Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 will require TPM 2.0 and Windows Secure Boot

[Daniel Sims]

Why it matters: In a few months, Battlefield and Call of Duty will go head-to-head for the first time in four years – each armed with stricter multiplayer security measures. While most players have come to accept kernel-level anti-cheat, it remains a contentious issue due to its potential to raise system requirements and expose low-level system functions to third-party access.

Taking a cue from Battlefield 6, Activision has confirmed that Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 will also require Windows Secure Boot when it launches later this year. The game will additionally mandate TPM 2.0 to help block hardware-level cheating methods.

Some gamers will likely lament the restrictions, which effectively lock both titles to Windows. The Steam Deck and its Linux-based SteamOS have boosted Linux's popularity as a gaming platform, but the OS doesn't support online multiplayer games that require kernel-level anti-cheat.

Activision will begin testing Secure Boot and TPM 2.0 in Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 when Season 5 launches on August 7. Although these features will remain optional in BO6, players with compatible hardware will start seeing prompts encouraging them to enable the added security. The trial run is meant to iron out potential issues ahead of BO7.

Although Black Ops 7 will be available on Game Pass at launch, ranked multiplayer will be disabled during PC Game Pass free trials. The move likely aims to prevent tactics such as boosting and teaming, which can unfairly manipulate matchmaking and rankings.

Although Microsoft designed Secure Boot to protect Windows firmware code, researchers exposed vulnerabilities, and the leak of an encrypted platform key last year compromised Secure Boot on hundreds of product models. Battlefield 6 and Black Ops 7 will use the security feature to block cheaters from running malicious code on their devices at startup.

Protecting the Call of Duty experience is #TeamRICOCHET's highest priority. As part of their continued mission, we're introducing new systems and security updates alongside Season 05 in Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 and Call of Duty: Warzone that lay the groundwork for our future.… pic.twitter.com/kA1hyPzIJE

– Call of Duty (@CallofDuty) August 6, 2025

Microsoft sparked controversy by requiring TPM 2.0 for Windows 11 installation. Like Secure Boot, TPM 2.0 verifies that a device hasn't been tampered with during initial boot – but it isn't foolproof, and many older processors lack support.

When players launch Black Ops 7, the game performs security checks on both the client system and Activision servers. The company assures players that these checks do not access personal files.

Activision hasn't revealed gameplay or key details for Black Ops 7 yet, but plans to launch it in late 2025. For gamers looking to scratch that wartime itch sooner, Battlefield 6 arrives on October 10.

Permalink to story:

Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 will require TPM 2.0 and Windows Secure Boot

 

[NumberNine]

So far it's all AAA titles requiring this invasive garbage so the easiest option is to not buy it because you won't he missing out on much.

Look up the business models for anti-cheat solutions and the data they gather on you. Eye opening stuff. I've also noticed EAC in co-op games. Why? They're more about protecting microtransactions than sportsmanship.

"The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off."

 

[yRaz]

I get it now, the TPM requirement was never about windows hardware requirements, it was so that developers and publishers could make stronger DRM. Makes sense now.

 

[VariableSpike]

I would not be at all surprised if this is some middle manager at microsoft deciding this is a good way to get more people on windows 11, or buying pc's that can have windows 11....

 

[Theinsanegamer]

I get it now, the TPM requirement was never about windows hardware requirements, it was so that developers and publishers could make stronger DRM. Makes sense now.

I've been calling this out since the TPM 2.0 requirement dropped. In no way is TPM 2.0 a "security feature" for normal consumers, its existence is solely for the purposes of DRM and hardware bans.

I would not be at all surprised if this is some middle manager at microsoft deciding this is a good way to get more people on windows 11, or buying pc's that can have windows 11....

Phil Spencer has previously talked about how much MS wants to be able to ban you for saying a naughty or doing a bad, not just on the relevant software but anything you're connected to.

TPM 2.0 being linked to your accounts makes that MUCH easier.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

I'm glad I really only ever play single player story driven games.

Who knew BLOPs and BF were such serious business as to require hardware level anti-cheat (which will inevitably be cracked anyway).

 

[human7]

I get it now, the TPM requirement was never about windows hardware requirements, it was so that developers and publishers could make stronger DRM. Makes sense now.

Yes, many in the free software community have termed it "treacherous computing". https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html

There are indeed types of attacks that TPMs and Secure Boot do protect against, but the technologies can be weaponized against the users, as well. While the aims of keeping cheaters out may be a noble goal, less noble goals around DRM was always part of the design.

