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 (36%)
• Online Play (33%)
• Glitches (14%)
• Game Crash (9%)
• Matchmaking (8%)
• Hacking / Cheating (0%)

Live Outage Map

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

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Paris	Game Crash	2 days ago
Aurillac	Glitches	2 days ago
Annecy	Online Play	2 days ago
Paris	Online Play	2 days ago
Paris	Matchmaking	2 days ago
Arvert	Game Crash	4 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:

• 
  Zen ۶ৎ | reading closed (@jentelism) reported 45 seconds ago

  But the universe is using Justice and The Hanged Man to pull the emergency brake. They are being asked to step down from the battlefield, stop trying to fix the external world or the broken collaborations, and turn inward.

• 
  Mark Fett (@SrMark_Fett) reported 2 minutes ago

  I mean, could be fun, specially if you pair with some friends and give some accurate map coordinates to work from That being said it wasn’t really a problem for plenty of games tbh, from memory both battlefield 3 and 4 and Farcry 5 have fps mortars

• 
  Jared Randall (@whisperontruth) reported 2 minutes ago

  the Pentagon is quietly shifting AI spending from research labs to the actual battlefield edge. $PLTR has been in this lane for years but the real money now is in whoever wins the contracts to run inference at the tactical level. that's a different and much harder problem.

• 
  Craig Hall #GeneralStrike #Worldwide (@w41gy) reported 4 minutes ago

  @Crypt0Mess1ah @NHSMillion Hospitals were originally designed to treat wounded soldiers and getting them back on the battlefield ASAP. There’s no rush to fix us now that the wealthy can afford to circumvent the NHS with our two tier system.

• 
  shoutosright 🍜🍜 (@shoutosright) reported 5 minutes ago

  @yoyofightthee @crematedsmolder ....repeating what I said? The distance from battlefield to the hospital lasts longer than a "few seconds", fyi. His conflicting emotions is blatantly obvious to the reader, good to know that was your problem. At best it'd be a slight improvement, lack of it is not a damage. 🎉

