Battlefield 6 status: server issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours

The graph below depicts the number of Battlefield 6 reports received over the last 24 hours by time of day. When the number of reports exceeds the baseline, represented by the red line, an outage is determined.

Most Reported Problems

The following are the most recent problems reported by Battlefield 6 users through our website.

• Sign in (43%)
• Online Play (28%)
• Glitches (15%)
• Game Crash (8%)
• Matchmaking (7%)
• Hacking / Cheating (0%)

Live Outage Map

The most recent Battlefield 6 outage reports came from the following cities:

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Buenos Aires	Sign in	12 hours ago
Comuna 1	Online Play	12 hours ago
Perpignan	Sign in	18 hours ago
Domingos Martins	Sign in	3 days ago
Courbevoie	Online Play	3 days ago
Strasbourg	Glitches	5 days ago

Full 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:

• 
  NuFX (@xNuFX) reported 1 minute ago

  Hey @Battlefield @BattlefieldComm I still can't change classes mid game, when is a fix coming?

• 
  Legendary K9 (@MbwaLegend) reported 2 minutes ago

  @SyloveO Sometimes the problem isn’t what we’re saying, but how we’re communicating. Changing the format can change the entire conversation. Listen to understand, not to win. A good conversation should build a bridge, not another battlefield.

• 
  CasualSurvivor (@CasualSurvivor) reported 3 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Why doesn't the game start? Restarted my PC, relogged, checked steam servers and bf servers...no idea but the game won't start. Launcher works till it says "starting game" then closes itself without any error

• 
  Shaggy (@Shagrisss) reported 5 minutes ago

  @SgtDangerCow Not even just a Battlefield issue either lol, I swear every shooter game with cross-platform has this issue. Some people never left 2008 I guess lol

• 
  Mohamed Ibrahim (@m_ibrahim_21) reported 6 minutes ago

  I have been broken and defeated. The world has finally won its long and arduous battle over my soul. There is nothing to be done now but walk the bloody battlefield and gaze upon my fallen soldiers... and weep.

• 
  chris (@ChrisSlaske) reported 7 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm Reddit, discord and labs are the reasons for battlefield 6 being a mess now. The most toxic gamers frequent those first two and battlefield is making knee-jerk reaction updates ignoring core issues

• 
  mptechnology (@mptechnologyy) reported 12 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Fix the netcode! People not dying! Taking so many bullets since the update!

• 
  Lost In LA (@lost_in_la) reported 13 minutes ago

  @pdxraj @lookner I don’t believe that but high tolerance for conventional casualties ≠ indifference to battlefield contamination that can immobilize your own advance and logistics. Those are different problems.

• 
  ＧＨＯＳＴ (@Adam9110) reported 14 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Please!!!!! fix this ******* grenade indicator. It’s literally impossible to play because of it...🤬🤬 This is the most irritating, most infuriating bug that has ever existed in the history of Battlefield.🤦

• 
  bndo 1988 (@1988Bndo) reported 14 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Please fix or at least acknowledge that Mouse inputs do not work under certain bindings please allow me to use my mouse for push to talk thank you

• 
  Jed Rush (@JedRush4) reported 14 minutes ago

  @oelma__ I wonder how many men would prefer to bring life into the world instead of taking it or having it taken from them on a battlefield? Take your baby making attitude and go fix me a sandwich.

• 
  Kroos (@apple_kroos) reported 15 minutes ago

  When the defense was broken, all hell broke lose! The Reserve Operators were forced to abandon position and fell back. Kroos, hurt and cornered, could see as much. And when she thought it couldn't get any worse, to her shock she saw Reunion join in the battlefield!...

