Battlefield 6 Outage Map

Community Discussion

Tips? Frustrations? Share them here. Useful comments include a description of the problem, city and postal code.

Beware of "support numbers" or "recovery" accounts that might be posted below. Make sure to report and downvote those comments. Avoid posting your personal information.

Battlefield 6 Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Joey Adorjan, (ALPHA REMIX HD) (@Alpha_Remix_HD) reported 5 minutes ago

  @Pirat_Nation You you guys get a big following then you start lying about stuff. I'm failing to see what the issue here is It's cosmetic and A pack that reveals all the locations on the map This is nothing new Did you cry when Battlefield did this 15 years ago

• 
  Soumyaranjan Panda (@Soumyapx) reported 6 minutes ago

  The centre of gravity in AI keeps moving. A year ago the easy post was, "Look, another model went up on a benchmark." That read is getting stale. The interesting part in the newest releases is not that the models got smarter. Of course they did. The interesting part is that the product boundary is moving from single-answer chat to systems that can keep working without dragging you through every intermediate step. One example: GPT-Live is full-duplex, so it can listen and speak at the same time instead of waiting for turn boundaries. Another: GPT-5.6's ultra mode coordinates four agents in parallel by default. Same week, same direction. Less turn-taking. More delegation. Then the economics got harder to ignore. OpenAI says GPT-5.6 Sol hit 80 on the Coding Agent Index while using less than half the output tokens, taking less than half the time, and costing about one-third less than Fable 5 on that eval. Even if you discount vendor benchmarks, that is the right battlefield. Not "Can it solve a puzzle?" Can it do the work fast enough, cheaply enough, and with enough persistence that you change the product around it? That is the shift I care about. The winning AI products are going to feel less like a smart textbox and more like a coworker with a short leash. You set direction. It goes off, uses tools, and comes back with something real. The UX problem now is not how to make the bot talk. It is how to decide when autonomy is worth the review overhead.

• 
  TarIQ (@TQ_110) reported 7 minutes ago

  @pedruchie @BattlefieldComm Yeah we all have this problem on Xbox and unfortunately no one talks about it

• 
  Jarrod (@Coyote_Operator) reported 16 minutes ago

  @Ryangofett_2490 The issue is you have the same group that buys the sports games every year regardless of its fixed or not because they are so casual it doesn’t matter to them and gaming companies know this. These are the same players who will say “2042 is better than battlefield 6” or the same people who say the game is fine and they play 500 of the game, all of which were spent either prone off the map, or sitting in a legitimate corner all round doing absolutely nothing

