Bans due to launching games on ReFS

[Matthew S.]

On 02/09/2025 at 07:08, neufuse said:

developers are also consumers, that's not enterprise

Except developers usually know what their doing 😛 (one would hope)

[Ixion]

You can put an Xbox series X/S into Dev mode, doesn't mean it's supported for online gaming though and would likely get you banned in the same manner.

In Activision's defence, they're probably looking at thousands or tens of thousands of bans per day (see BF6 where 330k players were banned in the opening weekend!), they can't possibly review all these cases manually and I can't imagine there's more than a few dozen people who run on ReFS so tiny amounts of 1% of their total player base. I'm not saying that not being able to appeal further is right, and there should be a better process for that. However, the reality is that implementing it on the scale they would likely need to do so would be very difficult. This would mean employing more support staff and pushing the game price up for everyone.

I ran into issues using ReFS even on storage servers with over 100Tb of storage and ended up reverting to NTFS which just works, unless you're constantly rewriting large amounts of data the gains just aren't there (NTFS with an AV exclusion is nearly as fast).

 

The correct way to configure your machine would be NTFS for the OS/Games and then a Dev drive for the stuff you are actually developing. Games are largely read-only and won't see any performance benefit from ReFS anyway.

[neufuse Veteran]

On 02/09/2025 at 16:03, Matthew S. said:

Except developers usually know what their doing 😛 (one would hope)

have you met some devs?....... 🤣

[adrynalyne]

On 03/09/2025 at 11:03, neufuse said:

have you met some devs?....... 🤣

Touché. A lot of devs I know don’t know squat about their OS. 

[Matthew S.]

Which is scary...

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

As a Dev manager, I will say that it terrifies me how so many Devs cannot think outside their own little box, and have no idea what the OS is doing or why it's doing it!

[Matthew S.]

On 04/09/2025 at 04:51, Nik Louch said:

As a Dev manager, I will say that it terrifies me how so many Devs cannot think outside their own little box, and have no idea what the OS is doing or why it's doing it!

Even on the IT Engineering side, a lot of the "new kids" to the field that have the "education" only really have the theory, not the practical skill... 

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

On 05/09/2025 at 07:32, Matthew S. said:

Even on the IT Engineering side, a lot of the "new kids" to the field that have the "education" only really have the theory, not the practical skill... 

I think a major part of it is that, my generation grew up without the Internet, but right at the time when home technology was kicking off but wasn't fully consumerised.  I argue that home computers only became consumerised since maybe 2000+ - what that means to me is that you bring it home, it works, it self-heals, it self-updates, it's nearer to an appliance than a computer.

As such, we had to fix our own problems.  We had to diagnose our own problems. We had to understand at a hardware level what was going on. We had to make a change, test, make a change test, make a change test.  I'm not arguing all the actual knowledge from that is 100% relevant, but that the process is - knowing why alongside how, the problem solving aspect.

And this is why I don't 100% believe this thread... There's more here than is being said, and moreover using ReFS on a gaming machine, and being surprised that it caused issues - I'd have seen that before it happened.  And as we have established, bans are for repeat offenders, so...

[funkerwolf]

On 02/09/2025 at 18:54, Eternal Tempest said:

The following response is under the assumption funkerwolf posts are accurate. 

Activision should un-ban funkerwolf if they were willing to have windows & the game installed on a standard NTFS partition.
If the game isn't compatible (with required anti-cheat, etc), Activistion isn't going to make a special build for an edge case situation.

I'm wondering if Activision got a false positive for an existing cheat, and just assumed they were someone trying cause them grief them for getting "caught". With the number of actual cheater's trying to challenge combined. This does not excuse Activision support's behavior and lack of sue diligence.  

 

 

 

 

You can easily reproduce this problem yourself.

All you need is the free Warzone with Win11 24h2 installed on the ReFS partition, and you will receive a shadow ban that will be lifted in a week. However, in BOCW, this is followed by a permanent ban, appeals are rejected, and bug reports are ignored, as are requests to support, with subsequent closure of access to it. And here, any assumptions with arguments are dismissed. But people tend to come up with outlandish situations and make excuses, defend this company however they want, and ultimately blame the victims, not the companies that create invisible conditions for bans without any warnings. All four times were conducted on completely different machines, in different regions, and on different accounts. Attracting bans here based on hardware, etc., is no longer relevant. But instead of acknowledging the problem and its spread, for some reason there is controversy about what is going on and why they are doing this. I honestly don't understand. And players like me and others who have been falsely banned are guilty of only one thing: giving money to this company. And if there had been any real violations or cheating, then I would probably have had a bunch of VAC bans and other penalties on my account, but for some reason, this didn't happen in CS2/VRChat/Wild Assault/BF6 beta.
And if you look at the situation more broadly, the problem isn't even that my friends and I got banned for using ReFS. It's that Activision and other companies with poor anti-cheat systems are stubbornly tying their products to NTFS for some reason. There are tons of cases of bans for running games under Wine/Proton, and for some reason, no one is doing anything about that either. But when it comes to spreading fake news about how Windows supposedly ruins SSDs, for some reason everyone picks up on it easily... It's interesting to understand how this happens.