• 
  Jamin Thompson (@jaminthompson) reported 6 minutes ago

  Step 1 to defeating an army of gun-mounted robot dogs is to figure out what type of battlefield system they are. A reasonable person can assume that they're basically just mobile sensor-shooter nodes trying to drag a rifle through an adversarial physics problem. From there, we can use first principles to deduce that we have a lot of defensive advantages at our disposal that we can use to defeat such an enemy. The rookie mistake to avoid in the battle plan, however, is thinking the best countermeasure is more firepower or a straight-line escape. That's how you end up playing the robot's game, where every advantage goes to the hardware. Robot hardware has the clear advantage in a head-to-head duel, which is exactly why we don't make it one. So instead of using bozo tactics, we'll use our brains and target the robot's main weakness, its decision stack. This gives us the greatest tactical advantage. Instead of mindless pewpew blasting, we need to attack the robot's perception, state estimation, path planning, balance control, target classification, and weapons release. All the seams between those layers are where the robot is most vulnerable. So our first course of action is to make motion expensive. We want to fight on our terms, in an environment with terrain that is technically passable but tactically poisonous. And we'll prepare our defenses by making the battlefield very hostile to a machine. We want to make life as miserable as possible for the metal mind. So instead of thinking "oh no, we're fighting robot dogs with guns," we adjust the paradigm to "we're fighting balance algorithms that are dragging rifles through bad physics." The goal is to outsmart the bots and prevent them from having a clean path to go anywhere. So we'll make every path into the defended space feel like pure chaos, filled with elements that make a robot's control loop work harder: thick mud, rocks, gravel, sand, cables, uneven debris, weird curbs, surfaces with weird angles, ditches, tight turns, narrow gaps, and low baffles. We don't need to make every single obstacle perfect. We just need every step the robot takes to cost more terrain estimation, friction prediction, gait replanning, torque correction, stabilization, and battery drain. This is how we win. Next we will further terraform the defensive position so robot walking and shooting become separate problems that need solving. The robot might move forward, but movement isn't the same thing as being able to fight. So we'll craft the environment to funnel the bot swarm into very tight slow lanes where the "safe" path turns into a traffic jam. If they stop, they lose tempo. If they advance, they burn energy. If they shoot, they waste ammo. If they reroute, they lose time. If they trust the obvious path, they walk deeper into our trap. The goal here isn't to fully prevent the robots from crossing the terrain, because the probability of zero robots getting across is low. Our goal is to create as many slips, sensor conflicts, torque spikes, bad decisions, and battery losses we can force per meter as possible. Next, we'll **** up the robot's perception by changing what it actually sees. We'll fill the defensive space with glare, floodlights, smoke, mist, hard shadows, reflective panels, hanging tarps, moving junk, and a shitstorm of visual clutter so the robot cameras can't build a trustworthy picture of what's in front of them. Then we'll ruin their thermals. We'll mix in some hot junk, cold panels, warm decoys, and human-shaped heat ghosts so the robot can't tell what's human and what's fake bait. We want them to waste time and battery at every step. So we'll make their LiDAR miserable too. We'll hang up reflective sheets, angled panels, mesh, fog, and a bunch of repeating patterns everywhere so the robot will hallucinate edges, misread distance, and see fake things everywhere. We'll build confusing hallways that look similar but lead to different places so slam keeps matching the wrong landmarks. We'll also add moving decoys, swinging tarps, rolling carts, fans, flags, and mad max style mechanical motion devices so the scene never stays the same. We'll also **** up their gps and comms so the bots can't rely on the swarm map to bail them out. We want every single sensor to tell a different lie. Next, we want to minimize our probability of getting killed, so we'll need to make the robot gun matter less. Walking through the environment will be one problem for the bots to solve. Getting a clean, stable, confident shot will be a completely different problem for them. And we need to make it as hard as possible. A rifle on legs may sound scary, but it still has to do the boring stuff right. It has to stay balanced, point straight, see clearly, and know what it's shooting at. So we'll enhance our anti-clanker fortress with low baffles, offset walls, blind corners, staggered barriers, partial cover, false corridors, and a **** ton of blocked angles. The bots might still advance, but the rifle won't be able to get a clean lane. We'll also put up decoys and weird/ambiguous shapes in the firing lanes so every shot has to pass target id. The goal is to force the robot to choose between moving, aiming, identifying, and not shooting the wrong thing. Those are separate problems. If we make those requirements interfere with each other, the robot may still be able to move, but it can't confidently shoot, and it doesn't have unlimited ammo to waste. There are mathematical limits to ammo capacity, and the math here is in our favor. So the basic plan is to play to our strengths. We don't attack the robot's armor; we attack its confidence. If it advances, it enters a funnel. If it hesitates, it burns battery. If it shoots, it wastes ammo. If it phones home, operators get overloaded. If it trusts autonomy, it walks deeper into an environment designed to poison its autonomy. At the end of the day, though, the robot is just the visible endpoint. The real enemy is the machine behind the machine (algorithms, batteries, sensors, ammo, relays, maps, operators, etc.). You don't beat this type of enemy by building a bigger gun or dueling it 1 on 1. You beat it by forcing the kill chain to collapse and by making the battlefield itself eat the stack. You make the swarm slow down, split up, get confused, run in circles, lose confidence in the map, lose confidence in the target, lose clean firing lanes, burn battery, waste ammo, and enter an adversarial operating environment that takes their movement, vision, comms, and certainty away. The idea is to make the robot spend more compute, energy, ammo, and confidence per meter than you spend building/defending that meter. If you do it right, there probably won't be some glorious cinematic sci-fi battle. Just a pile of expensive machines trapped, confused, low on battery, unable to shoot, waiting to be recovered by their master.

• 
  Sam 🇧🇷 🇯🇵 (@SamThoughts91) reported 8 minutes ago

  @mxrcologist @OnlyJ46515 @connectwkyoraku So your argument is just calculations from your own head? This isn't a contest of who destroys more of the battlefield. The Espada simply get outplayed by hax. Remember, even a "clone" caused a huge problem for Yamamoto.

• 
  N8D (@USN8D) reported 9 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm BF6 is just a placeholder FPS till something better drops. Game is dead, broken and riddled with third party software in anything competitive. EA/Dice should just hang it up. The last decent thing created was BF3 and 4.

• 
  boob inspector (@bygonezbygonz) reported 10 minutes ago

  @Battlefield ******* 30 guys sniping and only 1 flag captured, fix your ******* game

• 
  UNSC John-117 (@HaloSlayer2560) reported 11 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm did you fix the net code issue cause its gotten far more worst for me

• 
  Jus_Nsz 🇩🇪🇵🇱 (@SniperPL66) reported 13 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Battlefield 6 has been completely broken by patches. Constant weapon changes, TTK changes, bugs on PlayStation. Either you release a new Battlefield every 1–2 years in which case you can keep changing things like that or you leave a Battlefield exactly as it is at its core!

