Battlefield 6’s Secure Boot Requirement Locks Out Developers and Power Users

When EA revealed that Battlefield 6 would require Secure Boot to be enabled on Windows 11, the official explanation was predictable: “to ensure a fair and secure environment for all players.” In reality, this decision will lock out an entire segment of legitimate players – developers, dual-boot users, hardware enthusiasts, and anyone running a non-standard system setup.

And here’s why this is a problem.

1. Secure Boot is not universally compatible

Secure Boot was designed to ensure that only trusted, signed code runs during the boot process. In theory, it’s a good security feature. In practice, many legitimate setups cannot run it without significant compromises.

• Older motherboards and GPUs may not fully support Secure Boot.
• Legacy operating systems, dual-boot Linux setups, and custom kernels are often incompatible.
• Enabling it can break drivers, bootloaders, and other legitimate tools that gamers rely on.

2. It creates a barrier for developers and testers

Many game developers, modders, and software engineers run configurations that deliberately avoid Secure Boot – not because they are cheating, but because they need unsigned drivers, virtualization tools, or kernel-level debugging for their work.

• Secure Boot blocks custom drivers unless they’re signed through expensive certification processes.
• Switching it on and off for testing is cumbersome and risks corrupting existing boot configurations.

For developers, this is not a minor toggle – it’s a workflow killer.

It punishes multi-boot and advanced setups

Gamers who dual-boot Windows with Linux, or maintain multiple OS installs for work and play, will face headaches:

• Secure Boot often forces “UEFI-only” mode, which can render older OS installs unbootable.
• Custom boot managers like GRUB need special configuration – and sometimes won’t work at all.
• You may end up breaking your entire boot process just to play one game.

4. It’s not an anti-cheat silver bullet

EA and anti-cheat vendors argue that Secure Boot prevents pre-boot cheats – malicious code that injects itself before Windows loads. While technically true, such cheats are rare compared to user-mode and kernel-mode cheats that already bypass Secure Boot entirely.

• Secure Boot doesn’t stop signed but malicious drivers.
• Cheat developers can and will adapt, making this more of a speed bump than a wall.

The net result: minimal extra security at the cost of maximum inconvenience for legitimate users.

5. It alienates a part of the paying audience

The gaming industry already struggles with anti-cheat measures that harm performance, break compatibility, or create false positives. Forcing Secure Boot takes it a step further – outright excluding players who cannot or will not enable it.

• This is not about refusing security – it’s about being forced to change your entire system architecture for one title.
• Players who’ve invested in custom rigs, specialized workflows, or older but still capable hardware are told: “You’re not welcome!”

The bottom line

Secure Boot has its place in enterprise security and certain high-risk environments. But as a mandatory requirement for a multiplayer game, it crosses the line from anti-cheat measure to anti-consumer policy.

EA could achieve the same goals by offering an alternative verification path – such as kernel integrity checks at runtime – without locking out an entire category of legitimate players.

Until then, for me  (and possibly for many of us), Battlefield 6 will remain uninstalled. Not because I don’t want to play it, but because the system won’t let me – unless I rebuild my PC to fit EA’s definition of “secure.”