Tuesday, August 5th 2025

No Secure Boot? No Battlefield 6 — EA Faces Backlash

As part of our ongoing commitment to Positive Play in Battlefield, Secure Boot is a requirement to play Battlefield 6 on PC. This supports the need for enhanced security while playing and utilizing new anti-cheat features in Battlefield. As cheat developers continue to evolve their tactics, we're stepping up our game too.

Requiring Secure Boot provides us with features that we can leverage against cheats that attempt to infiltrate during the Windows boot process. It also lets the Battlefield Positive Play team use its own features and related dependent security features like TPM to combat other forms of cheating, the most relevant of which include:
  • Kernel-Level Cheats and Rootkits
  • Memory Manipulation and Injection
  • Spoofing and Hardware ID Manipulation
  • Virtual Machines and Emulation
  • Tampering with Anti-Cheat Systems
Any attempt to access Battlefield 6 without Secure Boot enabled will result in a prompt indicating its necessity.

Secure Boot is available for Windows 11 and Windows 10 devices. For more information on enabling this feature, refer to this EA Help article.

In addition to utilizing Secure Boot to help us, our Anticheat system, EA Javelin Anticheat, is customizable and offers a unique and modified approach for Battlefield and other EA FPS games. Javelin has been built from the ground up by a team of veteran engineers and analysts who were specifically hired to focus on cheating problems for each game under EA's umbrella and design unique features to address those issues. They work alongside our Battlefield Positive Play team to refine the data, insight, and tools necessary to ensure equitable play for all our players across our Battlefield Studios titles.
Source: Electronic Arts
Add your own comment

103 Comments on No Secure Boot? No Battlefield 6 — EA Faces Backlash

#1
Onasi
And the game will still most likely be infested with cheaters by week two. Getting more and more invasive isn’t the play methinks. I would agree with Valve that the endgame is an AI based solution that’s constantly learning and adapting, though even they haven’t yet cracked that chestnut. But no, requiring TPM, SecBoot and a Ring-0 kernel driver for your AC just to play a mediocre MP FPS is a bridge too far.
Posted on Reply
#2
lexluthermiester
I don't buy EA games unless they're on GOG, soooo....
(Take a damn hint EA)

Also, eff SecureBoot.
Posted on Reply
#3
Hecate91
Is another article necessary for this? A root kit level anticheat won't solve cheating, BF2042 uses a kernel level anticheat, and cheating is still an issue in that game.
EA needs to do detection on the server side and have a admin team checking their servers for abnormal play, as well as allow dedicated server renting. But a server sided anticheat would cost money, and server renting would keep the game alive longer than the corpo execs want.
Posted on Reply
#4
W1zzard
OnasiI would agree with Valve that the endgame is an AI based solution that’s constantly learning and adapting, though even they haven’t yet cracked that chestnut.
Hecate91Is another ad.. I mean article necessary for this? A root kit level anticheat won't solve cheating, BF2042 and Valorant use kernel level anticheats, and cheating is still an issue in those games.
EA needs to do detection on the server side and have a admin team checking their servers for abnormal play, as well as allow dedicated server renting. But a server sided anticheat would cost money, and server renting would keep the game alive longer than the corpo execs want.
Agree 100%. I told my news team to post this to raise awareness of EA's terrible approach, not an ad
Posted on Reply
#5
081x
It'd be hilarious to mass submit these invasive kernel/hardware level anti-cheats to threat databases and make CVEs for them all lol
Posted on Reply
#6
Hecate91
W1zzardAgree 100%. I told my news team to post this to raise awareness of EA's terrible approach, not an ad
My apologies then, I guess I misunderstood the post, it reads like an ad to me then again most people here know better ofc.
Also we already had a 2 page thread discussing the anti-cheat used as EA isn't supporting the Steam Deck & Linux because of the anticheat and secure boot.
Posted on Reply
#7
Easo
Basically any "modern" computer supports Secure Boot and if it doesn't then that PC is so old it pretty much could not run the game in the first place, all laptops more or less come with it enabled by default, for the Linux fanatics - every major distro supports it, etc.

By itself it is not an issue.
Posted on Reply
#8
Pepamami
what kind of backlash? Secure Boot is enabled by default almost on every modern Windows 10/11 machine. Most people wont even notice it.
Posted on Reply
#9
TheLostSwede
News Editor
Had to reset the secure boot in my system to get the open beta to load, just for those that intend to give this a try and might have problems getting the game to start.
Posted on Reply
#10
lexluthermiester
EasoBy itself it is not an issue.
Yes it is. But we won't get into that here as it would be wildly off topic. SecureBoot is unneeded trash, full stop....
TheLostSwedeHad to reset the secure boot in my system to get the open beta to load, just for those that intend to give this a try and might have problems getting the game to start.
...and this is one of the many, MANY reasons why.
Posted on Reply
#11
Hecate91
EasoBasically any "modern" computer supports Secure Boot and if it doesn't then that PC is so old it pretty much could not run the game in the first place, all laptops more or less come with it enabled by default, for the Linux fanatics - every major distro supports it, etc.

