I work in Software Dev, not the games industry but the approach really shocked me, it seems a bit too cowboy for a big company, what you said may make sense from a project manager point of view but I would have expected the developers to push back with concerns about:

• It being easier for them to produce an SDK that can be offered to partners than produce a library and find hook points in games to inject it into (might end up being a bit easier than this work being multiplied per game as these hooks probably exist at the engine level)
• Hooking into DLL function calls being an extremely fragile way to build software. I’d be surprised if any tech lead signed off on this approach.
• Anti-Cheats in the games they are trying to inject code in are designed to attest that the game’s memory has not been modified and it’s integrity is maintained. How is our solution compatible with this?
  • Research task is created and developers / project managers reach out to partners to discuss.
• Legal concerns, hooking into DLLs in most proprietary games as well as any other modifications are often banned in the EULA.
  • Task created to reach out to legal.

On the communication side, I can see that being something that got missed, it often breaks down when there is far too much pressure to deliver but most devs really care about the quality of their software so the technical counterpoints would surprise me if they weren’t raised. I imagine they probably were but somewhere high up a decision was made to go ahead regardless.