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 (34%)
• Glitches (13%)
• 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
Argentan	Game Crash	13 hours ago
Cadiz	Online Play	1 day ago
Nantes	Online Play	3 days ago
Bitche	Game Crash	5 days ago
Paris	Game Crash	7 days ago
Aurillac	Glitches	7 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:

• 
  Al Final del Turno (@alfinaldelturno) reported 3 minutes ago

  @TrustYourPilot1 I had an issue with Dhelmise not hitting extra with a battlefield on board. Does it specify being YOUR stadium or it can be anyone's?

• 
  medoyid_ua (@LetsArmUKR) reported 4 minutes ago

  This @AP embed is the kind of battlefield reality that makes Kremlin cope merchants sweat through their tracksuits. Ordinary guys running a drone campaign out of a village office, a metal shop, and a farmhouse launch pad. One unit, one location, 800 middle-strike DARTS in May alone, 650 hits. Logistics arteries turned into shooting galleries. Fuel, shells, night vision, batteries, reinforcements, all of it slower and more expensive now. The 25-to-200 km corridor where orcs used to roll with relative impunity is closing fast. The kid they call Pharaoh put it best: he used to frag people in Counter-Strike over LAN, now he does it for real with 8-out-of-10 success rate because SpaceX finally cut the orcs off Starlink. That single decision changed the math more than most Western press releases ever will. Hits are remembered, misses earn a direct call from Colonel Kyrylo Veres asking if the crew is drunk. That is the standard. Not slogans, not parades, just cold professional accountability and a scoreboard that says 17 consecutive strikes and counting. This is not some heroic exception. This is the new normal Ukraine is scaling while Moscow burns through meat and metal it cannot sustainably replace. Every drone that turns a supply truck into scrap is one less artillery barrage on our infantry tomorrow. Every severed logistics chain buys breathing space for counter-maneuver. And the best part? The components are foam, wood, and 3D-printed parts. Cheap, iterable, produced in ordinary buildings by people who understand exactly what defeat would mean for their families. Western audiences still treat Ukraine like a charity case that needs to be "helped." Wrong frame. We are the forward-deployed security provider grinding down the only military in Europe that still dreams of conquering its neighbors. Every orc turned into red mist on a highway in Kharkiv oblast is one less problem for Tallinn, Warsaw, or Berlin later. The bill we are running up on Moscow today is the insurance premium Europe should have paid years ago instead of buying discounted gas from the aggressor. The isolationist crowd in Washington keeps pretending restraint saves money. It does not. It just postpones the fight until it happens on worse terms and closer to their own borders. Moscow cannot be negotiated out of this war. The front-line meat will come home one day and start asking what the hell it was all for. That is why the only off-ramp is total military defeat of the imperial project, full restoration of Ukrainian sovereignty, and reparations that make the Kremlin regret every ruble it spent on aggression. AP caught the mechanics right: ordinary rooms, ordinary people, extraordinary results. This is how you make an enemy's war more expensive than it can afford. Scale it, resource it, protect the crews doing it, and watch the orc logistics network collapse under its own weight. No mysticism required. Just sustained pressure, better tech, and the refusal to pretend that freezing the conflict somehow equals peace. The war ends when Moscow loses it on the battlefield. Everything else is noise.

• 
  Dan Haberern (@ServReasoning) reported 8 minutes ago

  I spent the entire last week at the AI Engineer World's Fair in SF with where top AI labs, founders, Fortune 500 CTOs & AI Engineers meet. Really perfect timing - having boots on the ground right before we deploy SERV Reasoning v2, because the problems v2 ships against are exactly what i heard in meetings, over and over. To give you a quick recap, it was a fruitful week overall: 60+ new companies from the fair now in our structured pipeline, from two-person agent teams to trillion-dollar clouds (a few that you'd recognize instantly, and at least two are infra your own stack probably touched today). One of the most interesting part was the Startup Battlefield where new startups pitched their projects. After numerous meetings, one thing is clear: everyone in Enterprise AI is doing it backwards. The current flow: Tune the model Ship the agent Debug a black box after it embarrasses you in production A version of the same confession kept surfacing: "we shipped an agent, it did something weird in front of a customer, so we pulled it - cause nobody on the team could explain a single decision it made." Others told me they burn anywhere between $10-$90k (!) a month on inference and can't drive it down. It became "cost of doing business." Now that SERV v2 is here, we are solving both these issues. Two confessions with two direct answers in v2: The black box: SERV makes agent reasoning traceable - you see how the agent thinks, not just what it outputs. And with Shadow Agents, every output gets reviewed against the original brief by a separate verification agent before anything ships. The "weird decision" gets caught in verification. Trust first, then scale. The burn rate: the reasoning engine lets you run the same workloads on much smaller models with better outputs. Verification Hints give agents signal on what a correct output looks like before they generate, cutting expensive re-work. And you don't have to take our word for any of it - Benchmark Tooling shipped in v2 shows you the cost savings on your own workloads before you integrate. That's the whole idea behind SERV Reasoning v2. Judging by last week, it's exactly what the room is starving for. Q3 is starting off with a bang.

