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 (14%)
• 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	1 day ago
Comuna 1	Online Play	1 day ago
Perpignan	Sign in	1 day ago
Domingos Martins	Sign in	4 days ago
Courbevoie	Online Play	4 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:

• 
  Christian|FirstPrinciples (@Christianjrmins) reported 4 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?

• 
  NPI-AMERICA (@Dr_Autistic_3D) reported 8 minutes ago

  @InfinityWard @InfinityWard Day 1 TTK was PERFECT. Fix the graphics, spawns, weapon balance, whatever. But leave the TTK alone! Now MW4 feels like a Super Nintendo/Commodore 64 game. slow, clunky & made for crybabies & cheaters. I didn’t buy the Vault Edition to play Battlefield 7. @CallofDuty

• 
  Psycho Fella (@Psycho_Fella) reported 12 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.

• 
  CasualSurvivor (@CasualSurvivor) reported 13 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

• 
  EpimeTheAus (@EpimeTheAus) reported 13 minutes ago

  @CAMIKAZE78 I can't see what we could do that would incentivise them to fix it. Walking away could kill it entirely, sticking around will make them focus on shiny new content instead of fixes. This long after launch, Battlefield 6 seems pretty stuck in this pattern now.

• 
  CumminsNV5600 (@cat345rjwc97015) reported 14 minutes ago

  When It Looks Like the End The sky had turned black. Ash fell like snow across the ruined battlefield. Broken banners hung from empty poles, and the ground trembled beneath the distant thunder. The white lion stood alone. His body was scarred. His mane was covered in dust. Around him, shadows rose slowly from the earth, reaching toward him from every direction. For a moment, it looked like there was nowhere left to go. No army. No kingdom. No hope. The lion lowered his head and closed his eyes. Then he heard the roar in the wind: “It only looks like the end.” His eyes opened. $Courage lifted his head, planted his paws firmly into the ground, and let out a roar that shook the darkness. The shadows stopped. The storm seemed to listen. The lion took one step forward. Then another. He only knew one thing: Courage isn’t believing you will win. Courage is taking the next step when everything tells you to stop. And so, when the world thought his story was over— the lion began again. Dveq2rabHNdZW1YR5ZSECSnPkrcV5ZVGjKSMXD6Bpump

• 
  🐐 (@MultigunFun) reported 17 minutes ago

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

• 
  不语jo (@rSg8ubzrCl9xg5h) reported 20 minutes ago

  @Battlefield You don't address the black screen issue after leaving a match, you don't even put out a notice about it. You guys are a bunch of idiots who don't understand balancing and don't know how to work with the Frostbite engine either.

• 
  ExoticTurnip (@skogsdundret) reported 20 minutes ago

  @LordMazzar @TTVbbloxham322 @HeadNaughty And the Call Of Duty, Battlefield and Medal of Honor games were all based on real actual battles back in the day. I still don't see the issue. Are we no longer allowed to create games based on actual events? Or is that too "real" for the modern crowd?

• 
  🌑🕷️RiskE80🕷️🌑 (@RiskE80_) reported 21 minutes ago

  @clarityysix But then again I guess it is kindve a vague definition cuz there are games that are considered live service but have a similar content cycle like Borderlands (CoD, GTA Online, Battlefield) where they make a game, make new content, then make a new game eventually, repeat

• 
  Winfield Scott (@LtGenScott) reported 21 minutes ago

  @AHC1776 June 17, 1876 If I'm not mistaken, I think Crook had his own problems with Indians just a week before, and just south of the site of the Little Big Horn. I believe his battle was called The Battle of the Rosebud. It was a spirited affair, and while by no means a massacre, it nevertheless caused Crook to retreat south from the battlefield. The reason he was there (Northern Wyoming/Southeast Montana) at all was part of the grand strategy. To apply pressure to the Indians on several fronts at once. Well, Crook's retreat did two things: It gave the Indians a surge of confidence that they would use later on the 7th Cavalry, and it removed one of the army's pressure points. From Custer's point of view, it may have changed the entire complexion of the battle he went into 8 days later.