• 
  9GUY (@nine_deez) reported 16 minutes ago

  @AcidousOfficial @DANNYonPC the problem is that it all feels so incredibly inbalanced that it’s almost always the worst extreme of a battlefield match even on a good map like iwo jima i constantly think “man this would be so much better if these air vehicles werent nearly impossible to deal with”

• 
  Loony Lucy, Toony Ringmistress (@LoonyLucyRM) reported 18 minutes ago

  The game was super fun,the issues came down to A) my deck being a bit of a mish-mash and B) some rules being...a bit obtuse (not written down anywhere I could've seen them) As an example, I hide Back Off at a battlefield and wanna use it to stun something elsewhere. Doesn't work

• 
  allthings (@allthin90183570) reported 24 minutes ago

  @ArtForCC @WomenReadWomen If women could get the job done the battlefield wouldn't be a woman's basketball league run by female coaches and executives. Obviously women are the problem, making a man's involvement both necessary and legend.

• 
  Whiskey (@Banditw8) reported 26 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Pls fix jet camera rolls its really nauseating at its current state after the update.

• 
  🐐 (@MultigunFun) reported 29 minutes ago

  Battlefield Vegas just retired a broken HK 416 after the trunnion broke after 200k+ rounds. nice

• 
  Rob Lee (@RALee85) reported 30 minutes ago

  I made a similar point about this in some of our recent podcasts. Part of the problem with the assault regiments is how they were employed. They were ordered to conduct counterattacks with little notice to retake positions of questionable value that would likely be lost in the future because the brigades holding the front lacked the manpower. To conduct offensive operations properly on this battlefield, you need time to plan, conduct rehearsals, and set the conditions for employing armor. There also need to be clear objectives, supported/supporting relationship, and unity of command. If you don't have this time, offensive actions will likely fail and at high cost.

• 
  RUNEWALKER (@GamerCyberpunk) reported 30 minutes ago

  @8biteric Battle passes! Unless its like halo infinite that let's you go to whichever pass you want at any point, but live service in general tbh used to love battlefield premium for example

• 
  Christian|FirstPrinciples (@Christianjrmins) reported 31 minutes ago

  @tedlieu Wait… the United States “lost the war” and “surrendered”? That’s an interesting definition of surrender considering Iran’s military capabilities were hammered, as well its navy and air defenses were destroyed, and its missile infrastructure was substantially degraded. There are plenty of legitimate questions about whether the strategic objectives have been achieved the Strait of Hormuz remains a major unresolved problem and the conflict is not neatly wrapped up. But since you were never invited to the war room I guess those fee fees are hurt huh? But “America surrendered” requires skipping right over the battlefield and landing directly in the Department of Creative Writing. Lol. Criticize the strategy. Question the endgame. Debate “mission accomplished.” But pretending the United States suddenly demonstrated that it cannot defend itself? Well… Iran surviving the fight is not the same thing as America losing the ability to fight now is it?

• 
  Mark Kaplan (@markkaplan20) reported 33 minutes ago

  I want you to try a thought experiment with me. You have coronary artery disease. You are given two choices. You can only pick one. Door one. You take a statin or Zetia for the rest of your life. Your LDL drops. Your doctor is happy. But you change nothing else. Same diet. Same metabolic environment. Same insulin. Same inflammation. Same oxidative stress. Door two. You take no drug. But you fix your metabolic health completely. You reverse insulin resistance. You lower fasting insulin and HOMA-IR. You bring hs-CRP and homocysteine down. You eliminate seed oils. You move your body every day. You sleep. You protect the wall. Which door does the evidence support? Door one lowers the cargo. That is all it does. The glycocalyx is still degrading. The wall is still damaged. Whatever LDL remains is still oxidizing inside an inflamed artery. The foam cells are still forming. The fire is still burning. You lowered the number on the lab report. The disease is still being built. Door two fixes the battlefield. The glycocalyx rebuilds. The endothelium heals. Insulin sensitivity returns and the particle pattern shifts from small dense to large buoyant. Oxidative stress drops so LDL is no longer modified. Macrophages have nothing to eat. Inflammation cools. The chain is broken at five of the six steps simultaneously. The Lyon Diet Heart Study showed a 70% reduction in cardiac events with a dietary intervention. LDL barely moved. The wall changed. The JUPITER trial selected patients by inflammation, not by cholesterol. Then gave them a cholesterol drug. The benefit tracked with CRP reduction, not LDL reduction. They proved the environment mattered and then prescribed a drug for the particle. I had a cardiac event at 52. My LDL was 110. I chose door two. My fasting insulin went from 10.3 to 2.8. My hs-CRP dropped below 0.5. My triglycerides went from 150 to 63. My metabolic age is 43. I take zero pharmaceutical drugs. This is not medical advice. This is what I chose for myself based on four years of learning where the disease actually starts. And to everyone who asks why not do both. That is a fair question. Here is my honest answer. I do not want to put these drugs in my body. Statins deplete CoQ10, raise the risk of insulin resistance, and come with a side effect profile I am not willing to accept when the root cause alternative exists. That is my choice. That is my risk reward calculation. Yours may be different. Make it with your doctor or make it on your own. But make it with your eyes open. One exception I will always state publicly. Familial Hypercholesterolemia. Lifelong extreme LDL elevation can overwhelm even a healthy wall. That is the one condition where I believe medication alongside root cause work is appropriate. For everyone else, the question is simple. Do you want to lower the cargo or fix the battlefield? Just dropped my daughter at college in Madison Wisconsin and the other one in Ohio State - so grateful to be here. We all have to make our own choices every day and manage our risks keep asking questions - the science is not settled. The truth heals