By itself it is not an issue.
Secure boot is an issue, it's unnecessary, forcing it was a terrible decision and people on the r/battlefield reddit are breaking their systems by turning it on.
Disabling secure boot and TPM are very popular things being done when installing W11 with a USB format tool like Rufus.
Posted on Reply
#12
mb194dc
Isn't a better solution running the key code server side ? Or it's just not better because it will cost more... World of tanks does this I think. Don't want these anti cheats anywhere near my machines as they're a massive security risk.

This would also largely stop people gaining a "hardware advantage" which shouldn't be in the spirit of the game anyway.
Posted on Reply
#14
lexluthermiester
mb194dcIsn't a better solution running the key code server side ?
There are always better ways to do things. EA is, as usually, taking the mickey and the easy way out..
Broken ProcessorSecure boot does nothing to stop DMA.
Dumbass Morons of America?
Posted on Reply
#15
Octopuss
So what is the big drama here? What's wrong with secure boot? I think I have it enabled and I don't even care. I guess someone's use case somewhere is probably different, allright, but... what's so bad?

Also any cheating protection is not going to be 100% effective, how is that still surprising? From the very little I read, the kernel anti cheat protection seems to at least have a higher chance to be effective vs what we had before, no?
Posted on Reply
#16
lexluthermiester
OctopussSo what is the big drama here? What's wrong with secure boot? I think I have it enabled and I don't even care. I guess someone's use case somewhere is probably different, allright, but... what's so bad?
As stated above, such a discussion would be wildly off-topic. Let's let it be.
OctopussAlso any cheating protection is not going to be 100% effective, how is that still surprising? From the very little I read, the kernel anti cheat protection seems to at least have a higher chance to be effective vs what we had before, no?
AntiCheat measure are best served server side, not client side. EA, like many others, is to lazy(uninspired/incompetent) to implement effective and unbeatable routines to make it work.
Posted on Reply
#17
Vayra86
OctopussSo what is the big drama here? What's wrong with secure boot? I think I have it enabled and I don't even care. I guess someone's use case somewhere is probably different, allright, but... what's so bad?

Also any cheating protection is not going to be 100% effective, how is that still surprising? From the very little I read, the kernel anti cheat protection seems to at least have a higher chance to be effective vs what we had before, no?
The real solutions are server side and/or moderated actively. Both of which cost more money than dropping a lazy bit of code onto your system to do the job half correct, sometimes. If you want to cheer for this fantastic EA management of online gaming, you do you...
Posted on Reply
#18
Onasi
lexluthermiesterDumbass Morons of America?
Direct Memory Access. It’s a broad term for a variety of hardware cheats. The most expensive private ones are, frankly, undetectable and what people use to basically shit on any kernel-based AC. Catching Russian kiddies using 5$ spinbots and wallhacks is worthless, what matters are the big ticket items and those still have very little answer AFAIK.
Posted on Reply
#19
Hecate91
Secure boot alone may not be that much of a problem, when combined with a ring0 level anticheat and TPM, it's a problem. There are better solutions as already mentioned, but all of them take more effort and money than placing spyware on every players system. I'm sure some people applauding EA for this think I'm being overly negative, but it is so tiring to see AAA gaming in general with this awful no effort marketing on half working fixes that people keep defending.
Posted on Reply
#20
Octopuss
That spyware rhetoric is getting old really quickly you know?
Posted on Reply
#21
lexluthermiester
OnasiDirect Memory Access. It’s a broad term for a variety of hardware cheats.
I know. Was being a smart-alec.
OnasiThe most expensive private ones are, frankly, undetectable and what people use to basically shit on any kernel-based AC.
Exactly, which is why client-side anticheat can never work properly. They need server side measures for any proper headway to be made. They're just to daft in the head to do it properly..
OctopussThat spyware rhetoric is getting old really quickly you know?
If that's aimed at me, I'm not talking about spyware crap. SecureBoot can be a real PITA in many situations.
Posted on Reply
#22
Onasi
lexluthermiesterExactly, which is why client-side anticheat can never work properly. They need server side measure for any proper headway to be made. They're just to daft in the head to do it properly..
They are stuck on an idiotic point of “well if we know EVERYTHING that’s going on inside the players OS they can’t cheat” while completely failing to answer the question of “what if I just run the cheats on another device?”, yeah. And what’s funny is when Riot even admitted that the most effective bans in Valo were MANUAL, not via Vanguard. It’s like… what the fuck is even the point of you installing malware-tier shit on my PC then?
Posted on Reply
#23
lexluthermiester
OnasiThey are stuck on an idiotic point of “well if we know EVERYTHING that’s going on inside the players OS they can’t cheat”
That's an understatement. It's pathetically incompetent.
Posted on Reply
#24
Hecate91
OctopussThat spyware rhetoric is getting old really quickly you know?
I assume this was aimed at me, these kernel level anticheats run on startup, some are always running, or even cause issues with other games because it checks on everything you do.
I don't see the point in handing over $80 for EA to put spyware on my PC when there will probably be cheaters in less than a week after launch.
Posted on Reply
#25
FR3D1
Ninja Cat
Broken ProcessorSecure boot does nothing to stop DMA.
Hey!

I think so too. Just not others? Just like TPM 2.0, which is now explicitly required!?

Security Requirements on BF6 on PCs!

Greetings, Fred.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 13th, 2026 21:42 CST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

TPU on YouTube

Controversial News Posts