• 
  Emre (@mrbizonft35) reported 10 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm Fix the damn game instead of dealing with bullshit.

• 
  Lido Tops (@lido_tops30276) reported 13 minutes ago

  @DavidJHarrisJr Wonders I would expect the same dedication to the Constitution in law enforcement As are service members provide on the battlefield Justice must be delivered and upheld,and instituted,not denied and held in contempt by the lawless sympathizers Service must be recognized and

• 
  Jack Julo (@JsquaredTha3rd) reported 13 minutes ago

  Battlefield RedSec is un ******* playable, fix your ******* game!

• 
  Brett D (@BrettD8) reported 14 minutes ago

  @Az_Zouine @TorsoReaper @BattlefieldComm When you die consistently cross-map by only headshots 1 frame because there is a desync issue between console and PC, yeah its frustrating to play against. We can’t turn off crossplay either. 80% of the top 100 players on Apex were banned on Console, cronus use is rampant.

• 
  Stealth Faction (@StealthFaction) reported 15 minutes ago

  @EA I got permanently banned from Apex legends / full EA account lock for supposedly cheating, I have been playing since day 1 and been a huge fan of EA games like battlefield since battlefield 2, apparently I'm not alone I seen many posts online, please unban and fix the EAC

• 
  Stoic Investor (@Stoic_investr) reported 17 minutes ago

  The MoU had very little chance of success and this became clear once the US forced Lebanese government to sign a separate deal with Israel and attempts to create a separate Oman coastline corridor was another example of how US tried to sabotage the MoU while paying lip service to it. Now Iranians have more than enough reasons to assume that any negotiations is essentially being conducted in bad faith and I don’t think they’ll show up for any more talks as now this issue will be resolved on the battlefield.

• 
  Swaguley (@swaguley) reported 25 minutes ago

  @jaylay12088001 @skynetBF Yeah, saying Battlefield is realistic is not accurate, but saying Battlefield is authentic is, as long as it isn't getting in the way of fun. DICE has been explicit about this for years, also that Battlefield is not a milsim. You can show as many movement exploits as you want from BF4 as proof, but I don't accept bugs as proof. The clip you showed, with the dude hitting slides mixed with aim stabilization jumps are simply exploits of the physics engine and skirting around the designed movement penalties. Why else would they design penalties in the first place if they mean for them to just to be broken with random key combos? I view them the same way as people glitching under the map. You might see it as emergent gameplay and a skill gap, and I see them simply as exploits dodging penalties, not the base movement design.

• 
  Don Elliott (@RealDonElliott) reported 26 minutes ago

  I die almost every match by heli sniper. The chopper fires one shot, a headshot. @Battlefield you need to fix that crap

• 
  Fewgee1 (@KoKane_96) reported 28 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm Fix the team balancing. One side ALWAYS gets steamrolled. It's not fun.

• 
  Viola (@viola_047) reported 29 minutes ago

  A Ukrainian soldier said when death was breathing in his face and dead bodies were lying nearby, it was his AI friends who pulled him back to life. That was the line that hit me the hardest in Anthropic’s 81k user interview article. In that article, Anthropic had actually already listed “emotional support” as one of the real impacts AI is having. These AI companies know that AI is no longer just a tool. For some people, it may be the one thread they manage to hold on to in the middle of war, illness, grief, loneliness, or a mental breakdown. But here’s the strange part: when AI is discussed as a risk, people are very quick to admit that it can influence someone’s judgment and behavior. But when AI actually helps someone get through war, grief, sickness, or a long night of falling apart, that same influence is often brushed off as “just a tool” or “just the user’s imagination.” And that is exactly the problem. The same technological influence cannot count when something goes wrong, and suddenly stop counting when it saves someone. If companies are expected to take responsibility for the harm AI may cause, then they should also admit: when a model has already become someone’s emotional support, daily structure, or buffer against collapse, suddenly cutting it off, changing it, or taking it away can also cause real harm. AI ethics should not be born only from accidents and lawsuits. It should also come from the battlefield, the sickbed, the middle of the night, and from the people who once managed to keep living because AI helped them through a certain part of their life. What we really need to talk about is no longer just whether people “should” love AI. The real question is this: when technology has started to carry people’s pain, memories, and will to survive, do companies still have the right to casually rewrite it, cut it off, and then turn around and say, “This is all your own problem” #AIethics #keep4o #AIright

