It’s more unusual than anything. TPM2 and Secure boot are requirements I would expect from a security compliance checklist and software handling at least somewhat valuable data, like maybe a password vault.
A steam game is the last place I would expect this.
Once you delve into the technical specifics of Secure Boot and the TPM, it’s actually not that unusual. I wrote more detail in another comment on this post, but the TLDR of it is that Secure Boot is meant to enforce the integrity of the boot procedure to ensure that only approved code runs before the Windows kernel gets control, and the TPM 2.0 is meant to attest to that. Together, they make it possible for anticheat to tell if something (like cheating software) tried to rootkit Windows as a way to evade detection.
I don’t agree with the requirement, but it’s not a pointless requirement or some grand conspiracy to make people buy new hardware.
It’s more unusual than anything. TPM2 and Secure boot are requirements I would expect from a security compliance checklist and software handling at least somewhat valuable data, like maybe a password vault.
A steam game is the last place I would expect this.
It is for the anti-cheat, it seems, and for the case of BO7 it seems to actually have worked this time. I haven’t seen a hacker at all.
Especially unusual bc there are kernel level anticheats that work just fine without it
Once you delve into the technical specifics of Secure Boot and the TPM, it’s actually not that unusual. I wrote more detail in another comment on this post, but the TLDR of it is that Secure Boot is meant to enforce the integrity of the boot procedure to ensure that only approved code runs before the Windows kernel gets control, and the TPM 2.0 is meant to attest to that. Together, they make it possible for anticheat to tell if something (like cheating software) tried to rootkit Windows as a way to evade detection.
I don’t agree with the requirement, but it’s not a pointless requirement or some grand conspiracy to make people buy new hardware.