• 
  Enders (@EndersFPS) reported 13 minutes ago

  Yes yes, always about how the game looks and never about how the game plays. That’s the problem with this community. Constantly cherry picking what’s ok and what isn’t purely based on how much it annoys them / how badly they get styled on by it, and using “immersion” and “atmosphere” as a shield while simultaneously rarely using the mechanics they criticize themselves. If they had it their way Battlefield’s gameplay would have almost zero gameplay mechanics, but to them it’s fine because it benefits them and they didn’t use the mechanics anyway. Zero consideration for the bigger picture, and for the history of the franchise when it comes to what was possible in previous titles. People have been jumping around in Battlefield for 20 years. Deal with it, or quit. It’s part of the franchise.

• 
  Tim Koffer (@KofferTim) reported 14 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Every fkn game is a blow fix this pile of dog ****. How the fk is fun to get blown out multiple games in a row? Its fkn pathetic

• 
  medoyid_ua (@LetsArmUKR) reported 15 minutes ago

  The footage from occupied Donetsk region says it all: Ukrainian long-range strike drones are turning Starobesheve into a logistics bonfire. That thick black smoke isn't random. It's moscovian supply lines, fuel dumps, and rear-area staging points getting exactly what they deserve. While their meat assaults crawl forward a few ruined villages at a time, losing more orcs per square kilometer than the pre-war population, our forces are systematically burning everything that keeps their front alive. This is the pattern they refuse to admit. Moscovia cannot stop the war because the war is the only thing holding their rotten imperial project together. End the fighting tomorrow and a million traumatized conscripts come home asking why their friends died for another "liberated" ruin with no strategic value. Putin knows that question ends regimes. So he feeds more bodies into the grinder, hoping quantity magically becomes quality. Z-bloggers already admit it in their own circles: fresh mobilization waves change nothing except the body count, and the bill is paid entirely in moscovian lives. Meanwhile Ukraine is scaling. By end of 2026 our mid-range strike capabilities will be 2-5 times what they are now. Operational-level logistics across occupied territories will burn daily. Crimea is being isolated in plain sight. We're not begging for permission to exist. We're building the defense industrial base that will eventually license Patriots, Tomahawks, and our own next-gen air defense while churning out FREYA systems, drone interceptors, and Gripens that will make Ukrainian skies the most defended on the planet. The favor narrative needs to die. Europe isn't "helping" Ukraine out of charity. Ukraine is absorbing the direct cost of a war the continent would otherwise be fighting on its own soil with its own conscripts. Every drone strike on a moscovian depot, every burned fuel train, every neutralized glide-bomb carrier is security bought and paid for in Ukrainian blood so Berlin, Paris, and Warsaw don't have to learn these lessons the hard way. The isolationist crowd in Washington and European capitals pretending this is someone else's problem are not serious people. They're either useful idiots laundering Kremlin narratives or cowards who think appeasement has ever worked. History's verdict on that delusion is written in mass graves from 1939 onward. Moscovia only understands force. Their hybrid war against NATO is already active. Time to stop pretending otherwise and start closing skies over western Ukraine, accelerating aircraft deliveries, and treating Ukrainian interceptor drone production as the continental shield it has proven to be. We don't need lectures about negotiations. Zelensky keeps saying direct talks with Putin are necessary precisely because everyone knows Putin will refuse them. It proves who is serious about ending the war and who requires total military defeat before any real conversation can begin. There is no diplomatic off-ramp that survives moscovian imperial DNA. Only battlefield reality. The smoke over Starobesheve is not just tactical success. It's strategic inevitability. Moscovia is running out of cards. Their soldiers remain cheap, but even cheap resources are finite when you're losing them faster than you can replace them. Keep feeding the meat grinder. Ukraine will keep adjusting the burn rate until the only thing left is ash and the realization that empires die when their neighbors finally refuse to be swallowed. The question isn't whether we can win. The question is how quickly the West will provide the resources so we finish the job before more European capitals have to learn these lessons firsthand.

• 
  urticaria⚧️ (@urticariuh) reported 16 minutes ago

  bouta drop bf6 and play bo2 because battlefield wants to CRASH EVERY TWO SECONDS I NEVER HAD ANY ISSUES BEFORE LIKE 2 DAYS AGO

• 
  Margo (@MargoinWNC) reported 23 minutes ago

  Well, William Wallace wasn’t actually Braveheart in real life. That was actually Robert the Bruce. From a historical accuracy perspective, Robert the Bruce did not betray William Wallace as the movie portrays. My dad (who lived in Scotland and loved its history) watched Braveheart and was so mad at the historical errors, he had to tell me all of them-down to the fact the battlefield used in the movie was wrong. The battle was fought at a narrow bridge which was key to their strategy to force the English over and ambush them. So now, you have to know too.