• 
  Psycho Fella (@Psycho_Fella) reported 35 minutes ago

  THE TANK ERA IN UKRAINE IS OVER. JUST NOT THE WAY COUCH EXPERTS, ADVISORS, AND CONSULTANTS UNDERSTAND IT By Rimas Armaitis, Armed Forces of Ukraine (ZSU) veteran—Lithuanian, sapper, instructor The New York Times reports that about half of the tank battalion soldiers from Ukraine’s 33rd Mechanized Brigade have already retrained as drone operators. Some recruits are no longer being trained to operate tanks at all. Leopard 2A4s are still maintained, repaired, and used for training, but they are rarely sent on combat missions—mostly during bad weather when drone activity decreases. This does not mean that all tanks will be scrapped tomorrow. It means something much more unpleasant for tank enthusiasts: the tank has lost its status as the primary strike platform. The platform remains, but its role, frequency of use, and cost-to-risk ratio have fundamentally changed. A tank costing millions cannot operate freely on the battlefield because it is under constant surveillance by reconnaissance drones. Once detected, a tank doesn’t even need to be destroyed in a single strike. The first FPV drone might damage a track or optics, the second hits the engine, and the third attacks the crew or the evacuation vehicle. Later, the job is finished off by a heavy bomber drone, artillery, or aerial mining. Even if the tank remains repairable, the combat mission is already ruined, the crew’s lives are at risk, and another expensive machine must be sent to evacuate the vehicle. This is where the economics of war begin—something our couch generals for some reason stubbornly refuse to understand. The key issue isn't whether a tank can theoretically be protected. What matters is how much its protection, logistics, repairs, and trained crew cost compared to how little it costs the enemy to detect, disable, and finish it off. When a chain of drones costing a few hundred or a few thousand euros disables a platform worth millions, we are not facing an emotional debate of "tanks vs. drones," but a catastrophically unfavorable cost-to-result ratio. Of course, some advisor-consultant will now pop up and solemnly declare: "But a drone doesn't hold ground!" Thank you for the breakthrough. An artillery shell doesn't hold ground either. A landmine doesn't control an intersection, and a fighter jet doesn't sit in a trench. Different tools perform different functions. The logic of modern assault is as follows: reconnaissance drones spot positions and movement; FPVs and bomber drones destroy or suppress targets; ground-based robotic systems transport explosives, lay mines, scout, provoke the enemy into revealing firing points, and provide fire support. Only then do the infantry clear, capture, and consolidate the territory—performing what is called "zakrep" on the front lines. Unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) are already being deployed with machine-gun modules, grenade launchers, shaped charges, and fragmentation charges. They handle logistics, evacuation, engineering, and specific assault tasks. They haven't replaced all light armored vehicles yet, but they are already taking over functions where it is better to lose a machine than to lose a machine along with its driver, crew, and squad. Infantry aren't going anywhere. However, a pure infantry assault without aerial reconnaissance, electronic warfare, drones, combat engineering preparation, and fire support is nowadays more simply referred to as a "meat assault." The neat phrase "an infantryman will still have to clear the trench" does not justify the idiotically wasteful decision to send him into that trench first. The role of artillery is also evolving. It remains essential for mass firepower, suppression, area targets, and operating under conditions where drones are restricted. However, single targets have long been handled by FPVs, heavy