its not your video game, its their video game that they created for you to play and buy. You dont have to like it, and its not considered meddling in "Your game" because YOU didnt create it. They can decide what barriers and rules to make because they are creating the game the way they want to. So you could never begin to even consider it meddling in the first place.
If they are designing a game that is restrictive to users then users will demand a refund - which is not good for them. Bruh's point is that he is purchasing a copy of the game and should be able to play it in the way which he desires to play it without paternalism from the game's designers. Of course, I'm pretty sure he doesn't actually own a copy of the game at this point because capitalism has decayed so much that you lease things rather than own them outright more as time goes on - you aren't allowed to modify your phone because Apple or Samsung or whomever claims to still own the phone and it is buried in some legalese.
But it is a very bad idea for any company to get paternalistic and tell consumers how they must consume their product without a very well documented reason of significance to do so. If this were a multiplayer game and he was tricking out his character to give it an advantage over others, actually ruining others' game experience, that would provide such significance - but what he does in single player is of no one's concern but his own. The drive of this seems to be that players who lack the daily grind want a challenging product and feel entitled to demand that everyone else also have that same challenging experience rather than minding their own business. A successful company appeals broadly and so gives options and variation - they don't pen everyone into the same experience.
