Bans due to launching games on ReFS

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

On 21/08/2025 at 11:32, Case_f said:

What information do *you* have that justifies going "who knows what else they've done"?

OK, can actually answer this, based upon two stated items:

1) Perma-bans are only for repeat offenders

2) OP has been perma-banned

So, going ONLY on the information presented - here we are.

[Matthew S.]

On 21/08/2025 at 06:32, Case_f said:

What information do *you* have that justifies going "who knows what else they've done"? Unlike you, I'm not assuming anything beyond what we have to work with, that is the game was installed on ReFS on several accounts and said accounts were presumably banned for it. Yes, we only have OP's word for it.

And no, I'm not missing your point. You don't have to repeat it five times in bold. We could technically argue whether ReFS actually equals "unsupported environment" on current Win 11, because, again, we actually don't know it does, it's not stated anywhere specifically. Which, BTW, is yet another reason for someone from Activision clarifying whether it is or isn't either to the user banned as the ban was issued, or subsequently to a journalist interested in clarifying the situation.

You, on the other hand, seem to be missing *my* point, which is that this seems to be (yes, seems to be, we only have OP's word for it) a case that would deserve certain answers, be it about the specific cases or subsequently on whether ReFS is supported and what specifically prevents the game from working. As I was saying, if the accounts were truly banned for running the game on ReFS, it will only get worse going forward. Handwaving it as essentially hearsay and "unsupported environment" helps nothing and nobody, IMO. Well, except maybe Activision to maintain their lack of communication and clarification I guess.

(But it's likely my last comment on this and my apologies to everyone else reading this for dragging it on.)

How would it get worse?  ReFS is not officially Supported as a boot drive format; until that happens, it will still be classed as unsupported.

 

I'm on the latest release preview, and you still cannot format as ReFS on standard drives.

[funkerwolf]

On 21/08/2025 at 01:19, neufuse said:

but it also says they dont terminate  unless your account has extreme or repeat offense... the others are temporary suspended

In practice, one step to the left and one step to the right, you get banned without explanation, and buying games for this account becomes a waste of money, because they get banned too.

On 21/08/2025 at 16:07, Matthew S. said:

How would it get worse?  ReFS is not officially Supported as a boot drive format; until that happens, it will still be classed as unsupported.

 

I'm on the latest release preview, and you still cannot format as ReFS on standard drives.

Partition formatting is available in WinPE and Enterprise+ editions; you most likely have the Home or Pro version of Windows. The restriction appeared in the middle of the 10 life cycle. Plus, diskmgmt.msc hasn't been updated in a long time, so it allows it in some places but not in others. And, formatting is available through diskpart in WinPE and also from Enterprise+ editions. These are all standard utilities.

[funkerwolf]

On 21/08/2025 at 13:32, Case_f said:

Какой информацией вы обладаете, чтобы оправдать переход «кто знает, что еще они сделали»? В отличие от вас, я не предполагаю ничего сверх того, с чем мы должны работать, то есть игра была установлена на ReFS на нескольких аккаунтах и эти аккаунты предположительно были заблокированы за это. Да, у нас есть только слово ОП для этого.

И нет, я не упускаю из виду вашу мысль. Вам не обязательно повторять это пять раз жирным шрифтом. Технически мы могли бы поспорить, действительно ли ReFS равен «неподдерживаемой среде» на текущей Win 11, потому что, опять же, мы на самом деле не знаем, что это так, это нигде конкретно не указано. Что, кстати, является еще одной причиной для того, чтобы кто-то из Activision прояснил, является ли это либо пользователем, заблокированным после того, как был введен запрет, либо впоследствии журналистом, заинтересованным в прояснении ситуации.

Вы, с другой стороны, похоже, упускаете *мой* момент, который заключается в том, что это кажется (да, кажется, что это так, у нас есть только слово OP для этого) случай, который заслуживает определенных ответов, будь то о конкретных случаях или впоследствии о том, поддерживается ли ReFS и что конкретно мешает игре работать. Как я уже говорил, если аккаунты действительно были заблокированы за запуск игры на ReFS, то дальше будет только хуже. Размахивание этим как по сути слухами и "неподдерживаемой средой" ничего и никому не помогает, IMO. Ну, за исключением, может быть, Activision, чтобы поддерживать отсутствие общения и разъяснений, я полагаю.

(Но, вероятно, это мой последний комментарий по этому поводу и мои извинения перед всеми остальными, кто читает это, за то, что они затягивают с этим.)

