its like you are intentionally trying to misunderstand what they are saying, good work at it. Obviously, they didn’t deem SB and TPM unusual, but the types of software (entertainment industry products) demanding it while the software of the security industry does not.
but it’s not a pointless requirement or some grand conspiracy to make people buy new hardware.
consumers won’t benefit from this functionality, but many industries will in the foreseeable future
right, you can look at it that way too. but what the consumers see (and feel) is that the game tells what kind of software you can have, even when that is not related to the game. and that’s what’s not usual.
this is less obvious on windows, because it’s not that common to be modified by users in a way that matters here, as the checks are kind of loose, but on android it’s quite different, and windows is likely to get the same treatment, which is the reason why valve is pouring so much money into linux
its like you are intentionally trying to misunderstand what they are saying, good work at it. Obviously, they didn’t deem SB and TPM unusual, but the types of software (entertainment industry products) demanding it while the software of the security industry does not.
consumers won’t benefit from this functionality, but many industries will in the foreseeable future
You quoted the end of my comment, so you must have read this part:
For the threat model of anticheat software, verifying system integrity is not an unusual requirement.
right, you can look at it that way too. but what the consumers see (and feel) is that the game tells what kind of software you can have, even when that is not related to the game. and that’s what’s not usual.
this is less obvious on windows, because it’s not that common to be modified by users in a way that matters here, as the checks are kind of loose, but on android it’s quite different, and windows is likely to get the same treatment, which is the reason why valve is pouring so much money into linux