Battlefield 6 cheats day 1 of early access. Depite kernel level anti cheat, forced secure boot TPM 2.0
Battlefield 6 cheats day 1 of early access. Depite kernel level anti cheat, forced secure boot TPM 2.0
215 comments
-
-
I love the Battlefield series but I'm not turning on Secure Boot for them. If it remains a hard requirement, I'll simply be passing altogether.
-
There's nothing wrong with Secure Boot and enabling it can prevent a small subset of attack vectors with no real downsides. That being said, the things Secure Boot does protect against aren't likely to be an issue for most users but it's nothing to be afraid of.
-
beautiful. fuck secureboot.
-
Why?
-
- some people run more than 1 OS
- some people actually program and need to load unsigned shit all the time
- some people have legacy hardware that doesn't run with secureboot
- it is my decision and my decision alone how i boot my operating systems. not EA's.
-
Needlessly intrusive. Can obviously be circumvented by cheaters anyway, so quite possibly superfluous. Apart from that it protects against the kinds of attacks that typically require physical access to the computer. If you have physical access you have full access anyway. Etc.
-
It fucks with Linux. I literally just disabled it to resolve a driver install issue before this announcement was made.
-
-
-
So I can’t play battlefield without TPM? I hate tech these days. My Ryzen board doesnt have it. Hence why I’m not on windows 11
-
You can still get win 11 without TPM by using Rufus and bypassing TPM which will have to be done for a lot of old PCs and we will have to do it by October this year.
-
Why would you install Windows 11on a computer? What happens if you don't do it before October?
-
Didn't Microsoft stop this in a recent-ish update? I remember trying it on a machine without TPM and it just didn't work.
Bazzite worked fine though (after some headaches setting it up).
-
Does this disable updates though? My wife somehow had Win11 installed on her pc without enabling secure boot, and her updates got so far behind that now it refuses to update and needs to be reinstalled.
-
-
you will own nothing and be happy
-
Your anti-cheat doesn't work anyway so let me play in linux you cowards.
-
They want to keep windows relevant so hard. Yeah, i enable secure boot, and let some kernel level anti cheat into my system. At least i don't have to play with cheaters. Oh there are still cheaters. So glad
-
-
Anyone with half a brain could see this coming from a mile away. My conspiracy brain almost thinks this is some concerted and calculated effort by Microsoft to artificially lock games to Windows through anti cheat. It's disgusting, isn't needed, and just plain isn't effective. They can spew all the metrics out of their ass, we all know that it's just not effective.
-
I am not sure about this conspiracy theory of yours: Microsoft does not want third party applications in the kernel space anymore.
https://www.theverge.com/news/692637/microsoft-windows-kernel-antivirus-changes
-
Not entirely;
https://github.com/microsoft/ebpf-for-windows
Microsoft just want that 3rd party code to interact in a more predictable way with the kernel
-
-
a year ago on Mastodon when EA started locking out games like Apex Legends, BF1, V, 2042, etc from Linux I said "I bet you Microsoft is about to launch a handheld and since they have a deal with EA and Gamepass they want EA Exclusivity on their handheld and to lockout Steamdeck/Valve" sure enough a few months later Microsoft announces their Xbox handheld with Asus.
-
And what's the one thing they are getting fucking torched over even by Xbox loyalists? The price (Steam Deck has a cheaper SKU)
-
-
-
So you got the spyware without the benefits, that's a hell of a surprise isn't it?
But thank you for your money suckers!
-
This is where we need dedicated servers and self moderation
-
Yep.
Things were better when private servers had actual mods and admins, they acted more like pubs where you could go see the regulars, actually form a community.
-
DayZ, Rust, TF2 and Minecraft were the model all along. Nice that it's vindicated.
-
CS 1.6
-
-
This is where we need dedicated servers and self moderation
My knowledge towards battlefield games ends at BF4 but I’m pretty sure people pay to host custom servers, EA refuses to open source it and only supply a handful of third parties with the actual code for them to charge hosting fees.
I’m sure there is an NDA involved.
-
I won't buy BF6 if it doesn't have a server browser
-
-
I only found out about this today from someone whose computer got bricked from trying to enable secure boot.
