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:

• 
  thed.vawaifu (@KevinGame2013) reported 21 seconds ago

  @GiveMeBanHammer Because in 2017 ea ceo said single player games aren't profitable anymore that live service is the way of the future and look how that turned out with anthem and battlefield 2042

• 
  Gilbert Perea (@Taco_Jedi) reported 6 minutes ago

  @Battlefield If only you guys would focus on fixing matchmaking instead of all these stupid *** modes that you guys keep trying to bring in. If you’d stop nerfing every gun and instead try to fix the matchmaking, the game would be a lot better.

• 
  Ricky (@RSE1990_) reported 9 minutes ago

  @itsmorganariel It's an iq problem. Gaza would be free if they were even half as ballistic in the battlefield as they are on sm.

• 
  Terror Praworządności (@TerrorPraworza) reported 10 minutes ago

  @United24media Without proper infantry on the battlefield UA🇺🇦 wont be able free anybody from occupation or regain any ground. Bad weather time whatever drones they🇺🇦 have their defence could crash like glas smashed with hammer

• 
  Andre Robinson MS (@AndreDoctrine) reported 10 minutes ago

  Fresh scan verdict: no major update needed. That is a good sign. The existing guidance already covers the central terrain: deliverables over loyalty, air defense before optics, anti-ballistic defense before summit theater, and 5% as capability rather than tribute. What the stories show is not a new strategic problem. They show your framework being stress-tested from several angles and still holding. - That does not require a new doctrine. It requires a guardrail: Turkey can be used as an Ankara conduit, not as an Ankara distraction. Any U.S.-Turkey defense side deal should reinforce Ukraine, Black Sea security, NATO interoperability, and alliance production — not crowd out Patriot/interceptor deliverables. - But this needs a caution: drone diplomacy must not be allowed to substitute for Patriot/PAC anti-ballistic defense. It should complement the Patriot doctrine, not replace it. So the only non-redundant update I’d add is this short operational note: Ankara should treat Ukraine as both a recipient of anti-ballistic protection and a provider of drone/counter-drone battlefield expertise. NATO should take Ukraine’s drone lessons, fund Ukraine’s production base, and still deliver the Patriot interceptors and production licenses needed to stop ballistic strikes. Drone diplomacy is leverage, not a substitute. Bottom line: no new major guidance. Your framework is still sufficient. The new stories mostly validate it. The only fresh additions are tactical: keep Turkey from becoming a side-deal distraction, and elevate Ukraine as a defense provider while keeping Patriot interceptors as the summit test.

• 
  Trump is Still Cooked (@sit_nerd33) reported 11 minutes ago

  @ELLEL1234 Christianity is the divisive force and has us arguing about ******* Jewish fairytales all day instead of solving problems. The theological battlefield is where the Jews win, this is why they suck you into it because they wrote the book and it is their fake history