bomber drones, and mid-strike drones. Deep-strike systems and cheaper cruise missile analogs operate further behind enemy lines. So, drones haven't "replaced everything." They have taken over a huge share of reconnaissance, spotter adjustment, precision destruction, mining, logistics, and even assault roles. As a result, tanks, armored vehicles, artillery, and aviation are used less frequently, more cautiously, and only when their impact justifies the cost and risk. Another argument from the couch experts: "Just turn on electronic warfare and the drones won't fly." Right, of course. Strange that the Ukrainians themselves haven't thought of pressing the magic "turn off drones" button over more than four years of war. Electronic warfare (EW) is essential, but it is not an invisible dome. We now have frequency hopping, relays, elements of autonomous control, machine vision systems, and fiber-optic-guided FPVs. Every line of defense triggers a countermeasure, and technological cycles at the front line sometimes change within weeks. While our consultant spends six months coordinating the final version of a PowerPoint presentation, his "latest" conclusion is already outdated twice over. We are not anti-tank. We are against using tanks according to the doctrine of yesterday's war. For a tank to make a proper comeback to the battlefield, it needs more than just a metal cage welded onto the roof. It requires a complete protection ecosystem: drone detection, electronic warfare, active and passive defense, interceptor drones, dedicated reconnaissance drones, reduced physical and electromagnetic visibility, and integration into a unified intelligence and fire-control network. The tank of the future will likely be unmanned or optionally manned. Because the issue isn't just armor thickness. The issue is sending human beings, along with the tank, into a zone under constant surveillance and targeted fire. This is what we have been talking about for years now. Except our conclusions weren't drawn from watching YouTube or dragging blue and red rectangles across a screen. They emerged from the trenches of the current war. We have seen how the kill zone is shifting, how drones evolved from an auxiliary tool into a primary means of destruction, and how outdated procedures began costing human lives. Yet in Lithuania, a strange qualification system still prevails: if you were at the front yourself, you are "too emotional." If you fought on Facebook for four years, you qualify as a military expert. If you saw the doctrine fail, you are a radical. If you rewrote it three times in PowerPoint, you are an advisor or consultant. So let me repeat this as simply as possible: Tanks haven't disappeared. What has disappeared is the ability to use them the way it was planned ten or twenty years ago. Aerial and ground robotic systems have already taken over a portion of the roles previously held by light armor, artillery, aviation, and infantry. Anyone who fails to grasp this isn't "defending classic warfare"—they are simply preparing for yesterday's war using tomorrow's budget. And if, after all these arguments, someone still only hears "veterans want to get rid of tanks," it's not an additional explanation they need. They lack the ability to read a text longer than the headline of a tank procurement contract.

• 
  Jannik (@Goldenstories2) reported 36 minutes ago

  @heisdayo13 Honestly, Wanda had Thanos in serious trouble. The only reason she didn’t finish it was because he ordered the battlefield attack to stop her.

• 
  Grim (@Boltex12) reported 44 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm Can it be a known issue that carrier strike isn’t on Wake Island, along with the lack of available aircraft. More helis of literally any kind would make the game infinitely more interesting and fun. Insane you guys haven’t added more choppers to the new maps.