-
My machine went into a boot loop and I had to clear CMOS to boot again.
I wonder how many people without the resources to fix a problem like that easily are going to end up without computers for an extended period of time because of this.
-
Just clear the CMOS.
I had issues aswell where I couldn't boot, and you wanna know why? Because I didn't follow the step by step instructions EA tells you to follow. Follow those instructions, and it'll work just fine.
-
-
I'm glad I didn't enable Tivoization (Secure Boot) and TPM. Those suck, and actually froze our machines. It's literally useless at this point.
-
Having Anti-Cheat of any kind outside of the game is laziness or lack of resources.
I believe just have physical limitations of the character or objects and verify the movement every once in a while to make sure that their movement is not super human (ie, aim bots).
You don't need a kernal level anti-cheat.
-
The best thing is back when Battlefield was Battlefield, it would self-regulate because most people played on self-hosted servers, so cheaters and bad actors were taken care of swiftly. But now they want their own control to put shitty bots and SBMM in the game, so here we are.
This whole game is a case of the devs making bad decisions and then instead of changing them decisions, they apply the quickest bandaid fixes they can.
-
Kernel anti-cheat does absolutely nothing to prevent aimbots/triggerbots, as most are run using 2 separate machines, anyway. The first machine runs the game in a totally clean and legitimate environment, but sends its video output (either using standard streaming tools like OBS or by using special hardware) to the 2nd machine. The 2nd machine runs the cheat and processes the video to detect where to aim and/or when to shoot, and sends mouse input back to the 1st machine.
-
It takes more work and resources to do what they're doing. They already do server side anti cheat. And realistically, this is more effective than not doing it, though it definitely still gets defeated anyway. I would say the things that it asks of the customer are not worth the trade even if they were 100% effective, but they are more effective.
-
And they should just make good games too, right?
The issue with "just analyze the players" is that it is VERY expensive computationally. And it causes issues with non-official servers as it drastically increases the cost of a dedicated server and makes a listen server nigh unusable.
To be clear: I do not think the kernel level anti-cheats are a consumer friendly solution. But it takes a special kind of arrogance to insist you know better than decades worth of research and work in trying to stop hacking.
-
Yeah I mean its not like Valve has been using a combination of server side and client side game file only validation to do AC for Counter Strike for 20 years or anything.
Yep yep yep, the whole industry uses Kernel AC, other than the devs of the longest running competetive FPS franchise ever, yep yep yep!
-
-
That doesn't cover wallhacks.
-
Wall hacks could be defeated by the server only reporting the positional information about enemy players to game clients when it detects that the client player's camera should be able to see some part of the other player's silhouette. This is possible, albeit computationally expensive, but the main functional issue is latency. Nobody wants enemies magically popping into view when their view changes quickly because their ping was more than 6ms lol
-
-
They're gonna kill this game aren't they.
-
It's already dead mate. Hop on the finals, we got linux support.
-
Nah. Everyone wants tpm 2.0 Ask Microsoft
-
I have a feeling they are
-
-
Why are people like this. How does this make gaming enjoyable?
-
Honestly, if I had the skills I'd be doing that as an explicit fuck you to the draconian anticheat bullshit they force on everyone, because what better fuck you than showing all that effort was for naught, especially close to launch.
EA can go fuck themselves with the world's biggest cactus.
-
For some people the only things that brings them joy are 1) winning 2) making other people suffer
-
Or developing cheats. It sounds really fun and you get to grow by keeping on top of the anticheat.
-
-
-
Hm, yeah, it's something every developer should know; client-side validation of input still needs server-side validation, because client-side is not reliable, no mather what you force on them.
-
Pretty much the same as all the other modern BFs. They all had cheats in the Beta/early release versions. I’ve played and own literally every BF game since the original release of 1942. Cheats have always been present more or less.
-
Server side anticheats need to be considered. Clientside has been annoying users far too much, and can be bypassed. A combination of both (and I’d like a less intrusive clientside one) would be better
-
And yet they have the audacity to block Linux players
-
More proof that anti-cheat and bans just isn't a working approach.
Almost every cheater I've talked to or seen interviewed has said they do it because they like winning. If thats the case, pushing them away isnt getting rid of them, its making them try to win harder, and they are literally spending money to make that happen.