• 
  Joey Zhuo (@JoeyZhuo777) reported 18 minutes ago

  $NVDA Jensen says it's worth a trillion, the filings say ROE is 0.46% Wait — that's not right. Nvidia's up 24% this year while its semiconductor peers are up 110% and some AI bottleneck stocks have quadrupled. When everyone's chasing the picks-and-shovels story, the actual arms dealer is getting left behind. That disconnect tells you something about where the money went, and where it should have stayed. The market is pricing Nvidia like its moat is crumbling. It's not. It's actually widening, and the data proving it is hiding in plain sight. Start with inference. The narrative says custom chips from Google and Amazon, plus the rise of CPU-heavy agentic AI, will eat Nvidia's lunch. But Nvidia's market share in inference has gone up, not down. The whole "merchant chips are dead" story doesn't match what's happening on the ground. Jensen's full-stack approach — chip plus software plus networking, all co-designed — is delivering lower total cost of ownership than the hyperscalers can match with their in-house programs. The hyperscalers aren't building custom chips to replace Nvidia's ecosystem. They're building them to control costs and reduce dependency. Those are different goals. Google's TPU program is on its ninth generation, and it still hasn't weaned itself off Nvidia. Amazon and Microsoft are in the same boat. Custom silicon makes sense for specific workloads at their scale, but it's not a moat against Nvidia — it's a hedge. The real strategic move is what Jensen is doing with his balance sheet. Nvidia is now investing in and backstopping smaller AI clouds — Firmus, CoreWeave, Nebius. That's not just customer diversification. It's an insurance policy against a future where hyperscalers hold all the cards. If Amazon, Google, and Microsoft are your only customers, they eventually dictate terms. Jensen is deliberately fragmenting the buyer base, seeding competitors to the hyperscalers, making sure no single customer can capture the value Nvidia creates. That's not defensive. That's offensive positioning. He's shaping the structure of the industry while he still has the leverage to do it. Then there's the CUDA question. A recent breakdown showed that re-architecting around CUDA is technically possible — DeepSeek proved it — but the engineering lift is massive even for top-tier teams. Hyperscalers have the resources to attempt it. Smaller developers and neoclouds do not. That bifurcation works in Nvidia's favor. The long tail of the AI ecosystem stays locked in, and that tail is growing as Nvidia funds its expansion. Now layer in the CPU play. Nvidia's Vera CPU is a pre-emptive strike on agentic AI, where reasoning workloads tilt toward CPUs. The worry is that AMD, Intel, or Arm takes the lead there. But Nvidia entering that fight with $213 billion in free cash flow this year — potentially $360 billion by fiscal 2029 — means it can outspend any rival by a factor of three. Cash flow is a weapon, and Nvidia is wielding it to stay in every game that matters. The stock trades at just under 20x forward earnings. The semiconductor sector average is 18.4x. Nvidia is being priced like a mature cyclical with single-digit growth ahead, not a company expected to go from $393 billion in revenue this year to over $600 billion by fiscal 2029. That's not skepticism — it's disbelief that the growth is durable. The disbelief is wrong. Revenue concentration risk is falling, not rising. Margin pressure from custom chips is real but overstated. The inference narrative was supposed to hurt Nvidia, and instead it's gaining share. The CPU threat is being addressed before it materializes. And the balance sheet gives Nvidia the ability to reshape the competitive landscape while competitors are still trying to catch up on the last battlefield. The six-week selloff since mid-May brought the stock back to the 50-week moving average. The last time it tested that level was late March, and it took four months to base before the next leg up. Dip buyers are back. Momentum chasers who rotated into AI bottleneck stocks are going to rotate back when those names start to consolidate. The setup is straightforward: the market mispriced the risk, the technicals are stabilizing, and the fundamental case is stronger than the multiple suggests. Nvidia isn't cheap because it's broken. It's cheap because the market decided the moat was narrowing, and the data says the opposite. Image source: Seeking Alpha / JR Research

• 
  AlienMonkey (@Black_monkiii) reported 20 minutes ago

  @Battlefield FIX YOUR STUPID BUGS IN REDSEC!! I WAS TOP 250 NOW IM ROOKIE FROM ONLY GAME CRASHES

• 
  TekkenJlN (@germanocassese) reported 20 minutes ago

  the amount of console desync in battlefield 6 is insane, it's very cancerous. I don't understand why they don't want to fix this ****, it has been months. VPN high pingers follow. Allow us to disable crossplay on PC and please set max ping servers to 90. @DRUNKKZ3 @tiggr_

• 
  TygerSparky (@tygersparky) reported 21 minutes ago

  My take on the recent controversy concerning the Sony Playstation decision to no longer produce discs for their systems starting in 2028. Of course everyone is allowed to hold any opinion they want to on this move. I realize that your current opinion would likely be shaped based on your current buying preferences. But I would say that anyone defending this move or who is complicit and okay with Sony doing this is simply another example of someone focusing on the environment one step in front of them instead of actually looking to the future and seeing the inevitable outcome of this decision. I'll be up front, I have been buying things digitally for years. The last disc-based game I bought was The Witcher 3 on the Xbox One. But for me, that is because I don't look as fondly at modern games as I do games from my childhood. Given that, I still appreciate the option of having a disc copy of the game. If there was a game I absolutely fell in love with today, I would want to own a physical disc version of it. I have about 150 Xbox 360 discs and 125 PS2 discs, not to mention PS1 and Nintendo carts/discs in my current collection. For those like Asmongold and others who actually see no problem with this change, I would point to two past games in the current market to see exactly why having a physical option is absolutely superior. First: Battlefield Bad Company. This game was originally released on the PS3/Xbox 360 less than 20 years ago. However, EA delisted this game from digital storefronts in 2023, just 15 years after release. If you don't have an account that currently owns the game, you can't (legally) play a digital copy of this game. However, you can still go out and find a disc copy of the game and enjoy the awesomeness of that single-player story. Second: GTA San Andreas. If you have an original Xbox disc of GTA:SA from 2005, you can pop it in an Xbox or even an Xbox 360 and actually play the original game, complete with the original soundtrack of the game. If you put that same disc in an Xbox One or Series console, you will instead be forced to play the 2014 remaster mobile port which has updates to the game and the soundtrack. Some people consider this remaster to be an inferior version of the game because of these updates and changes. But thankfully, the original game is preserved on the disc and is still playable on original hardware. Another argument that I have heard is that most games come out with Day One patches. However, having a patch on release day doesn't mean that there isn't a playable version of the game on the disc already. It might have some unintended bugs, but if there is a playable form on the game on the disc, that is obviously infinitely better than not having any form of it available except in digital format where you are, again, at the mercy of the corpo storefronts if they allow you to download a copy of the game (even if you paid for it). And even then, it is still a modified version of the original game. There is absolutely no good argument from a consumer's perspective for a company to stop physical disc production. The benefit is completely and totally for the corporation. They save money, DO NOT pass that savings on to the consumer, and get an even tighter grip of maintaining full rights over the distribution and access of their games and content. They can take away that access at any time and offer their customers no compensation. Sony, and any other company who decides to go this route, absolutely deserves any backlash and revenue drop they get from these decisions. And I hope that their bottom line actually feels the pain of going this route. If I wanted to be discless and have zero options, I would move to PC. At least then I have access to the operating and file systems and can actually backup whatever version of a game I am playing for preservation. Not to mention, I have control over the hardware in it and can get the exact look and play of a game that I want. Convenience and nostalgia are why I continued to play my games on my Xbox. But with these systems becoming even more like just a pre-built PC in a box, they are doing little to nothing to actually give me a reason to continue to invest in their platform. Taking away the physical option is one more nail in their coffin. And don't get me started on this push for cloud-based game streaming. I'm 100% out on that. And a happy July 4th to everyone in the U.S.