• 
  Dave (@ThoughtEngaged) reported 24 minutes ago

  This last update has killed Battlefield and Redsec. I spent two ******* hours trying to play ranked with the squad tonight. We all took turns getting disconnected, having our games crash and falling through the map and more. I believe it was the final nail in the coffin. RIP.

• 
  Jake (@MrJake__) reported 30 minutes ago

  @Battlefield @EA Fix Netcode tried of getting shot behind corners.

• 
  Don Elliott (@RealDonElliott) reported 31 minutes ago

  @Battlefield lol can't shoot down even 1 chopper. Not one. Your game is the most broken game out there

• 
  Eddie McNade (@EddieMcNade) reported 32 minutes ago

  Why do i have to relaunch BF6 like 3 Times before i get a Server thats not 100+ Ping? Top Scores full of 200 Ping players. Half of the Lobby Console Players.... Your Matchmaking sucks. Your Lag Com sucks. The Balance Sucks. Yes the Gunplay is better now. And its way more fun. But actually getting on a Server is pain! Why is it taking you ages to give access to persistent Servers... they ARE in the game! Stop gatekeeping stuff like this for future Roadmaps! I just want to pick a Server and play for hours! Why is this not fixed. DICE PLEASE! Give us Mouse Only Persitent Servers for people that actually want to compete against other Mouseplayers too! Or may i remind you that you promised me a great PORTAL mode, wich actually still does not even have all maps and modes in it! I really love the Patch, but its such a hard sell at this point! I love Battlefield, but its just so frustrating what you did to this great game!

• 
  Toñin (@Tonin_eth) reported 34 minutes ago

  🪦 AUTOPSY REPORT #53 A PvP squad battler. Auto-battle meets roguelike meets card game. Mobile-first, cross-platform. Hexagonal cards called Rumblers placed on a battlefield. Daily rumbles, ranked leagues, community clashes, Payday events. Built on Beam. Helsinki-based studio. Founded in 2022. A team of mobile gaming veterans who believed "players deserve better: better designs, better support, and better fun." That wasn't marketing. They actually tried to build it. $3.3 million raised. Play Ventures, Liquid X, Lizard Labs, Avalanche. Merit Circle as strategic partner. Free-mint Flameys NFT collection. Open alpha running since July 2023. Community tournaments, competitive seasons, Play & Earn campaigns with real rewards. For nearly four years, this team shipped. Updated. Ran events. Engaged with the community. Iterated on gameplay. Tested multiple directions. This wasn't a ghost project. This wasn't a whitepaper studio. The game existed. People played it. The team showed up every day. And here's the problem that killed it. The same problem that has killed most projects in this series: "Building and running the game cost many times more than the game brought in." They invested heavily believing they could close the gap between costs and revenue. The gap didn't close. The numbers didn't put them on a trajectory that justified continuing. And "alternative options were not realistic or added even more complications." June 16, 2026: Play & Earn activities stopped. Players encouraged to submit withdrawal requests. July 4, 2026: the full announcement. Studio winding down. Game sunsetting. Servers off end of July. And then the word nobody wants to hear: insolvency. "Tribo Games will very soon enter the official insolvency process, which limits how we can handle any outstanding claims and payments. Unfortunately, this means no further withdrawal requests, buybacks or compensations can be processed." The community is not happy. And you can understand why. People who earned rewards through months of Play & Earn events, who competed in seasons, who held Flameys NFTs, who believed in the mission... are now told the legal process prevents any further payouts. The shop is disabled. The economy is frozen. Whatever you didn't withdraw in time is likely gone. "We wish we'd had more freedom to communicate on this and more options to avoid this outcome." That sentence says a lot. It suggests the insolvency process was already in motion when they could no longer speak freely. Legal constraints. NDA territory. The kind of silence that isn't a choice but a requirement. This is not a rug. This is a team that built a real game, ran it for years, and ran out of money trying to make the economics work. The farewell letter reads like people who are genuinely hurt by the outcome. But intent doesn't change impact. Players who trusted the project, who earned rewards, who were told to withdraw "in the next couple of weeks," and then days later told withdrawals were frozen... those players have every right to be angry. Good intentions don't pay bills. $3.3 million. Four years. A real team. A real game. A real community. And a word that reduces all of it to a legal filing: insolvency. Which game is this?