This means, there is a market for cheaters, one that publishers and devs simply assault instead of realizing they could replace it entirely.
Create a marketplace in your game for cheats. When a player buys a cheat in game, they can turn it on but only in a specific playlist that cheaters get to play in. You dont need to own or turn on cheats to play in that playlist, in case you feel like challenging yourself, but cheaters can use them as much as they want in that playlist. If a cheater wants to go into cheat free playlist, their cheats get turned off by the game and they have to play like everyone else. Cheat free playlists can have cheat detection, and if you are caught cheating then you get banned from cheat free playlists permanently, but you arent banned from the game or the cheat playlist.
This deters cheaters from paying third parties for cheats, gives them a space to experiment in, makes money for the company running the game, and reduces the amount of cheaters in regular public lobbies. It also creates a space of challenge for people who don't cheat, sorta like how people will do no death runs in souls games.
Sure, it isnt a perfect solution, but its far better than punishing every player with invasive tech, while simultaneously letting a market of cheat sellers thrive. For a bunch of capitalists, its wild they haven't realized they are missing out on money with cheats.
-
I suspect that if you're now playing where everyone else gets the same advantages, that ruins the fun of having cheats
If not and the cheats themselves are just that fun to use, sure, add it in as another gamemode
-
...alternatively just shadow ban all the cheaters into cheater only lobbies.
-
Nullsec
-
-
-
I play games mostly on my Steam Deck after migrating from Xbox. Didn't want to pay for Internet access to use the Internet I already pay for (Xbox Live).
Battlefield games like BF1 and BF4 used to run on the Deck about a year ago, but then EA toggled something and disallowed any and all Linux distros. Can't remember their reasoning, but something something anti-cheat.
Now me, a paying customer, was fucking pissed. I purchased these games on my Steam Deck to avoid corporate walled gardens like the Xbox, and then EA lock me out of my purchase after the refund period had elapsed. What the fuck????
So I started dual booting Windows 10 on the Deck to regain access to a product I had paid for. Fucking shit I had to do this in the first place.
But now I need to enable Secure Boot to play the new shit, and I have no clue how to do this without bricking my Deck. I'm an engineer, but not the software type. I don't want to fuck around with my gear just to play games.
Client-side AC is a poor solution to cheating that can be solved with server-side AC.
Fuck EA. Fuck M$. Fuck all the corporations that want to run spyware on my devices
-
at this point i just wanna cheat the hell out of these crappy games out of spite.
-
That's punishing legit players, not the developers. Not playing this shit is the correct spiteful choice.
-
i already don't, feels like they need more spite.
if the players have a bad time they will leave. show them kernel level anticheat doesn't work and its pointlessly invasive.
-
-
-
secure boot required
Wow. Might be the first BF game I pass on even if they eventually give it away for free.
-
You didn't skip 2042??
-
I got it for free. 🤷♂️
I haven't paid for a BF game since BC2. 🤣
-
-
There are a lot of good reasons for secure boot both in game and in general. If your distro does not support it then that should be a complaint directed towards the maintainers. And... getting that through Proton is a different mess.
But EA have been spending the past year or so actively updating older Battlefields (I want to say all the way back to 3?) to actively block linux/proton. For whatever reason, they actively want to block anything but Windows for their games.
-
-
Can't you load your own keys into your BIOS, letting you sign whatever you want anyway?
-
You can, but most everything that would let you run your own boot-time code is supposed to end up in the TPM event log, which the TPM is happy to attest to with its unique/uniquely bannable attestation key. Not too difficult to set it up so that no attestation = no access.
This type of attestation is far from perfect for a lot of different reasons, and it would be really impractical to automate bans with it, but I guess it's a tool they see value in.
-
-
-
Shame was really looking forward to bf6. Guess I'll pass
-
Back on Reddit, there were even complaints that EA's anticheat was conflicting with Riot's anticheat. Yep, now you potentially need two different installations of Windows to run each of your games. At this point, you would need to buy several SSDs and a SSD extension (or an external USB reader, since USB speeds nowadays are relatively fast enough to afford running those games from an external drive), then install each game (and operative system) in a different one, and swap between them before booting, just like a cartridge. Same would go, of course, for your actual main GNU/Linux drive that contains your actual personal data - that way, the anticheat can't even see your personal information, as it'd physically unplugged from your computer. And since Windows checks the license per motherboard, not per drive, you should be able to recycle the activation key between your Valorant "cartridge" and your Battlefield "cartridge". At this point, paying for a dedicated game console and the online pass starts becoming attractive...
