Some multiplayer games use Secure Boot and remote attestation as confirmation that the user can’t load cheats. Like any anti-cheating solution it’s not perfect, but it can lower the prevalence of cheats dramatically, and that’s one hell of a user benefit.
Not for every user. Besides, the protections this would offer would be easily and cheaply circumvented via a raspberry pi and usb peripheral emulation. The is no escaping the analog hole as you stated.
I'm not willing to give up my control as an owner over my device for a reason as flimsy as this. Gamers who want to give up control for a slightly lower percentage of cheaters can get dedicated computing hardware (consoles) instead.
Not every feature has to benefit every single user. Otherwise let's just remove WSL because it's in use by <1% of Windows users.
> I'm not willing to give up my control as an owner over my device for a reason as flimsy as this. Gamers who want to give up control for a slightly lower percentage of cheaters can get dedicated computing hardware (consoles) instead.
Okay, then turn off Secure Boot. And just don't play these games. No one's saying all computers must have Secure Boot on and untoggleable.
Secured Core is optional and it's very enterprise-focused, i.e.: businesses gating domain join to Secured Core PCs for extra perimeter control.