• 
  Swaguley (@swaguley) reported 16 minutes ago

  EA fumbled their biggest opportunity to steal players from COD and retain them with BF6. Allow me to explain. When BO7 was first announced, I believe many classic COD fans were frustrated with Activision and chose BF6 because they wanted an arcade military shooter that: 1) Looked like an actual military game (no goofy skins) and 2) Had normal, boots on the ground movement Both of which are things modern COD largely abandoned chasing Fortnite and other games. Skins and movement are also hot topics in the COD community. These disgruntled COD players saw the announcements for BF6 and thought that Battlefield, a franchise historically known for being authentic, would at least adhere to its identity since Call of Duty would not. On first glance, the marketing seemed to bear this out. The backlash to BO7's announcement was the tipping point where COD players as a whole were finally open to giving Battlefield a serious look. BF6's marketing and beta then gave them the impression that it was going to be EXACTLY what they were looking for and expecting: a grounded, arcade military shooter that looked the part without the crackhead movement. That's why skins and clips of crackhead movement are the two things that blow up more than anything else with BF6. These were the two most important features to get right, funnily enough. Battlefield fans and classic COD fans actually converged in these areas, as they really wanted the same thing. EA then made jabs at Call of Duty: "No Nicki Minaj skins" and blew up Zac Efron to drive the point home. Battlefield was in a prime position to capitalize and finally steal the market from Call of Duty. However, once everyone bought BF6 and played it for a little while, they began to realize what it actually was: A cheap, more plasticky feeling copy of modern Call of Duty, just with GI Joe vs Cobra skins and its own version of crackhead movement. I think it's fair to say that both COD and Battlefield players alike felt rug pulled. Little did we know that while poking fun at Call of Duty with one hand, EA was literally copying COD's failing homework with the other. It seems that EA believed fundamentally that COD players just wanted a 1:1 copy of what "modern" Call of Duty was (they didn't) and told Battlefield Studios to make exactly that, with yearly releases planned in the future. They didn't understand the fundamental reasons why COD players were disgruntled with modern COD in the first place and why the franchise was going downhill. Battlefield 6 was not an attempt to be a classic Battlefield game. It was designed to be the "perfect COD substitute". To avoid backlash from Battlefield players by being upfront about this fact, they did everything in their power to evoke BF3/BF4 nostalgia instead of letting everyone know they were actually trying to build MW19/MWII just on the back of 2042's garbage version of Frostbite. The kicker here is, I think most COD players actually DID want Battlefield to simply be Battlefield, and they expected exactly that, just like your average Battlefield fan. Back in the day, these players may have dabbled with BF3, BF4, or BF1 and were now finally open to giving the Battlefield franchise a real chance because COD had repeatedly abused their loyalty over the years. It's actually quite interesting to see COD fans being completely spot on about what Battlefield's identity is or should be, even when some Battlefield players forget. Shortly after BF6 released, these COD players quickly became wise to what was actually going on, and put the game down when they realized that BF6 was not trying to be Battlefield, they were just trying to be what modern COD had become, even down to things like the menus and the overpriced store; the funny part is they couldn't even do it any better than Activision. These COD players didn't want Battlefield to just be a copy of modern COD, but EA didn't get this. When 2042 crashed and burned, EA just said screw it and applied a blanket approach to their copying because they didn't actually understand what COD players wanted, so they thought by copying everything they could, maybe something would stick. They even placed COD developers in charge to make sure of this. EA could've been the good guy here and used this opportunity to be the antithesis to what modern Call of Duty had become, but instead they misunderstood the assignment and just became little bro bad guy. It only took 18 days for them to bring in the stupid looking skins to their poorly designed customization system and boosted slide jumps became the meta. This is why BF6 ultimately had such a steep player drop off a month after release and why those hundreds of thousands of players won't come back no matter what updates come. Once the positive first impression was dashed by the reality of what BF6 was, these COD players didn't have a problem dropping the game and not looking back. Meanwhile, we Battlefield fans are now stuck with a Battlefield game that is really just a cheap copy of Call of Duty with some Battlefield lipstick applied and Battlefield Studios is having to go back and slowly put the toothpaste back in the tube to please the Battlefield players that are masochistic enough to stick around. Tiny changes to the gameplay aren't enough to change the overall flavor of the game, they need to drastically change it. Even after all the updates, it still tastes the same way it did at release. But the damage is already done, these COD players aren't coming back and EA has simultaneously pushed away a ton of Battlefield players in the process. It seems we did hold onto a few of the COD players, judging by the amount of people that instantly skip their revive when downed. You might say, "Well BF6 was best selling Battlefield of all time" and while that is true, because of the reasons I've stated above, Battlefield 7 will NOT come close to the sales of BF6 because COD players are now wise to what EA is doing and so are many Battlefield players. I question if I would even buy BF7 if they take the same approach again. I will certainly be looking at BF7 much more critically than I did BF6. EA's metrics for live service games rely heavily on daily active users and monthly cosmetic spend. That was the real goal and why they wanted all of those COD players. With the immediate player drop off, there's a high likelihood they missed their lofty internal revenue goals with skin sales, which is probably why Battlefield Studios saw a couple rounds of layoffs. Funnily enough, EA may also have inadvertently revived the COD franchise because the hype cycle BF6 produced scared Activision into making real changes that players were asking for, and now Activision actually listens to feedback from the COD community. So COD fans may now be eating good with MW4 and won't need Battlefield anymore and we Battlefield fans are stuck with Codfield 6, maybe even for a couple more years based on the announcements from today. Will EA learn from this? Probably not. I'm not confident the new leadership coming here in a couple of months will be any better, especially since they have $20B in debt to make up for when they bought EA. If EA had marketed Battlefield 6 as what it really was, I don't think I would've purchased it. You might disagree with my opinions here, but I think they are borne out. Here are a couple of community polls I conducted over the past several months on my YouTube channel:

• 
  Don Elliott (@RealDonElliott) reported 21 minutes ago

  @Battlefield still very very broken. @Sony @PlayStation

• 
  TheCheapest (@itsthecheapest) reported 21 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm ……. Pay to fix your FOMO instead of just making battle passes used anytime …. Huge L. But “we’re listening to feedback”

• 
  Cracked Nostalgia Antiques (@BuddyLeeGhost) reported 22 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm Its been over a month since Strikepoint was “broken”. Any update at all? Last update was 2-3 weeks ago. 😬

• 
  Sunday Laycon (@Echoesofsages) reported 24 minutes ago

  @Wordofwise_ The saddest battlefield is the one you're losing inside your own skull. Outwardly, you look fine. Inside, you're a casualty. The world doesn't know and honestly? It doesn't care. Win your mind, or be broken by it. There's no third option.