...That, or just boycott multiplayer games altogether. If your group of friends doesn't mind, of course.
-
Oh no! Ch43t3Rzzzz!
-
Only AI will be able to root this out in future
-
That's an (obviously) unpopular opinion around here but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: How would AI be able to do that?
-
I am not sure what the user above is thinking, but to play devil's advocate:
One thing that modern AI does well is pattern recognition. An AI trained on player behavior, from beginner level all the way up to professional play, would be able to acquire a thorough understanding of what human performance looks like (which is something that games have been developing for a long time now, to try to have bots more accurately simulate player behavior).
I remember someone setting up their own litmus test using cheats in Tarkov where their main goal was just to observe the patterns of other players who are cheating. There are a lot of tells, a big one being reacting to other players who are obscured by walls. Another one could be the way in which aimbots immediately snap and lock on to headshots.
It could be possible to implement a system designed to flag players whose behavior is seen as too unlike normal humans, maybe cross-referencing with other metadata (account age/region/sudden performance anomalies/etc) to make a more educated determination about whether or not someone is likely cheating, without having to go into kernel-level spying or other privacy-invasive methods.
But then...this method runs the risk of eventually being outmatched by the model facilitating it: an AI trained on professional human behavior that can accurately simulate human input and behave like a high performing player, without requiring the same tools a human needs to cheat.
-
CSGO used to have Overwatch which is an anti cheat system that uses trusted and experienced players to go through video footage of reported players. With this method I both reported blatant spinbotters, wall hacking, and other chears. I also was on the side of watching back footage of hacking players.
Say AI trains on this data, it might work.
I'm not a fan of this though because knowledgeable and experienced players will be better than AI.
-
What actually exists but what I have yet to see implemented in any game I play are those server-side "AI anti-cheat" solutions like from anybrain that basically just analyse the players behavior to fit certain criteria. According to areweanticheatyet.com though there are four games using it already (the most well-known one probably being Lost Ark). In theory ai models can be very efficient and accurate at this (we are not talking about transformer models here like with the current llm craze) but that all depends on how they train a model and what the training data looks like.
-
Don't waste your time, they're either an hardcore AI bootlicker or a shit stirrer - most likely both, looking at their post history.
-
Since human beings are hot garbage and will always cheat, I really enjoyed playing against the AI soldiers in BF. It can also ensure that the game is playable forever OFFLINE.
Where I live I cant play BF4 anymore. Servers are down for my country, but I paid money for the game. Digital media is a scam once the servers go down. That is why I jailbroke every console I own. Ppl are already reviving BF2 with AI bots. The future is looking bright.
-
The same way it's automodderating Reddit to a point that nobody can post anything anymore LOL
-
-
Pattern recognition anticheat vs. bot based on patterns? I don't see anyone winning.
-
Keep that AI horseshit out of video games, thanks.
-
215 comments
I am still baffled that anyone thinks that Kernel AC is any kind of effective at stopping hacks, people have been literally making a living off of defeating it, and selling those hacks / methods for almost a decade now...
But nope, still got hordes of idiot gamers who think they work, think they're necessary, think they can't be spoofed.
It's crazy to me that people cheat in online games. You really have to be a huge fucking loser to do this.
Small pp energy.
Sadly, I think the financial incentive is too great these days. People make decent money off this shit
I don't know what energy this is, but not good either.
Not sure how you could read this and come away with the idea that I do believe that...
I am talking about the subset of gamers that go on internet forums and discord servers and make false, unsupported claims as to the effectiveness or necessity or Kernel AC over other forms of AC, tell people this just is how it is now, get with the program,
eat the bugs, play the spyware game, its fine, everyone is doing it.Indirectly buyers are making a decision on anticheat. If someone buys a game with anticheat, they've made the decision to reward the developer for making the decision to include anticheat.