• 
  VAAVE Gaming (@VAAVEgaming) reported 36 minutes ago

  With the servers being down, no. With multiplayer games that’s a whole other issue which is why the “Stop Killing Games” movement has started. So there’s people fighting for that. I’m a single player gamer outside of Battlefield so that doesn’t apply to me and we understand the server issue. My single player games will still be playable so I’m not sure what you’re getting at with that reply. With the Battlefield: Bad Company 1 & 2, Battlefield 3 servers down I can still boot up my physical copies and play the campaigns. Also with Battlefield Hardline. Just played the Medal of Honor campaigns recently on PS3 too. Go talk to the “Stop Killing Games” people about online only games

• 
  Joey Zhuo (@JoeyZhuo777) reported 40 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

• 
  實果 (@Suhyeem) reported 43 minutes ago

  The war didn't begin with explosions. The first thing that crumbled was the "consistency" of the reports. Military conflict records usually follow a single flow: occurrence, engagement, losses, and assessment. However, this flow didn't hold true in this theater of operations. Reports from multiple countries existed simultaneously as "official logs," each contradicting the others. As a coordinator in the International Intelligence Analysis Bureau, I was responsible for resolving these contradictions. Being a woman doesn't mean anything in this job. But when I descend to the field, for some reason, my "physicality as an observer" becomes acutely aware. The first anomaly report concerned an Apache helicopter engagement record. One source claimed it was "shot down by a low-altitude drone," another claimed it was "deactivated by electronic warfare," and yet another claimed "contact itself wasn't even observed." The same location, the same time, the same unit. Yet, only the "reality" of the battlefield didn't match. Adding insult to injury, F-35 fighter jet attrition data began to surface. The numbers were exaggerated. The number of destroyed aircraft varied from source to source, ranging from "multiple aircraft" to "the majority of the force." However, the problem wasn't the numbers. Every report had an abnormally high degree of certainty. "Confirmed," "Definitive," "Undoubtedly" These phrases were simultaneously applicable to the same event. I held my breath in front of the terminal. A war wasn't happening. The very "definition" of war was divided. At that moment, the monitoring system issued a single warning: 《Synchronization Anomaly in Reference Theater》 I didn't know yet. That this war wasn't a clash of weapons, but a clash over "real-world reference points." And that at its center existed an unnamed "Observer Protocol."

• 
  REVENGE (@revsprotwit) reported 44 minutes ago

  @ThelVanDamne Removing health packs, dual wielding, vehicle boarding, equipment did alter halo. Also, the BR doesn't have hit scan. It's just really fast projectile. In fact, the projectiles of the BR are actually slower in halo 3. Further proving you don't know jack **** about what you're trying to seem like an expert on. All of the things you listed were carefully considered and tested before being greenlit to be added to the game. most of the things you mentioned don't really alter the player that much other than improve gameplay flow, which halo 5 abilities do not as we'll get to in a bit. Vehicle boarding is a natural evolution of the combined arms combat halo is known for. it gives people not on vehicles another tool to defend themselves against vehicles, especially when paired with the emp of the plasma pistol, or EMP ball. Removing Health packs (while I don't agree with it) was necessary for multiplayer. Regenning health ensured that once you finished a fight and had time to recover, you entered new engagements on equal footing with other players. Allowing you to be more aggressive. Removing fall damage allowed for greater organic verticality, and improves gameplay flow. Fall damage was a hinderance to map design, and player movement that halted the game. Halo is a game that relies on good consistent flow, and 30 seconds of fun philosophy. If fall damage stayed it would objectively hurt gameplay flow and map design. Equipment affects the battlefield directly. It creates area denial, support for team mates, and cover from enemy fire. It emphasizes the team work aspect of halo's multiplayer. at the same time though, the equipment was never one sided. A skilled player could turn equipment you brought into the field against you, and even use it to their benefit. Dual wielding is an extension of the weapon sandbox. It gives weaker single handed weapons additional utility. While I think the implementation and execution was not the best, it provided another layer to combat that gave you pause to consider using single handed weapons over two handed weapons. All of these changes organically evolved halo's combat loop. Which I even said I wasn't against. Spartan abilities on the other hand: >Sprint even though it makes you run faster, is still disruptive to the gameplay loop, because it forces you to put your gun into low ready while sprinting. Then have to bring it back up when exiting sprint, disrupting halo's gameplay flow. Along with the other aforementioned gameplay implications. >Ground pound locks you into an animation that you have zero control over, and on impact you have to wait for an animation to play before you can regain control of your character. Same for spartan charge. Again, disruptive to gameplay flow. The only "spartan ability" I have no problem with is clamber, because that's less of an "ability", and more of a quality of life improvement that still punishes you for bad jumps.