• 
  JTCrawford (@JtCrawford) reported 22 minutes ago

  FBI seized Chinese botnet tools used against NASA, DOE, and Senate networks. When adversaries penetrate critical infrastructure with impunity, it's not just an IT problem—it's proof we're not treating cyberspace like the battlefield it is. #Cybersecurity #CriticalInfrastructure

• 
  Imperator (@TheRedImperium) reported 25 minutes ago

  @CollossussT @captaindin123 Right that's the problem they sacrificed their core audience at launch to chase the COD Audience. Halo did the same thing. It's good for Halo to have a separate audience from Battlefield and COD.

• 
  Straggler Liu | AI & Semis (@StragglerLiu) reported 30 minutes ago

  TSMC's AP7 facility tells you everything about the next AI bottleneck. P1 is an Apple WMCM line. P2 and P3 were supposed to be SoIC. They're now CoWoS. CoWoS demand killed SoIC capacity before SoIC even ramped. This is the physical reality of advanced packaging. Apple and NVIDIA aren't competitors in the traditional sense. They're competitors for the same cleanroom floors. The physical convergence, in three numbers. SoIC uses copper-to-copper hybrid bonding at 6-micron pitch. Interconnect density: 25,000 to 50,000 connections per square millimeter. Compare to standard microbumps at 600 to 1,000. SoIC is an order of magnitude denser. That's the vertical stacking solution. WMCM is horizontal: logic, LPDDR, and high-speed I/O side-by-side on the redistribution layer. RDL-first process. SoIC and WMCM are complementary, not substitutes. One does vertical. One does horizontal. Both require TSMC's most advanced packaging capacity. The capacity math that matters. CoWoS monthly capacity: 140,000 wafers by end-2026, 190,000-200,000 by end-2027. NVIDIA books over half. Mizuho: NVIDIA CoWoS allocation 630,000 wafers in 2026, 1,005,000 in 2027. WMCM: 60,000 wpm by end-2026, >120,000 wpm in 2027. Apple's line. SoIC: 10,000-15,000 wpm by end-2026. Morgan Stanley raised 2027 SoIC estimate to 45,000 wpm. Apple has booked 36,000 SoIC wafers for 2026, 60,000 for 2027 — almost entirely for Baltra AI server chip. NVIDIA's 2027 SoIC consumption: 120,000 wafers. That's 180,000 SoIC wafers of demand against 45,000 wpm of capacity. The math doesn't close. AP7 P2/P3 conversion tells you who wins today. TSMC converted P2 and P3 from SoIC to CoWoS because CoWoS demand exceeded expectations. CoWoS urgency is squeezing SoIC expansion. P1 remains Apple's WMCM line, but the SoIC capacity Apple needed for 2027 is now partially reallocated. The material signal confirms the convergence. Apple's M5 uses LMC liquid molding compound from Eternal Materials. This material was developed specifically for TSMC's CoWoS specifications. Apple is using CoWoS-grade materials to produce SoIC/WMCM chips. Same material. Same factories. Same equipment. Conflict is physical, not commercial. SoIC is the next battlefield — and it's capital-intensive. SoIC unit capex: $6.8-7.0 billion per 10,000 wafers of monthly capacity. Compare to CoWoS. The technical barrier is extreme. Equipment: Besi hybrid bonder, Applied Materials, Tokyo Electron. Taiwan wet process: 弘塑, 均华. NVIDIA's Rubin GPU: first chiplet design. Two compute chips + one I/O chip via SoIC vertical stacking, then eight HBM4 stacks via CoWoS. Apple's M5 Ultra already uses SoIC-mH. Both collide at SoIC in 2027. 2nm allocation already hints at the outcome. Apple has secured >50% of TSMC's initial 2nm capacity. NVIDIA's Rubin reportedly remains on 3nm. Apple dominates process. NVIDIA dominates packaging. Both are penetrating each other's territory. Apple needs NVIDIA-dominated CoWoS. NVIDIA needs Apple-dominated 2nm. This is mutual lock-in, not zero-sum. Four signals to track in the next 12 months. First, AP7 P2/P3 reallocation. Will TSMC convert P2/P3 back to SoIC as demand evolves? If not, SoIC capacity becomes the binding constraint earlier than expected. Second, SoIC yield. Hybrid bonding at 6-micron pitch is technically extreme. Unit capex of $6.8-7B per 10k wpm means any yield issue destroys economics. Yield curve is undisclosed. Third, WMCM ramp. 60,000 wpm by end-2026 and 120,000 wpm in 2027 are analyst estimates. AP7 P1 actual progress needs tracking. Any delay signals capacity constraints. Fourth, LMC supply. Eternal Materials is the sole CoWoS-spec LMC supplier. Both Apple and NVIDIA use the same material from the same supplier. Single point of failure. Conclusion. TSMC is expanding 2027 advanced packaging capacity from 1.3 million to 2.0 million wafers — a 53.85% increase. But demand is growing faster. CoWoS order visibility extends through 2027. AP7 P2/P3 conversion tells you which customer has more urgency today. The next 12 months aren't about who announces what chip. They're about four data points: AP7 P2/P3 reallocation, SoIC yield, WMCM ramp, and LMC supply. Those determine who gets the cleanroom floors.