Edited September 5, 2025 by funkerwolf

[Matthew S.]

You just said it yourself, you don't understand.

NTFS is expected to be the filesystem in use. ReFS, at best, is a BETA product; until Microsoft announces that it is what is replacing NTFS as the default format for Windows installations, it should not be expected for a developer/publisher to support its underlying technology, especially since the filesystem architecture is still evolving.

Claiming that the news about the latest Windows updates damaging SSDs is fake clearly shows that you have a minimal understanding of how hardware, drivers, filesystems, the virtual filesystem subsystems and software interact.

This can be applied in the same sense as Proton/Wine users getting banned, the anti-cheat is expecting specific kernel level features to be there, Proton/Wine are good for things that don't require strict kernel level features but with how strict kernel level anti-cheat is getting it should be assumed that proton/wine users will automatically get flagged, if the product is designed for the specific platform in question then yes file bug reports and make noise, but if you as the user know it's not supported (be it OS configuration, etc.) and then try to run it anyways it's on you not the developer/publisher.

[funkerwolf]

On 06/09/2025 at 04:31, Matthew S. said:

You just said it yourself, you don't understand.

NTFS is expected to be the filesystem in use. ReFS, at best, is a BETA product; until Microsoft announces that it is what is replacing NTFS as the default format for Windows installations, it should not be expected for a developer/publisher to support its underlying technology, especially since the filesystem architecture is still evolving.

Claiming that the news about the latest Windows updates damaging SSDs is fake clearly shows that you have a minimal understanding of how hardware, drivers, filesystems, the virtual filesystem subsystems and software interact.

This can be applied in the same sense as Proton/Wine users getting banned, the anti-cheat is expecting specific kernel level features to be there, Proton/Wine are good for things that don't require strict kernel level features but with how strict kernel level anti-cheat is getting it should be assumed that proton/wine users will automatically get flagged, if the product is designed for the specific platform in question then yes file bug reports and make noise, but if you as the user know it's not supported (be it OS configuration, etc.) and then try to run it anyways it's on you not the developer/publisher.

Well, as usual, we'll turn everything upside down without understanding the problem. Only the problem already existed before the introduction of kernel-level anti-cheats. There should be a clear warning and a declared unacceptability of use, indicating that the use of anything other than NTFS is not allowed, rather than vague formulations. Yes, Steam itself should also issue a warning that launching under Proton is prohibited to avoid problems with the account, but again this is not the case and everything is shifted back onto the consumers' shoulders. And the most incomprehensible thing is that all the conditions for reproducing the problem have been provided. And this has already been proven, but instead, theoretical research is carried out every time....

And about the news with SSDs, everything was already clear. The news mentions the motherboard that burns processors, in principle, the combination of AMD, and DDR6 is indicated as the RAM. But that's another thing. And even after the updates since that time, and already when MS and Phison could not confirm the issues with this, there are still those who somehow again prove the existence of a problem with these 2 components on asrock, only they do not notice that the problem is with asrock and AMD for them. I won't even mention that my friend's expensive MSI sometimes has Samsung drives go into Gen1 mode, and that was back in winter, long before the update that supposedly disables the disks. And this wasn't just on MSI either.
https://forum-en.msi.com/index.php?threads/pcie-bug-with-m2_1-slot-on-x870e-tomahawk.409663/page-32#post-2343816
https://www.reddit.com/r/pchelp/comments/12mby6m/new_samsung_990_pro_stuck_at_pcie_1_x1_and_230mbs/

 

Edited September 6, 2025 by funkerwolf

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

Blah blah blah… you are master of your own destiny. You chose to use a non-standard file system, and it bit you in the behind. As you have said - bans are for repeat offenders.

F around and find out!

[Matthew S.]

On 06/09/2025 at 05:42, funkerwolf said:

Well, as usual, we'll turn everything upside down without understanding the problem. Only the problem already existed before the introduction of kernel-level anti-cheats. There should be a clear warning and a declared unacceptability of use, indicating that the use of anything other than NTFS is not allowed, rather than vague formulations. Yes, Steam itself should also issue a warning that launching under Proton is prohibited to avoid problems with the account, but again this is not the case and everything is shifted back onto the consumers' shoulders. And the most incomprehensible thing is that all the conditions for reproducing the problem have been provided. And this has already been proven, but instead, theoretical research is carried out every time....