I would very much like that. Hold them accountable and explain why there are no limiting factors, such as simply not launching the game in such an environment if it is not officially supported. Instead, there is simply a ban without the possibility of appeal, closure of access to support, and ignoring bug reports. Especially since I have provided all the evidence of how this happens, and it has been repeated in four cases with different hardware and in different regions. And all of this is easily reproducible. One can argue long and hard that it is not officially supported. But why are there no limiting factors that could prevent such problems? I honestly do not understand this position of returning all problems to those who encountered them, because I did not create them—they were created for me because they occurred due to the negligence of programmers. And these are far from the first such cases; they simply manifest themselves in everything. The most ridiculous thing is that Activision try started blocking my Twitter account, and I'm receiving threats on GitHub.

[funkerwolf]

On 21/08/2025 at 16:23, funkerwolf said:

In practice, one step to the left and one step to the right, you get banned without explanation, and buying games for this account becomes a waste of money, because they get banned too.

Partition formatting is available in WinPE and Enterprise+ editions; you most likely have the Home or Pro version of Windows. The restriction appeared in the middle of the 10 life cycle. Plus, diskmgmt.msc hasn't been updated in a long time, so it allows it in some places but not in others. And, formatting is available through diskpart in WinPE and also from Enterprise+ editions. These are all standard utilities.

[neufuse Veteran]

On 21/08/2025 at 09:07, Matthew S. said:

How would it get worse?  ReFS is not officially Supported as a boot drive format; until that happens, it will still be classed as unsupported.

 

I'm on the latest release preview, and you still cannot format as ReFS on standard drives.

When you install a clean windows install now it does let you pick ReFS as a format option if you go into format partition when setting up the drive.. NTFS is of course default but ReFS is an option for the boot drive now. I have i in the latest Windows 11 Pro installer

[Matthew S.]

On 21/08/2025 at 10:39, neufuse said:

When you install a clean windows install now it does let you pick ReFS as a format option if you go into format partition when setting up the drive.. NTFS is of course default but ReFS is an option for the boot drive now. I have i in the latest Windows 11 Pro installer

That's likely in prep for 25H2.

All official documentation states that booting from is still not supported, even on the server side.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/storage/refs/refs-overview and that was updated almost a month ago...

 

From the ReFS page on wikipedia

 

The false positives are likely due to ReFS (even as of version 3.7) not supporting Object IDs

Edited August 21, 2025 by Matthew S.

[funkerwolf]

On 21/08/2025 at 17:52, Matthew S. said:

That's likely in prep for 25H2.

All official documentation states that booting from is still not supported, even on the server side.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/storage/refs/refs-overview and that was updated almost a month ago...

 

From the ReFS page on wikipedia

 

The false positives are likely due to ReFS (even as of version 3.7) not supporting Object IDs

This is my recent edit to the wiki, lol, because it was deleted for some reason, allegedly due to an unreliable source, but it's extremely easy to reproduce and it's actually a bug, no matter how they try to cover it up, because a permanent ban should only apply to one game in the entire series, while in the others it's temporary and is lifted after a week.
The question remains, however, why there is no normal interaction with players on the part of Activision. Why does support refer to something that is not in the policy/terms/agreement? And why close access to technical support? And why is there no second chance after an appeal?

[adrynalyne]

On 21/08/2025 at 07:39, neufuse said:

When you install a clean windows install now it does let you pick ReFS as a format option if you go into format partition when setting up the drive.. NTFS is of course default but ReFS is an option for the boot drive now. I have i in the latest Windows 11 Pro installer

I tried with an official release updated this month and not even Enterprise offers it during a clean install. It must be a insider build of sorts you saw that on.

[Matthew S.]

On 21/08/2025 at 11:38, funkerwolf said:

This is my recent edit to the wiki, lol, because it was deleted for some reason, allegedly due to an unreliable source, but it's extremely easy to reproduce and it's actually a bug, no matter how they try to cover it up, because a permanent ban should only apply to one game in the entire series, while in the others it's temporary and is lifted after a week.
The question remains, however, why there is no normal interaction with players on the part of Activision. Why does support refer to something that is not in the policy/terms/agreement? And why close access to technical support? And why is there no second chance after an appeal?

It's not a bug, say it with me now, ReFS is not officially supported.

[funkerwolf]

On 21/08/2025 at 21:57, Matthew S. said:

It's not a bug, say it with me now, ReFS is not officially supported.