• 
  dsfgas wefssdfsdsdf (@LilFrier) reported 24 minutes ago

  @kiaran_ritchie This is not the problem. Game Pass just gave you no reason to spend $70 on a Steam copy. Oblivion Remastered pulled 200K+. Around 100K for Black Flag. Multiplayer hits has driven the indsutry for 20 years--CoD, Halo, Gears, Battlefield...this isn't new phenomenon.

• 
  Tommy Dingo ☀️ (@TommyDingo) reported 24 minutes ago

  @ThisThatOther2 That’s a really bad sign for his standing and influence. If he wants to succeed in the future, he needs to be more proactive and instinctive instead of waiting for trouble to arise and set the terms of the battlefield. It’s all a damn shame.

• 
  ashlyn 🏳️‍⚧️ (@ashlyninstereo) reported 25 minutes ago

  i think we're heading towards another videogame crash because what do you MEAN we're not getting any more NFS or Burnout games??? Criterion are just making Battlefield now.

• 
  Skynet 🫍 (@skynetBF) reported 28 minutes ago

  @jaylay12088001 @swaguley Because its not a battlefield no more . Now they are competiting with cod . Cod has no issue like hit reg or TTK , if they dont go back to what battlefield should be they will fall . Hell let loose , wardogs etc . We dont want a game that please fortnite players

• 
  cipher (@cy_phr) reported 31 minutes ago

  its sad how delta force had the potential to literally kill battlefield but has a worse cheater problem than ******* call of duty

• 
  𝔽orms ℝespecter (0/100 bangers) (@Forms_Respecter) reported 32 minutes ago

  I think the funniest part in all this is that modern evangelicals should be the most ideologically capable of grasping what's going on here, but because of the psychic bonds of Holocaust guilt they're blinded to reality. Luckily I'm here to explain! The evangelical obsession with the idea that bloodlines and lineages aren't important in the kingdom should be their first clue that Jews are not God's chosen people. They correctly interpret the NT on this point when it comes to literally every race besides Jews. It's very confusing. Nevertheless, it is the clear teaching of the NT that the Jews specifically are not God's chosen people, because that's a spiritual position, not a genetic one. Secondly, evangelicals love to point out that we're in a spiritual battle and that our enemies are the demonic forces of satan. So true! Unfortunately, the evangelical only affirms this because it allows them to pietistically bow out of every real world battle. "Our enemies are not of this world. 🥰" Wow, so true! But that doesn't mean that the things that happen in this world aren't part of the greater spiritual battle. Both sides use mankind as their primary means of prosecuting the war on the Earth front. So where does that leave the Jews? Well, which side do you think is going to better be able to use a group who for 2000 years have had baked into their ethnic identity revulsion for the God of the universe? A second's thought should lead you to conclude that it's obviously the side of the demons. Most evangelicals are incapable of coming to that conclusion though because of one of the demons greatest battlefield innovations: holocaust guilt. The question is now, why does the issue of the Jews incline people into extremes? This again is a tactic of the enemy. You can tell by the fact that both extremes come to the same conclusion about Jews: the world revolves around them. This serves to distract people from reality and causes infighting amongst Christians. Division and distraction is their goal. So if you're a philosemite going on a crusade against antisemites for opposing the actually evil things Jews do, you're falling into the demon's trap. But if you're an antisemite who's convinced Jews are the final boss and the only issue that matters, you've also fallen into the demon's trap. To summarize the sane view of reality: • Jews are not God's chosen people, Christians are. • Jews are a vehicle demons use to exert their will on Earth, but they're not the only vehicle. • Jews should be opposed insofar as they are opposed to God, but we can't lose sight of the fact that they're not the only people in opposition to God. Because of mass media, and especially digital technology, our brains can't biologically process the information environment we live in. The demons will exploit this by offering you simplistic models of reality that obscure just as much as they illuminate. One of their chief tricks (but not their onlh one) in this regard is Jew centrism. Don't fall for the demon's trick!