And about the news with SSDs, everything was already clear. The news mentions the motherboard that burns processors, in principle, the combination of AMD, and DDR6 is indicated as the RAM. But that's another thing. And even after the updates since that time, and already when MS and Phison could not confirm the issues with this, there are still those who somehow again prove the existence of a problem with these 2 components on asrock, only they do not notice that the problem is with asrock and AMD for them. I won't even mention that my friend's expensive MSI sometimes has Samsung drives go into Gen1 mode, and that was back in winter, long before the update that supposedly disables the disks. And this wasn't just on MSI either.
https://forum-en.msi.com/index.php?threads/pcie-bug-with-m2_1-slot-on-x870e-tomahawk.409663/page-32#post-2343816
https://www.reddit.com/r/pchelp/comments/12mby6m/new_samsung_990_pro_stuck_at_pcie_1_x1_and_230mbs/

 

With regards to Proton and ReFS, the game & anticheat systems were designed for Windows & NTFS there is no onus on the developer/publisher to support Non-Standard Configurations like how hard of a concept is that to understand?

Do you understand how many Non-Standard configurations there could be?  You want a bible for a list of requirements, cause it isn't going to be a small list.

[BrandNewDaylight]

On 21/08/2025 at 12:32, 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.)

That actually sounds extremely on point.
My friend had an issue with their anticheat as well.

In case their anticheat system boots in an "unknown/unsupported environment", why wouldn't it just issue a warning about it?
Straight-up banning people with zero chance of appeal is ridiculous.

It would be great if they were to address this issue.
However it's a big company that doesn't really care about consumers, so, I wouldn't expect much.
Not buying their products is probably the best you can do, considering how adamant their support is.

[funkerwolf]

On 06/09/2025 at 22:26, Matthew S. said:

With regards to Proton and ReFS, the game & anticheat systems were designed for Windows & NTFS there is no onus on the developer/publisher to support Non-Standard Configurations like how hard of a concept is that to understand?

Do you understand how many Non-Standard configurations there could be?  You want a bible for a list of requirements, cause it isn't going to be a small list.

For some reason, other large companies had no problem implementing normal anti-cheat measures that don't trigger the file system and environment. And speaking of the Bible, for some reason, nothing prevented Activision from writing dogma in the form of an epic about terms, policies, and agreements. And they also have a list of configurations in a vague understanding, which prevented them from writing warnings and displaying them at startup? They had enough power to display a warning about TPM 2.0 before entering the game menu, but as it turned out, this is not a mandatory requirement, and even after the introduction of such measures with SecureBoot/TPM 2.0, the situation has still not been fixed to this day. I just launched the game yesterday and was shadow banned again without even entering a match. And if this is their local problem with anti-cheat, why does it globally affect the same Steam account?
And besides, they are no longer ashamed to show this before launching the game in its release version.

[adrynalyne]

On 08/09/2025 at 06:56, funkerwolf said:

For some reason, other large companies had no problem implementing normal anti-cheat measures that don't trigger the file system and environment. And speaking of the Bible, for some reason, nothing prevented Activision from writing dogma in the form of an epic about terms, policies, and agreements. And they also have a list of configurations in a vague understanding, which prevented them from writing warnings and displaying them at startup? They had enough power to display a warning about TPM 2.0 before entering the game menu, but as it turned out, this is not a mandatory requirement, and even after the introduction of such measures with SecureBoot/TPM 2.0, the situation has still not been fixed to this day. I just launched the game yesterday and was shadow banned again without even entering a match. And if this is their local problem with anti-cheat, why does it globally affect the same Steam account?
And besides, they are no longer ashamed to show this before launching the game in its release version.

You either play by their rules and expectations or boycott them. There are no other options. 

[satukoro]

On 08/09/2025 at 09:56, funkerwolf said:

For some reason, other large companies had no problem implementing normal anti-cheat measures that don't trigger the file system and environment. And speaking of the Bible, for some reason, nothing prevented Activision from writing dogma in the form of an epic about terms, policies, and agreements. And they also have a list of configurations in a vague understanding, which prevented them from writing warnings and displaying them at startup? They had enough power to display a warning about TPM 2.0 before entering the game menu, but as it turned out, this is not a mandatory requirement, and even after the introduction of such measures with SecureBoot/TPM 2.0, the situation has still not been fixed to this day. I just launched the game yesterday and was shadow banned again without even entering a match. And if this is their local problem with anti-cheat, why does it globally affect the same Steam account?
And besides, they are no longer ashamed to show this before launching the game in its release version.