And what about the permanent ban then? And why are there no warnings on the way to the launch? You can easily reproduce all of this yourselves and see for yourself. But it is not officially supported, there are no mentions of this anywhere, yet there is a ban for some reason.

[Matthew S.]

On 20/08/2025 at 14:43, Matthew S. said:

Right from the COD Security and Enforcement policy, now keep in mind drivers typically will fit both the device and applications definition.

It's all laid out right there in plain english.

[funkerwolf]

On 22/08/2025 at 00:44, Matthew S. said:

It's all laid out right there in plain english.

So how is the file system cheating?

[Matthew S.]

That section does not specifically state that the unsupported device/application needs to be used for cheating.  Not all modified controllers are utilized for cheating, some are for accessibility.

They are unable to verify file integrity, due to directly interacting with the kernel level NTFS driver (they do not directly use NTFS, they use the kernel level driver by-passing the filesystem libraries), since your not using NTFS it fails integrity checks, end of, the file system is unsupported, it's not their responsibility to test to see if you're using an unsupported filesystem, especially one that has not been officially deemed ready for public consumption as of yet by the operating system vendor.

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

On 21/08/2025 at 22:54, funkerwolf said:

So how is the file system cheating?

How are you not getting it?

[funkerwolf]

On 22/08/2025 at 01:01, Matthew S. said:

That section does not specifically state that the unsupported device/application needs to be used for cheating.  Not all modified controllers are utilized for cheating, some are for accessibility.

They are unable to verify file integrity, due to directly interacting with the kernel level NTFS driver (they do not directly use NTFS, they use the kernel level driver by-passing the filesystem libraries), since your not using NTFS it fails integrity checks, end of, the file system is unsupported, it's not their responsibility to test to see if you're using an unsupported filesystem, especially one that has not been officially deemed ready for public consumption as of yet by the operating system vendor.

It is already clear. And the reason for the ban, why this should be, is the most obvious mistake of the programmers, but for some reason it is shifted onto ordinary users and players.

[Matthew S.]

Going back to my original point, you jumped through hoops just to get Windows 11 to boot on it, as stated before it is Officially unsupported for booting.  It is also currently unsupported outside the Windows Server and Enterprise environments for use on storage drives.  The programmers are not the one that made the mistake, you are in that you are using something that is unsupported.

Do I think the ban is justified, no, but do I think Activision's closure of the appeal is warranted, yes, given how this thread has gone I'm assuming you pulled the same not understanding that you are running an unsupported environment and trying to blame the developer for something that is Officially unsupported by Microsoft.

[adrynalyne]

On 21/08/2025 at 16:45, Matthew S. said:

Going back to my original point, you jumped through hoops just to get Windows 11 to boot on it, as stated before it is Officially unsupported for booting.  It is also currently unsupported outside the Windows Server and Enterprise environments for use on storage drives.  The programmers are not the one that made the mistake, you are in that you are using something that is unsupported.

Do I think the ban is justified, no, but do I think Activision's closure of the appeal is warranted, yes, given how this thread has gone I'm assuming you pulled the same not understanding that you are running an unsupported environment and trying to blame the developer for something that is Officially unsupported by Microsoft.

To be fair, it’s also supported on Pro for Workstations and Dev Drive, but not for booting as you already mentioned. 
 

This isn’t all that different than companies banning players for running Windows games under Linux. 

[Matthew S.]

On 21/08/2025 at 20:10, adrynalyne said:

To be fair, it’s also supported on Pro for Workstations and Dev Drive, but not for booting as you already mentioned. 
 

This isn’t all that different than companies banning players for running Windows games under Linux. 

Pretty sure Pro for Workstations falls under enterprise environment 😛 

[adrynalyne]

On 21/08/2025 at 18:21, Matthew S. said:

Pretty sure Pro for Workstations falls under enterprise environment 😛 

Nah its not based off Enterprise and its sold to consumers. 

[neufuse Veteran]

On 21/08/2025 at 21:21, Matthew S. said:

Pretty sure Pro for Workstations falls under enterprise environment 😛 

Pro for Workstations is just what pro used to be basically before they moved features around....before they turned pro into a consumer product, pro for workstations is prosumer.... stuff like trunking links and number of cpu's not an enterprise feature.

[yuuugen]

Having reviewed this subject, here's my perspective.