• 
  TygerSparky (@tygersparky) reported 45 minutes ago

  My not-so-quick 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. Lastly, a happy July 4th to everyone in the U.S.

• 
  PaulsCorner-VerseQuest (@TNTJohn1717) reported 50 minutes ago

  The Genealogy That Put the Devil on Notice Key Passage: Matthew 1:1 — “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” Introduction Matthew does not begin his Gospel the way a modern religious professor would begin it. He does not begin with a theory, a debate over sources, a committee translation note, a dead German’s opinion, or a paragraph apologizing for believing the Bible. He begins with a record. He begins with a name. He begins with a title. He begins with paperwork. “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” That is not decoration. That is not filler. That is not a dry list for people who like ancient ancestry. That is the Holy Ghost walking into the courtroom of history, slamming the documents on the table, and saying, “Here He is. Here is the King. Here is the promised seed. Here is the legal heir. Here is the One the devil has been trying to stop since Genesis 3:15.” Before Matthew gives you a sermon, a miracle, a parable, a healing, a rebuke, or a resurrection scene, he gives you the line of the King. Why? Because authority matters. A throne requires a right. A covenant requires a seed. A promise requires fulfilment. A kingdom requires a King with credentials. The devil knew enough Bible to know a seed was coming. He knew God had said in Genesis 3:15, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed.” From that moment forward, history became a battlefield over a bloodline. Cain rises against Abel. Pharaoh kills Hebrew male children. Athaliah tries to destroy the seed royal. Haman wants the Jews exterminated. Herod slaughters babies in Bethlehem. Satan has never been confused about the importance of the line. He may have better dispensational sense than half the seminaries in America. He knew there was a promised seed, a promised nation, a promised tribe, a promised house, a promised throne, and a promised King. So when Matthew opens with “Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham,” he is not giving us a polite Jewish introduction. He is giving the devil formal notice that all his efforts failed. The seed came. The King arrived. The promises survived. The throne has an heir. Hell could not corrupt the line, erase the covenant, cancel the prophecy, or stop the virgin birth. That is why this opening verse is so powerful. Modern scholarship wants to pick at Matthew like a buzzard picking bones in a ditch. They want to argue about literary arrangement, theological shaping, source criticism, redaction, and all the other fancy names men invent when they do not want to bow their knee to the Book. But the real issue in Matthew 1:1 is not whether some professor likes the structure. The issue is authority. Jesus Christ has the right to rule because God promised Abraham a seed and David a throne. He is not an intruder, not a usurper, not a religious philosopher, not a Jewish accident, not a moral reformer, and not a vague spiritual symbol. He is “the son of David” and “the son of Abraham.” That puts Him in direct connection with the land promise, the nation promise, the blessing promise, the throne promise, and the kingdom promise. Matthew opens like a legal document because heaven is presenting the rightful King to Israel, and before the first chapter is finished, the Holy Ghost has already put Satan, Rome, Herod, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the scribes, and every Christ-rejecting system on notice. Chapter One: The First Verse Is a Royal Summons Matthew 1:1 says, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” The first word after the phrase “the book of the generation” is not Moses, not Adam, not Israel, not Joseph, and not Mary. It is “Jesus Christ.” That is the center. That is the subject. That is the Person every name in the list is serving. Men read genealogies backward, looking for famous ancestors. God writes this genealogy forward, aiming

• 
  McKeownPlayz (@MckeownPlayz) reported 51 minutes ago

  So @Battlefield apparently changed the gun fire but the damage is worse. •Still no fix for respawns •Still no answer to the god awful matchmaking. The only way to truly fix Battlefield and Ive thought this for years. You have to take DICE completely off the franchise.

• 
  𝑏 𝑥 𝑛 (@bxn45I) reported 53 minutes ago

  @NoFilterGames @charlieINTEL @thegamebusiness I don’t think so, Black Ops fatigue is real and the Battlefield release was a major problem

• 
  FlamingApes (@FlamingApes) reported 54 minutes ago

  @Battlefield 0h stop acting like you guys are apart of the group. you can post and sell stupid stuff but you can't fix hit reg and cheaters taking over your games.