Is it possible to cheat in a single player game?

I did not claim it was arbitrarily "offensive" to developers.  It shows a lack of respect to them (read - RESPECT) in much the same manner as my altering a painting I own would show a lack of respect to the artist of that painting.  Nothing preventing me from doing it... but it would show a lack of respect towards the artist.  Whether the artist becomes offended over it depends entirely on them.

I did indicate that, if a hack undermines the economics of a company (as the hack you mentioned on the other thread does by circumventing microtransactions), the company may get upset over that practice.  Case is point is Minecraft... a company that very much supported modding of their game became upset when servers started charging players for in-game perks that gave certain players real in-game advantages over non-paying ones.  They then attempted to modify their EULA and that created a lot more discord and ill will between the company and their modding community.

Did I say I feel bad for them?  Again, no, I did not.  You keep putting words in my mouth... and that, too, is getting rather old.  At any rate, as I mentioned this thread is about "cheating" - not about hacking to undermine microtransactions.  I have no plans to discuss it any further here and no plans to rejoin your thread on the matter.

Audiences have showed varying levels of respect to artists over centuries. We don't go and paint over a picture, because we don't like it because it's unique. However, we go and remix music, movies, stories, we boo at bad performance and applaud the good.
Personally, if a developer would get butthurt over me skipping or circumventing part of his creation - what do I care? The alternative would be to tell him how that part sucked, but if I violate this imaginary "artistic integrity" no one really needs to get offended.

That "integrity" is a mental construct - we don't keep listening to music we don't like - but if I can keep playing a game cutting out the part I don't like, the the artist acually should be glad I'm not downrating the whole thing.

Agreed, people show other people varying levels of disrespect.  It IS still showing disrespect... and that's all I was indicating on the other thread.  Personally, I feel that game developers deserve a little more respect than they get around here.  Despite all the negative comments about the ME Trilogy, there are many of us to continually replay it and, therefore, obviously enjoy it (and some of us even replay it without hacking it - perhaps we're foolish, but I don't think so.)  From their, however, artists also have a "right" to their personal reactions... some do get "butthurt" when they see their creations hacked.  Some get "butthurt" more easily than others... they are HUMAN afterall.  There was some "hurt" in the eyes of the one developer in a video I saw on the old BSN describing how people were hacking the games in order to gang up on players and "rape" them inside the game (I don't think any artist wants to see their creation used to hurt someone else.)  There was "hurt" in Flynn's eyes when he was telling us the the ME3 ending fiasco caused him to need therapy.  There are different levels and different intents to "hacking" as well. 

On the other thread we were talking about a hack being used to specifically circumvent microtransactions.  Now, I clearly stated that I do not support microtransactions... but I also feel that, when a hack undermines a source of revenue for the gaming company, that company may (read MAY) be more likely to get upset about it than a hack to just avoid, say, planet scanning.  The music industry did come down on Napster several years ago... although they eventually adapted their delivery system (i.e. found a way to make money off of downloaded music... essentially microtransactions.)  I don't feel that what I was saying on the other thread was too radical or too absurd that people should have gotten so upset about it.  I don't think it's all that out of line to ask people to show some respect now and then.

I recall a certain lesson at school where the religion teacher would take a certain scene from Brecht's "Mother Courage" and interpret it through some kind of religious stand point - except that particular scene wasn't really meant to be interpreted that way. I guess she wanted to hint that being religious doesn't equal praying but can also mean practical stuff, but she didn't really transport that. If a creation is out there you lose a bit of control over what recipients do with it and in the age of internet this happens so much faster.

Things have definitely become more complicated with stuff like microtransactions. My take is how it is implemented. If we're talking about hacking access into e.g. DLC content then I deem it clearly piracy. If it's in-game (SP) money they sell - well, there goes their fabulous idea of generating revenue - I'm certainly not paying money to cheat, because that's what it is: Selling a cheat for money.

It's also strange to me why a mechanic would be rigged in a way to incite monetization. If it is inherently annoying, it shouldn't be in the game for a start. It's true that a "game" should be a "whole" experience in itself. Concurrent methods to slice up games into episodes leave me baffled. And yes, it's true that cheating breaks that "integrity" - but when I think the rest is whole (enjoyable, immersive) enough, it can go a step to piece it together to a satisfying experience.

Let's say there is e.g. an RTS I enjoy somewhat. But the speed is too high - units die too fast I feel and all the animations seem like a waste - they happen so fast. Maybe I want fewer units slugging it out longer - so I tweak health, damage, DR etc. There is a cap on certain units, but I like to field more of them? I try to remove it. Sure it's rules - but I just create some new rules, so I can enjoy it better.

Only talking SP here. MP requires rules. And these in general should be left to a third party who watches it - unless all participants agree to another ruleset.