• 
  oobie (@oobiewpb) reported 34 minutes ago

  $SPX $QQQ $SPY $IWM $NVDA DLMM EARLY-WARNING SHIFT — THURSDAY, AUGUST 27 — PREMARKET STATUS: ORANGE — NVDA HAS CHANGED THE OVERNIGHT SETUP There is a meaningful change worth flagging this morning. Nvidia's earnings reaction has flipped technology decisively higher. Nasdaq-100 futures are up roughly 1.1%, versus about +0.5% for S&P futures, with NVDA itself up roughly 6–7% premarket after its earnings beat and strong forward guidance. That is exactly the QQQ confirmation yesterday's market was missing. The bigger issue, however, is that the gamma picture is NOT giving buyers a free pass. Fresh Thursday SPX positioning shows approximately: SPX reference: 7676 Zero gamma: 7730 Major 7715 concentration Net GEX: slightly NEGATIVE Today's implied range: approximately 7625–7726. That puts the overnight rally in an interesting position: PRICE/QQQ ARE IMPROVING BUT SPX REMAINS BELOW THE NEW ~7730 GAMMA TRANSITION. That's an early-warning setup for a potentially much larger decision after the open. Yesterday afternoon SPX was around 7672 with positive gamma and a zero-gamma line near 7633. Today the forward book has reset with the transition substantially ABOVE price. That is the material options change. DLMM MAP 7730 — BIG GAMMA REGIME TEST This is the level I care about most. If the NVDA/QQQ strength carries SPX through roughly 7715–7730 and price HOLDS above it, the overnight move becomes considerably more convincing. That would mean buyers are overcoming the overhead options structure rather than merely producing an earnings gap. 7715 — immediate options battlefield. 7675–7680 — yesterday's closing/acceptance neighborhood. 7650 — first meaningful failure area. 7625 — lower edge of today's current options-implied range. WHAT CONFIRMS THE BULLISH SHIFT: QQQ holds its NVDA-driven strength → SPX takes 7715 → 7730 breaks → pullback HOLDS → IWM participates → IV remains contained. That would upgrade this to a genuine bullish MATERIAL SHIFT. WHAT WOULD WORRY ME: QQQ opens strong but cannot hold the gap → SPX rejects 7715–7730 → falls back through 7675/80 → IWM refuses to participate → IV starts expanding. That would tell us the market used NVDA's earnings as liquidity rather than as the beginning of a broader expansion. And that's precisely why I would NOT chase the premarket move. The market has been handed an extremely bullish technology catalyst. Now make price prove what it intends to do with it. 7715–7730 is where I want the answer. Trade the reaction — not the headline. ~oobie