Initially, the question arises: why is the anti-cheat system even accessing areas it's not authorized to? While many claim "Windows on ReFS isn't supported," consider this: Activision's anti-cheat method of extracting data from NTFS isn't officially sanctioned either — hence the need to circumvent the NTFS driver. So, what makes them believe this practice is acceptable? Assuming we overlook the initial concern, why can't support simply acknowledge the false positive and reinstate the account? What prevents them from doing so? Ultimately, the core problem isn't ReFS or the anti-cheat system itself, but rather their handling of players. A faulty detection occurs, yet instead of rectifying it, they persist in their stance. If they were to simply admit the error, reverse the ban, and update the anti-cheat, this entire situation would be resolved. Other anti-cheat systems, like Easy Anti-Cheat used in VRChat and Fortnite, don't penalize users for using ReFS, a file system that's been in existence for over ten years. Similarly, Valve's VAC system doesn't implement random bans or encounter issues. It's evident that the issue isn't ReFS itself, but rather Activision's flawed anti-cheat implementation and their apparent disregard for their player base. And honestly, why defend anti-consumer behavior here? The facts clearly show the issue isn’t ReFS itself, it’s Activision’s attitude toward their players.

Bottom line:

1. Support didn’t do anything to actually solve the issue.

2. The Activision team isn’t fixing the root problem.

3. They just don’t care.

[Matthew S.]

On 21/08/2025 at 22:11, yuuugen said:

Having reviewed this subject, here's my perspective.

Initially, the question arises: why is the anti-cheat system even accessing areas it's not authorized to? While many claim "Windows on ReFS isn't supported," consider this: Activision's anti-cheat method of extracting data from NTFS isn't officially sanctioned either — hence the need to circumvent the NTFS driver. So, what makes them believe this practice is acceptable? Assuming we overlook the initial concern, why can't support simply acknowledge the false positive and reinstate the account? What prevents them from doing so? Ultimately, the core problem isn't ReFS or the anti-cheat system itself, but rather their handling of players. A faulty detection occurs, yet instead of rectifying it, they persist in their stance. If they were to simply admit the error, reverse the ban, and update the anti-cheat, this entire situation would be resolved. Other anti-cheat systems, like Easy Anti-Cheat used in VRChat and Fortnite, don't penalize users for using ReFS, a file system that's been in existence for over ten years. Similarly, Valve's VAC system doesn't implement random bans or encounter issues. It's evident that the issue isn't ReFS itself, but rather Activision's flawed anti-cheat implementation and their apparent disregard for their player base. And honestly, why defend anti-consumer behavior here? The facts clearly show the issue isn’t ReFS itself, it’s Activision’s attitude toward their players.

Bottom line:

1. Support didn’t do anything to actually solve the issue.

2. The Activision team isn’t fixing the root problem.

3. They just don’t care.

Except they're not accessing NTFS directly, nor is it unsanctioned; it's how it works at the kernel level, you typically can either use the VFS (which is technically what users see in userland) or access directly through the NTFS Kernel Driver.  As the anti-cheat runs in kernel space, it more than likely has to utilize the driver directly to avoid a context change.

EAC and VAC don't run at the kernel level, nor do they really monitor devices connected; they're also utilizing standard userland API's, not kernel level API's.

I suspect there's more to this story besides just ReFS, it's highly likely the OP has a separate process hooking into the game binaries (even if it's a simple debugger, it's against activisions TOS.)

While yes ReFS has been around 10 years, it is still not classed as production-ready for Consumer consumption.

Let's say it's solely the fact that it's the filesystem and their "direct" access that requires NTFS, the bans should also technically affect exFAT, exFAT is technically only meant for storage, doesn't support Object IDs and is overall a bad choice for an every day filesystem.

[Joe User]

On 21/08/2025 at 20:21, Matthew S. said:

Pretty sure Pro for Workstations falls under enterprise environment 😛 

Strangely enough, it's consumer retail, not enterprise.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/d/windows-11-pro-for-workstations/dg7gmgf0kr4m

[Joe User]

On 21/08/2025 at 22:09, Matthew S. said:

Let's say it's solely the fact that it's the filesystem and their "direct" access that requires NTFS, the bans should also technically affect exFAT, exFAT is technically only meant for storage, doesn't support Object IDs and is overall a bad choice for an every day filesystem.

I try not to system shame. If you want to run FAT32, ExFAT or ReFS, well... that's your choice. It might not be a good choice, but it's in the OS.