this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2025
36 points (92.9% liked)

PC Gaming

12002 readers
429 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 29 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Two anti-cheat tools, TPM 2.0 and Secure Boot, will be required to play the new COD.

Saved you a click, if you didn't already guess. I'm not sure how they'd be using the TPM, but there's no reason you shouldn't already have it enabled. Secureboot has debatable value, but if you're on Windows having it enabled doesn't hurt anything either.

[–] audaxdreik@pawb.social 29 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Fucking hell ... And there it is. I've been predicting it this whole time, the insidious reason that Microsoft requires TPM 2.0, remote attestation. DRM.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.en.html

In the past, these were isolated incidents. “Trusted computing” would make the practice pervasive. “Treacherous computing” is a more appropriate name, because the plan is designed to make sure your computer will systematically disobey you. In fact, it is designed to stop your computer from functioning as a general-purpose computer. Every operation may require explicit permission.

It's why the requirement and big push with Windows 11. To make this more effective you need to baseline it, and what better way than as a mandatory requirement for a mandatory OS upgrade. It's why they don't care about trashing all that old, "incompatible" hardware. This is the steel fist closing.

I hate to be the typical Linux guy, but get the fuck off Windows NOW. Do it yesterday. This is only the beginning, there will be more. Do you like how your phone is locked down? Do you wish your PC was the same?

[–] Simulation6@sopuli.xyz -2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If you are a PC gamer then moving to Linux can be problematic. I have run into a number of issues and probably a 10%-15% frame rate drop. Some games do run better, so depends on the game. Games like COD (that always sounds like a need to take a BM) probably have zero chance of working on linux because of the anti-cheat stuff.

[–] audaxdreik@pawb.social 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I understand, and trust me, I do try to be sympathetic to the myriad issues people can encounter switching to Linux. But I'm primarily a PC gamer and I've been and to make do. I can play popular titles like Elden Ring and Persona 5 Royal as well as competitive titles like Trackmania 2020 (and even install all the mods I want through OpenPlanet which doesn't have explicit Linux support).

There is for sure a cost that comes with Linux, either learning how to troubleshoot that performance issue or accepting it. But I'm advocating for an awareness of the cost of the tradeoffs staying in Windows; losing control over your hardware.

It's worth periodically reevaluating, and not being able to play games with anti-cheat is kind of the point because the AC itself is becoming an obscene and unreasonable ask on their end.

[–] Simulation6@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 days ago

Definitely better to get away from windows. I have an Nvidia Gpu, which is probably part of why I see the frame rate drop. I can still boot into Win10 to play some games, but really don’t do it that often.

[–] dan1101@lemmy.world 20 points 3 days ago

But that enables their anti-cheat to run at kernel level, and that is a large vulnerability.

[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago

Secure Boot and TPM were always about DRM. This is worse than Denuvo and we should not be okay with it.

[–] faltryka@lemmy.world 20 points 3 days ago

Yeah I’m not going to do that

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 18 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

How 'bout no, Scott.

e:

Two anti-cheat tools, TPM 2.0 and Secure Boot, will be required to play the new COD.

Oh, yes, the famous anti-cheat Secure Boot it's an hero in the community.

[–] audaxdreik@pawb.social 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I understand your skepticism, but see my other comment on topic RE: TPM 2.0

It's basically locking down your desktop the same way your phone is locked down (unless you're one of those nerds running GrapheneOS or the likes, in which case good on ya). Theoretically this could be good in that a totally locked environment is easier to verify and shouldn't require kernel level anti-cheat anymore. But you know, at the expense of surrendering low level control of your hardware to Microsoft and the likes.

This is incredibly gross to say the least.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

I am one of those nerds.

I also use, on Arch, btw, a TPM, and self-sign my own UKIs in order to use secure boot.

The majority of cheats which effectively evade kernel anti-cheat won't be affected. This will prevent efi cheats (cheats that load before Windows), but that's about it.

It won't prevent DMA access to memory and, unless they force using signed drivers (which, I think is a feature limited to Server packages) and only whitelisting specific hardware, something not really feasible if they want their game to run on a wide variety of computers, it's trivial to hide these cards as a NIC or other innocuous hardware.

It also doesn't prevent the aimbots that use computer vision running on external hardware because all they need to have out of the PC is display and they mimic being a mouse (another unwhitelistable piece of hardware).

What's more is that this still requires them to make kernel anti-cheat. One of the easiest ways to get access to memory is to make and install a driver. The driver isn't affected by secure boot (absent enforced driver signing, see above) and runs in ring0. The only way a game can detect that is to ALSO have software running in the kernel.

Though, to be fairrr, efi cheats are relatively simple and cheap, as they don't require extra hardware. So, it may be that this is the most common kind of undetectable cheat and worth enforcing secure boot in order to prevent. But the "best" cheats, DMA are unaffected. AI aimbots require cheaper hardware so they'll probably become the next most popular cheat.

[–] Grimtuck@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It's all been downhill since Modern Warfare. COD 3 in 2006 was when it peaked for me back before screaming children and online unlocks.

[–] AlphaOmega@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yeah. Maybe if it drops under $20 and has a positive Steam Customer rating, I would consider it.

But not if I have to change my Bios just to play it. Most gamers won't even understand how to turn on those security features.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

Most gamers won't even understand how to turn on those security features.

Secure Boot and TPM 2.0 are usually enabled by default. At least they have been in every build I've done or helped with in the last several years. I'm pretty sure Windows 11 requires both anyway, and that's going to be the majority of users.

As much as people complain about these things on places like Lemmy, the reality is most people don't care much if at all.

[–] Corigan@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 days ago

Nah no thanks.

I won't turn on tpm, need to avoid the ninja update to windows 11, you know how they like to do even without consent. I'll be going to Linux next month thanks.