Look man I'd say youre just out of luck until you return to a known-supported configuration and reach out to activision support to indicate youve done so, hopefully getting unbanned in the process. If activision still wont help you, the only thing left for you to do is start over with a new account on a known-supported configuration.

You've included enough information yourself to indicate refs is an unfinished product and is not officially supported by Microsoft or Activision in an end-user context (or more specifically the context you are trying to use it in). You've repeatedly attempted to use this unsupported hardware environment which has yielded permanent bans. Activision will not care about this issue until refs is officially supported by microsoft on home versions of windows (where the majority of their users are).

I understand you feel pretty strongly they should support this probably-totally-functional filesystem but the fact is they have no obligation to.

[funkerwolf]

On 08/09/2025 at 22:05, satukoro said:

Look man I'd say youre just out of luck until you return to a known-supported configuration and reach out to activision support to indicate youve done so, hopefully getting unbanned in the process. If activision still wont help you, the only thing left for you to do is start over with a new account on a known-supported configuration.

You've included enough information yourself to indicate refs is an unfinished product and is not officially supported by Microsoft or Activision in an end-user context (or more specifically the context you are trying to use it in). You've repeatedly attempted to use this unsupported hardware environment which has yielded permanent bans. Activision will not care about this issue until refs is officially supported by microsoft on home versions of windows (where the majority of their users are).

I understand you feel pretty strongly they should support this probably-totally-functional filesystem but the fact is they have no obligation to.

All of this should be stated in the same agreements/conditions/policies and warnings should be provided before launching. Instead of playing such a disgusting game and shifting everything onto the consumers' shoulders. Similar bans on accounts will also come for Wine/Proton. Apparently, until a huge wave of bans hits after Windows defaults to refs, nothing will change. And instead of gratitude for an early bug report - a ban, access to support blocked, and mockery. Whether that product is finished or not, it's already our assumptions. And again, it is not specified, nor the opposite, in the requirements to use this as a solid argument.

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

I feel we have reached an impasse here where @funkerwolf refuses to admit the full story, ignores salient points, whines about how it "should" be - but fails to realise he is not in control of what "should" is.  We get a whole bunch of 1 post wonders from other sites where I'm sure the same sob story is being shared, attempting to back him up, but again missing the point.

Summation: Boo hoo, move on, grow up.

[satukoro]

On 08/09/2025 at 21:19, funkerwolf said:

Similar bans on accounts will also come for Wine/Proton. Apparently, until a huge wave of bans hits after Windows defaults to refs, nothing will change. 

yes, exactly. this is what the folks here have been trying to tell you.

I game on linux via proton and this is a real hurdle i run into with some games. Very often with steam i am offerred a download that fixes proton compatibility with whatever game im playing, but sometimes i have to jump through hoops to get stuff to run.

Diablo 4 was like that when it came out, i remember having to do some wonky stuff to get the blizzard launcher to run well enough to launch the game. However, i understand that if i were to complain to activision about that theyd tell me to play on a supported configuration.

[StrainedSky]

On 09/09/2025 at 05:35, Nik Louch said:

I feel we have reached an impasse here where @funkerwolf refuses to admit the full story, ignores salient points, whines about how it "should" be - but fails to realise he is not in control of what "should" is.  We get a whole bunch of 1 post wonders from other sites where I'm sure the same sob story is being shared, attempting to back him up, but again missing the point.

Summation: Boo hoo, move on, grow up.

All the signs of a cheater .... just sayin'. 

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

On 09/09/2025 at 13:01, StrainedSky said:

All the signs of a cheater .... just sayin'. 

Or just a young kid who can't grasp that "what they want", isn't always "what is" and nobody has any remit to listen to their arguments.

[StrainedSky]

On 09/09/2025 at 08:29, Nik Louch said:

Or just a young kid who can't grasp that "what they want", isn't always "what is" and nobody has any remit to listen to their arguments.

Or that, I watch too much Rust Comomo videos, the excuses cheaters make is mind boggling. 

[funkerwolf]

On 09/09/2025 at 15:59, StrainedSky said:

Or that, I watch too much Rust Comomo videos, the excuses cheaters make is mind boggling. 

Well then, just take and repeat all the actions, all the evidence is ready.

[+Eternal Tempest MVC]

Your just missing the forest for the tree's.

They don't support the file system, it sounds like you tripped the cheat detection, and you will have to go back to what's officially supported to be able to play the game. In addition, I highly suspect the frustration / tone you have probably rubbed their support the wrong way and will be needing to buy and new copy / use a new account.

Most game developers using anti-cheat won't consider the new file system until Microsoft officially allows (at best) as the boot drive in the consumer version of Windows, or at worst make it the default file system on clean installs.