Even so, TPMs do make it a lot easier to ensure convenient whole disk encryption schemes (by convenient I mean creating an abstraction between the authentication method and the encryption key itself). Every tech has its tradeoffs.

 

[MasterAce]

Yes, many in the free software community have termed it "treacherous computing". https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html

There are indeed types of attacks that TPMs and Secure Boot do protect against, but the technologies can be weaponized against the users, as well. While the aims of keeping cheaters out may be a noble goal, less noble goals around DRM was always part of the design.

Even so, TPMs do make it a lot easier to ensure convenient whole disk encryption schemes (by convenient I mean creating an abstraction between the authentication method and the encryption key itself). Every tech has its tradeoffs.

Reminds me of the time when I was excited to play the old halo games on gamepass. The whole package was a 130gb download, but something went wrong and it got stuck in some gamepass download cache. I didnt receive the games, but 130gb was missing from my drive. I couldn’t even view that cache folder without changing permissions and I couldnt delete it at all. I dont remember if I had to boot up safemode or completely another OS to axe the folder and after that the whole xbox/gamepass was broken and had to be reinstalled. That was very clearly MS excerting their control over my own system.

The fact that MS can put files on my system that I myself have no permissions to is highly troubling.

 

[human7]

Reminds me of the time when I was excited to play the old halo games on gamepass. The whole package was a 130gb download, but something went wrong and it got stuck in some gamepass download cache. I didnt receive the games, but 130gb was missing from my drive. I couldn’t even view that cache folder without changing permissions and I couldnt delete it at all. I dont remember if I had to boot up safemode or completely another OS to axe the folder and after that the whole xbox/gamepass was broken and had to be reinstalled. That was very clearly MS excerting their control over my own system.

The fact that MS can put files on my system that I myself have no permissions to is highly troubling.

File permissions can definitely be a hassle sometimes. There are unlocker applications out there which release file locks to delete/rename/move stuck folders and files. Sometimes they require a reboot if they can't release the file handle, but they've made my life easier many a times.

 

[Rudyduu]

I've been calling this out since the TPM 2.0 requirement dropped. In no way is TPM 2.0 a "security feature" for normal consumers, its existence is solely for the purposes of DRM and hardware bans.

How is TPM 2.0 not a security feature for people who don't game like businesses? How is Secure boot and BitLocker not useful for improving security? Your statement is just ridiculous hyperbole, direct your anger at this one specific game maker you don't like and not the idea of improved hardware security, which is just silly.

 

[hahahanoobs]

The fact that MS can put files on my system that I myself have no permissions to is highly troubling.

C:\Program Files\WindowsApps. This folder is notorious for having highly restrictive permissions. Microsoft intentionally locks down this folder to prevent users from tampering with game files, which is meant to protect against piracy and ensure the integrity of the ecosystem.

Anything stuck is a bug/glitch. Computers are not simple things. That's why backups are recommended. That's why System Restore exists. Startup recovery. Why Windows has a selection of troubleshooters it can run. Losing access to 130GB of space for a little while isn't end of the world stuff. Losing 130GB of irreplaceable stuff is serious, but also, computers aren't a replacement for common sense.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

How is TPM 2.0 not a security feature for people who don't game like businesses?

Perhaps you missed the "normal consumers" part of that sentence? Businesses =! normal consumers, they are business customers.

How is Secure boot and BitLocker not useful for improving security?

Unless you are being targeted by spies taking the hard drive from your PC or hijacking you with USB loaded malware, these mean little to nothing to normal consumers.

Your statement is just ridiculous hyperbole, direct your anger at this one specific game maker you don't like and not the idea of improved hardware security, which is just silly.

The hypocritical irony of this part is delicious. Have an emoji:

 

[acrossthestars]

What's the point of releasing either of these games on Windows—with all of this kernel-level, anti-hack, anti-tamper, anti-gaming bullsh*t—if the problem is that there is potential to facilitate hacking? Just make these games console exclusives.

I thought we figured this out already...

 

[toooooot]

I would not be at all surprised if this is some middle manager at microsoft deciding this is a good way to get more people on windows 11, or buying pc's that can have windows 11....

I respected Msoft when they clearly stated that some computers are not compatible with 11 and therefore cannot be upgraded. I respected them but then magically, my fairly old laptop became compatible with this newer OS. I made a mistake and upgraded. It never ran as slow on windows 10. They should not push people to upgrade especially when those older computers ran as badly as mine on 11.

 

[ZedRM]

These kind of things is just stupid. Game devs are desperate to stop cheating, but they're shifting the burden of accountability from themselves to the gamers.