your game requires secure boot?
sorry, i'll wait for the next one. i'm just not going to turn it on is all.

I was thinking don't all normies with recent enough rigs have that shit turned on already? Everyone else doesn't count because of differentiated opinions / stances

>>717616070 (OP)
>your game requires secure boot?

>>717616070 (OP)
>literally a layer of rootkit protection there's no reason to turn off except using an OS that doesn't support it
>retards still don't turn it on for Windows 10/11

>>717616070 (OP)
>Getting a R*ssian rootkit to own the... Uh... To uh own the people trying to prevent cheating in a videogame
Interesting self own.

>>717616070 (OP)
No one cares nigger, please use one the 65 shill threads currently active in the catalog

>>717616070 (OP)

I'm super white and I love saying "Nigga please". White people don't have any sayings that convey incredulousness that well.

>>717620113
>there's no reason to turn off
there is no reason to turn it ON. secure boot was always just anti consumer BS pushed by microsoft under the guise of security.
the way you talk like it's just a given that you would have it turned on makes it sound like you are a zoomer who only became self aware after secure boot was introduced.

>>717620431
>nigger says or does anything
>Mutt : WHOOHOOO WHADADIDOO SO COOL MAY I TOO PLEASE
many such cases

>>717622334
why does this happen? you often hear white people using degenerate african slang, is it a rebellious youth sort of thing?

>>717621964
>anti consumer
It's literally an option, and off by default on motherboards.
>but they're trying to blah blah with blah blah!
>source: my ass
It's literally an option you can choose not to use so you can run whatever OS you want. Even fat people OSes like linux support it, though, so that puts holes in your argument. Windows enforces it in 11 because it's an extra hurdle for rootkit developers to overcome. EA wants it because that's one less injection point for a cheat.
Imagine being dumb.
>>717620431
1.21 NIGGA WHATS!

>>717623627
>It's literally an option you can choose not to use
this is an odd choice of argument for a complaint about a game that requires you to turn it on in order to play it. are you perhaps daft?

>>717625071
>you have to play this game
I see.

>>717625559
so it's not an option that bf6 players can choose not to use then?

>>717626091
It's an option that people using their PC can choose not to use. Arguing the anti consumer aspect and blaming MS weakens your platform.

>>717626195
so, not an option that bf6 can choose not to use then?

>>717626395
They can choose not to use it. They choose to use it.
But I thought it was a MS thing to force everyone to run Windows. This means EA is totes innocent, y'all, and it's le heckin' Macro$haft Winblowz at fault because it's made by incel chuderinos.

>>717616070 (OP)
>i'll wait for the next one.
The next one is going to require it too.

>>717621964
>secure boot was always just anti consumer BS pushed by microsoft under the guise of security
is that why Tails OS supports it? a bunch of people with targets on their backs knowingly opted into glowware? say it ain't so!

>>717626656
no, bf6 players can't choose not to use it, by definition. so your whole point of it being "literally an option" is sort of completely irrelevant to this conversation.
i have no idea what you are trying to say in the second half there, sorry. no, secure boot doesn't really force anyone to run any specific operating system.
>>717626781
>is that why Tails OS supports it?
i have no idea why tails os supports it, why are you asking me this?
tails os supports it, therefore it can't possibly be an anti-consumer feature in any way or in any context whatsoever? is that what you're saying?

>>717616070 (OP)
I'd turn on secure boot, but the chinese BIOS won't let me boot into anything but official loicensed OSes unless I keep it off

can't even add my own crypto keys because the BIOS won't allow it, even blocking efitools and sbsigntools

>>717626949
you are arguing, based on pure conjecture and without elaborating in any capacity, that an integrity checking feature intended to mitigate evil maid attacks and the like is actually an anti-consumer spook
hence the rhetorical question, bozo

>>717622334
jesus christ chill the fuck out, pedro.

>>717627337
no... i'm not. i just barely mentioned it in passing.
you are the one who latched on to that like an autist and won't stop screeching about it.