• 
  Miad Maleki (@miadmaleki) reported 46 minutes ago

  (15/17) On "[sanctions] have mostly failed to effect the policy changes they were designed to drive." This is the essay's central conceptual error. Nate, my friend, you know should better. Sanctions are not a standalone instrument for producing "policy change." They are one part of a coercion toolkit that includes military credibility, diplomacy, allied enforcement, coalition-building, and a defined off-ramp. The piece first attacks sanctions for not doing what only the whole toolkit can do, then attacks the current campaign for using more of the toolkit; blockade, regional enforcement, secondary sanctions, snapback. Its own examples refute it. The 2003 nuclear pause happened under converging military pressure post-Iraq invasion plus economic pressure. The JCPOA was accepted under converging 2012 CBI/oil sanctions plus a credible military threat plus a snapback structure. 1988 happened under converging U.S. naval engagement plus a collapsed war economy plus battlefield defeat. The essay even concedes: "Pressure helped push Iran to temporarily pause its nuclear program during George W. Bush's administration and, later, to accept the JCPOA." That's a concession that pressure works. The rest is a redefinition of "work" as "regime collapse without other instruments," a definition no coercion theory has ever accepted.

• 
  LiCHtsLiCH (@Barbaneth) reported 46 minutes ago

  @volcaholic1 Well don't let it get you down. The vast majority are just dog piling, it's good for your revenue stream, but disassociate yourself from it. One of the problems of fame. But please don't let it get you down. Nothing wrong with having a point of view, and even though I may disagree with the science of it, doesn't make it a valid fear. In alot of instances, well most, I fully agree with you, if what you say is true, we are in for one hell of a ride. More importantly, it seems that a large chunk of the cause is actually an abscence, which, in all likelyhood, from a scientific pov, we are headed for more extremes, which is just fine. This is far from unexpected, and certainly something we can deal with. Beyond that, if you can think of it as grace, this good weather, we have summarily wasted it, which is far more frightening. Rather than becoming more prepared, we have become less prepared. Emergency stations set up 20 years ago, gone into disuse, suddenly called upon by inexperienced place holders like the Covid emergency response team. Bear in mind, this is a lack of experience cause by a lack of event. Like battlefield soldiers who have never seen combat. A sense of readiness is paramount to a quick response, and you are the literal tip of the spear when it comes to a sense of motivation and concern that people should have. Maybe pivot your approach to one of preparedness, rather than the cause. The cause isn't the point, mostly beause we can't do anything about it, and partly because it may not be the cause. So how would you outline a response beyond or integrating existing emergency protocols? Even going over the material requirements for triage encampments, set up for disaster recovery, and logistics resource acquisition and communication could seriously mitigate a Katrina response that 3 days in was "what do we do?".

• 
  Jabotinsky Jew (@CrazyVideosOnly) reported 47 minutes ago

  Rafael engineer Yossi Ben Yakov was analyzing trajectories when Hamas fired the first Qassam in 2001. The core problem was stopping a cheap $800 rocket with precision. Developers created the Tamir interceptor to solve this asymmetric threat. Each Tamir missile costs $50,000 to launch. The system achieves a 90% intercept rate today. This shifted the battlefield calculus entirely. Asymmetric terror lost its primary advantage. Cheap saturation no longer works. Israel secured its skies through technological application 🇮🇱

• 
  Reluctantly Present (@ReluctantlyPre1) reported 49 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Can we fix the camping on carriers? I refuse to play that mode.

• 
  Tye Jak (Eternal Heel Arc) 🖤🐅 (@TyeJakTV) reported 49 minutes ago

  @K4kirigaya @Battlefield Main issue with bullet drop for snipers is that their velocity is surprisingly low for the game, which makes the drop feel more impactful. Longer to get to distance makes drop more apparent. The longest range sniper somehow has less Velocity than the mini Scout.

• 
  Steve (@sjc6254) reported 51 minutes ago

  @maximus280783 @RasmusJarlov He was never going to take it by force. That was never serious. Besides, the US already has a base there. I thought Europe's reaction was one of the dumbest things I've ever seen. You would settle an issue like that in court, not the battlefield. Denmark would have won in court. And yes, much of the world holds our debt because its the safest place to be. Safer than Europe, safer than China. Lets face it. Denmark has no means to protect Greenland from a hostile country except with help from the US. Europe's armies are a paper tiger.