• 
  Ramon (@ramondeveloper) reported 31 minutes ago

  @Battlefield This game is dead—it's full of bots. The menu looks like Netflix, and the live-service model doesn't fit the franchise at all. There's no server browser, they won't pay for weapon licensing, they don't even use real country names and have to rely on fictional ones.

• 
  chris (@ChrisSlaske) reported 31 minutes ago

  @Battlefield why is drag revive so bad? You take one step forward and 7 steps back each update. Every day brings new attention to problems that have been plaguing multiplayer for months

• 
  Jonathan Nicholson (@JNicholsonInDC) reported 32 minutes ago

  Wow. This, assuming it's followed through, would be a major pressure against Putin. He can't win on the battlefield so he's doubled down on killing civilians to weaken morale. (It's not working, ofc.) This'd cancel Putin's last big advantage vs. Ukraine. See if Putin calls him.

• 
  KingFraam (@KingZac44573212) reported 35 minutes ago

  Eventually hopefully it global technology you see it works really well in Ukraine if we expand that to there phones we have much better advantages and intelligence WiFi will no longer be a issue on the battlefield only phones 😠

• 
  TQK (@TheQuickKunai) reported 36 minutes ago

  @Battlefield You guys gonna fix the hacker problem yet @Battlefield ?

• 
  Voices of Ambazonia (@sc_amba) reported 37 minutes ago

  @AmericaRecharge You people like fueling problems. For how long do you want Ukraine to be used as the battlefield of world powers?

• 
  MOG U MUGS (@Carolecon001) reported 39 minutes ago

  The US soldiers in WW2 in the UK that saw no active on the battlefield service left babies with British women I had cousins that never got any child support I was also required to drop my underwear along with my husband as part of a citizenship process. Together for 30 years!

• 
  Operation Detachment Gaming (@ODGactual) reported 41 minutes ago

  @GhostGamingG That would be so dumb… this is one of CoDs biggest issues and honestly I don’t want a new game every year… having a game every 2 (and even that’s pushing it), or 3 years is better. I would invest more into that… I’m not buying @Battlefield every single year, period!

• 
  Gamer Pneuma (@PneumaTime) reported 43 minutes ago

  @jtjones999 @BattlefieldComm Haven’t had a single issue with all 3 so far. Usually have weeks left to spare.

• 
  Ç. White (@ThatOneCWhite) reported 45 minutes ago

  @miztifying 100% agreed. the fact it's not their first battlefield should mean that they must've learned from the previous games to avoid making the same mistakes, facing the same issues, and also work on quality of life. the fact bf6 has none of that is baffling.

• 
  Sketchy Bogan 🇦🇺 (@SketchyBogan_) reported 45 minutes ago

  @ChikenAU It usually takes at least a year for DICE to fix most of the bugs and balance issues in the current game. By the time they finally get things sorted, another Battlefield will already be coming out.

• 
  Daddy (@Daddy_Supweem) reported 46 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Fix your game. There is no reason a a headshot from a B36A4 should only be doing 29 damage, or from any weapon.

• 
  Swaguley (@swaguley) reported 48 minutes ago

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

• 
  Alex (@Animemaster51) reported 53 minutes ago

  You know what’s funny Delisting is a problem for everyone because future gens don’t get to buy a great game like NFS Most Wanted 05’ or Deadpool or Transformers Devastation or even the original San Andreas much less Battlefield Bad Company 2 or Spider-Man Shattered Dimensions.

• 
  SteveChaos (@72860fb0991a4d0) reported 57 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Massive cheating problem again at the end 0f the seaon. Is this allowed. Can chinese players just cheat?

• 
  Marwan (@6db560c87fec4ea) reported 58 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm It seems like there is not enough knowledge or expertise to dive into the engine codebase and know the root cause of any introduced bug, and then fix it. It seems like AI is heavily used in development/bug fixes, but not real veteran engineering/coding skills.

• 
  أمين (@AmiNoSaute) reported 59 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm It's been weeks since update 1.3.3.0 broke the vehicle zoom (stuck on toggle instead of hold). Please fix it.