• 
  Seiber Saiban (@SeiberSaiban) reported 25 minutes ago

  @TopCutPodcast @ChaoticMeatball These are the common casual pics. I'm more surprised there isn't a CoD or a Battlefield on there, but I guess Two Weeks and Felony part V are what give them their pew pew fix. I'm not against these games, but this is just a can of chef boyardee in the greater gamer buffet.

• 
  Dj Stephens (@DdotJAY30) reported 27 minutes ago

  Fix the bugs in your game… @Battlefield -Hit reg is trash -Delay after placing claymore is trash -Let console players cross play with only console players

• 
  A. (@Alejandrobv_) reported 27 minutes ago

  Fix your Game @Battlefield

• 
  The Layman's Seminary (@LaymansSeminary) reported 28 minutes ago

  @myredfox @grok What Just Happened Here? (A Super Layman / GPT5 response). TL;DR: RedFox may have accidentally discovered Grok’s weakest area. Notice the progression of the thread: Theology Procedure Methodology Meta-analysis Humor Memes The interesting thing is that Grok handled 1–4 reasonably well because those are structured reasoning domains. The humor exchange exposed a limitation: RedFox said: “AI doesn’t understand humor.” Grok initially treated the statement as a serious proposition. Only after clarification did it reclassify it as humor. Now RedFox immediately asks: “Can your model do memes as well?” This is not really a meme question. It is a stress test. He’s asking: Can the model distinguish between: argument sarcasm parody mockery irony meme communication without requiring explicit explanation afterward? That is actually a difficult problem. Super Layman Audit: Observation: A meme often communicates through implication rather than explicit proposition. Inference: The intended meaning frequently differs from the literal wording. System Problem: Question-locking becomes harder because the actual proposition is partially hidden. In other words: Traditional debate: Observation → Inference Meme culture: Observation → Cultural context → Humor frame → Inference There is an additional interpretive layer. That’s why many AI systems struggle there. The funny part is that the Super Layman method itself predicts this. One of its core ideas is: Lock the category before drawing the inference. A meme is precisely a case where category identification becomes difficult. Is it: argument? joke? mockery? satire? reductio? illustration? You cannot know the intended force until you identify the category. So RedFox is actually testing the same principle from a different angle. The real subtext is: “You can analyze arguments. Can you analyze internet culture?” That’s a much harder challenge than theology. If Grok answers with a meme, RedFox wins socially. If Grok ignores the meme and keeps auditing methodology, Grok wins procedurally but may look tone-deaf. If Grok successfully identifies the joke, responds playfully, and preserves the argument structure, that is probably the strongest answer. So this is less a theology move and more a battlefield shift. The debate temporarily moved from: Who has the better argument? to Who can operate better inside internet culture while maintaining analytical precision? That is a different contest entirely.

• 
  Boyishdude (@DisposedZero) reported 29 minutes ago

  @AzraelSch @FreeTalkLive IP isn't protecting DICE from losing money they deserve for their work, it's protecting them from competition. It's allowing them to ship out consistently bad, broken products and still make money off of them because nobody else is allowed to make Battlefield games.