Even if you value that added challenge and tension, games are lengthy experiences and often prone to bugs, mishaps and muddied design, so having to moderate your own behaviour towards platform affordances like cheats and savescumming is generally worth it over finding yourself locked out of exploration or experimentation or, yes, even opening that fucking chest after three natural ones in a row.
But at this point you'd argue for that holistic design approach where purposefully building the game around a single, rolling save state would force developers to make a better, more interesting title that would present the player with continual value throughout a "no refunds" playthrough, am I right? Well, actually it would force them to make games easier. All those arguments about how killing savescumming would elevate games by upping the challenge are wrong, in a beautiful fit of irony, precisely because they are correct. Designers would have to tune down all across the board (not just combat or platforming, but stuff like character building and consequence severity as well) to keep it accessible to a wide audience. Yeah, there is a target demographic for punishment and games to cater to it, like Dark Souls, but then that one game almost defined a subgenre in and of itself to the point that non-sliced bread became the "Dark Souls of bread." It's not for everyone and it's not for any game.