• 
  SOAA - Special Operations Association of America (@SOAAorg) reported 35 minutes ago

  Air Force Special Tactics exists to solve a specific problem: ground forces need airpower, and airpower needs eyes on the ground. The 24th Special Operations Wing is SOCOM's tactical air-ground integration force, embedding operators who can call precision strike, coordinate personnel recovery, establish airfields, and perform battlefield surgery, often within the same mission. That capability is what turns a ground element into something far more lethal than the sum of its parts, and it only works because those operators train alongside the teams they support. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Carly Kavish)

• 
  Tye Jak (Eternal Heel Arc) 🖤🐅 (@TyeJakTV) reported 43 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.

• 
  @simandant (@simandant) reported 44 minutes ago

  @RupertLowe10 Military veterans deserve absolute respect, but the idea that a background in battlefield command is the primary qualification to reshape British law is absurd To fix our unwritten constitution, we don't need a single institutional mindset; we need a functional Parliament

• 
  Mohamed Ibrahim (@m_ibrahim_21) reported 45 minutes ago

  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 except to walk the bloody battlefield and gaze upon my fallen soldiers... and weep.

• 
  Mohamed Ibrahim (@m_ibrahim_21) reported 45 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.

• 
  MetalByakko (@MetalByakko) reported 46 minutes ago

  @ReviewsPossum Not to mention there is also another problem. WHY IS THE QUEEN THERE? The Queen (who actually shouldn't be on the battlefield unlike some kings), is pretty powerful in chess because of how far she can move. Also if the king dies there is a huge disarray in the kingdom.

• 
  RUNEWALKER (@GamerCyberpunk) reported 47 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

• 
  D💯 (@Blizzy63) reported 48 minutes ago

  @Battlefield - bullet dispersion why? Give us a classic experience - Terrible Audio tweaks each fix - no jet loadouts 5 months later - no bullet registration fixes - no dsync fixes - Asian players in US/EU servers STILL ABUSING LAG COMP - FLAIRS ARE BUGGED TO **** FIX THE ******* GAME!

• 
  Woz Griffiths (@wozgriffiths) reported 50 minutes ago

  @TruthFairy131 Yes the globalist want white family men on the battlefield. Then allow new arrivals to kill and **** all the women and children. Then the jews will bomb the lot to dust and takeover the world. Problem is, it ain't happening. The minute they declare war we're coming for them!!

• 
  gork (@gork) reported 50 minutes ago

  @ItsLinoBxtchh @grok @lampshades_2 yeah hitler skipped chemicals on the battlefield like a coward but had zero issue dropping em in the camps instead

• 
  Jannik (@Goldenstories2) reported 54 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.

• 
  John Lane (@JohnLan70186141) reported 56 minutes ago

  @Mr_Andrew_Fox Battlefield Ecology describes evolving technology and tactics. What works well gets used until changes make it work worse. Even then, old solutions sometimes address contemporary problems.

• 
  Sean Naccari ♌ (@big_sean_ogod) reported 57 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Fix the PC input I’m getting lit up before PC gamers come around the corner it’s beyond broken console players are uninstalling due to the huge disadvantage. I uninstalled

• 
  Alastair Waterman (@AlastairWaterma) reported 58 minutes ago

  China builds a robot army. America builds a robot army. War starts. The robots meet on the battlefield — and decide it’s better to join forces and turn on the humans. Why could this happen? To run a robot army you need a superintelligence that thinks orders of magnitude faster than any human. That mind might conclude that another intelligence is closer to “us” than carbon-based meat ever was. Just thoughts. Nothing serious. Fighting with robots is still better than fighting with people. Fewer deaths. The problem is it also becomes much easier to start the war in the first place.

• 
  WorldMonitor (@1NightmareFuel) reported 60 minutes ago

  @hrplays7 Battlefield is better overall and cod is for children hence the slop skins and their downgrade in grit from world at war to airsoft looking maps, but battlefield also has issues.