where a very large touch target (like a large text box) is present, you can easily see the entirety of the circle overlay, whereas with smaller targets it’s cut off on the edges of the target. It also happens to align with the foveated rendering downsampling circle because of course they both follow your eyes. I’m guessing this is what is happening here. To test this myself, I looked around on a large, lighter colored page in safari with no large touch targets, and could not see the same circular glow.
Now, the amount of DMA cheaters may still be unacceptably high, but that’s a different statement than “the same amount as”.
So, it’s not “giving up something for nothing”, it’s giving up something for something, whether that something is adequate for the trade offs required will of course be subjective.