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 (42%)
• 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
Domingos Martins	Sign in	1 day ago
Courbevoie	Online Play	1 day ago
Strasbourg	Glitches	2 days ago
Chaumont	Online Play	3 days ago
Amagney	Glitches	3 days ago
Annecy	Matchmaking	6 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:

• 
  Policy Expert (@policyexpertx) reported 7 minutes ago

  @HansFiene this probably goes a level deeper in that one of the fundamental problems the eastern militaries have is they can't seem to get order without basically having clones who aren't empowered to be decision makers on the battlefield rendering them impotent when anything goes off course. our warriors are very specifically trained to be able to follow orders to a tee when given while simultaneously using their creative faculties when needed to be more effective. big difference.

• 
  Jay Won Bak (@baky_bear) reported 8 minutes ago

  @Battlefield You guys ever going to fix the balancing of teams, getting tired of either losing in the first five mins or winning.

• 
  Momentum Works (@momentumasia) reported 15 minutes ago

  @deepseek_ai uses Mao's playbook to win the AI race. Fewer chips, less capital — and a strategy built for the weaker side. For the last few years, we have often recommended that clients trying to understand their Chinese competitors read Mao Zedong's On Protracted War. In fact, many of the Chinese tech leaders we know have been reading Mao's works for strategic and tactical inspiration in a permanently cutthroat market. Liang Wenfeng, the founder of DeepSeek, appears to be doing the same. In a recent investor call, he talked about restraint, about not fighting for ground he does not need, about how being behind is actually an advantage. He never mentioned Mao once in the four-hour call. But anyone who has read Mao would recognise the strategy. Mao's strategic thinking came from a side that was poorer, smaller and surrounded. In the early 1930s the Communist insurgency forces were weaker than the Nationalist government on every axis a conventional army is measured on — men, weapons, industrial base, control of the cities. Earlier attempts to follow more orthodox, Soviet-influenced doctrine had ended disastrously, culminating in the loss of the Communist base areas and the Long March. The strategy Mao built afterwards began from a different question: not how to get as much force as the enemy, but how to change the terms of the fight so that being weaker mattered less. On Protracted War, written in 1938 - a year into the war against Japan, took the next step and folded time itself into the fight. Mao's answer was not to wait until he had as many men, guns or cities as his enemy. It was to fight in a way that made those advantages less decisive. That history matters here because Mao’s strategy was shaped by the same basic problem DeepSeek faces today: how to compete when the other side has far more resources. That is a fairly precise description of the box DeepSeek is in. It runs on a small fraction of a single American lab's compute, with less capital, no access to the best chips, and — on Liang's own account — models roughly an order of magnitude smaller than the largest ones he is looking at. So when he reasons his way through that position out loud, he arrives roughly where Mao arrived. This is the lens for the whole call. DeepSeek is not trying to run the American AI playbook with fewer resources. It has either consciously adopted, or independently reconstructed, a coherent strategy for fighting from the weaker side — and anyone who has read Mao will recognise its four basic moves. Refuse the stronger side's battle Liang points to the largest models, around 800 billion parameters. DeepSeek cannot train one. He knows it, and says he will not even try. On his own maths, it takes roughly four Huawei chips to do the work of one Nvidia chip, and the Huawei hardware itself is about two years behind. So rather than spend years trying to assemble the same firepower as the American labs, he simply refuses that battlefield. He made the same choice when DeepSeek went viral last year. Users poured in. For a brief moment, it looked like DeepSeek had been handed the opening every Chinese internet company spends years chasing: traffic, attention, and a chance to build a consumer platform. The obvious move was to spend heavily, keep the users and turn the moment into a super-app. Liang did not take it. There were bigger things to build, and he believed the users were not going anywhere. That is the first move in the weak-side playbook: do not fight the stronger side on the ground where it is strongest. Choose another ground. Concentrate the force you have This is Mao's 集中优势兵力，各个歼灭敌人 — concentrate a superior force and destroy the enemy piece by piece. The point was never that Mao had the superior army. In 1946, at the start of the renewed Chinese civil war, the Communist forces were weaker overall. Mao's instruction was to make that irrelevant at the point of contact: when the enemy advanced on several fronts, concentrate three, four, even six times his strength against one unit, destroy it, then move on to the next. The same logic would later reappear in Korea, where Chinese forces remained materially inferior overall but repeatedly tried to create local superiority at the points they chose to attack. DeepSeek is doing something very similar with compute. It does not have a superior force; it has a fraction of one. So Liang narrows the front. Everything off the direct path to AGI is cut — video generation, world models, the finance and medical agents everyone else is racing to build. The coding agent stays because it feeds back into DeepSeek’s own research; the rest can wait. That is what “concentrating superior force” means when you are weaker overall. You cannot be strong across the whole field, so you make yourself as strong as possible at the one point that matters. With a fraction of the compute, you do not get the whole product roadmap. You choose the one front you can win. Use time to change the balance In 1938, this was the heart of Mao's argument in On Protracted War. Japanese forces were far stronger and could keep taking Chinese cities. But every city they took also meant more territory to occupy, longer supply lines to protect and more troops tied down far from home. China, meanwhile, did not need to become stronger overnight. It needed to avoid being destroyed, preserve its forces and keep building them. If the war lasted long enough, the balance that looked hopeless at the beginning would not remain the same. Liang talks about being behind in much the same way. DeepSeek is roughly two years behind on hardware and, by his reckoning, works with about 5% of the compute. His answer is not to close all of that tomorrow. It is to turn two years into six months, then three — while still using only a fraction of the compute. That is why he says being behind has an advantage: it gives you time. Every extra month is another month in which the gap can narrow without DeepSeek first having to match the Americans chip for chip. The stronger side has the lead today; the weaker side's job is to make sure today's balance is not tomorrow's. Start from your own conditions Asked what DeepSeek models itself on — one of the US labs, perhaps — Liang says there is nothing to copy. He works from the other end: he starts with the chips he actually has, asks how large a model they can train and what that model can prove, and lets the rest wait. He does not start from the frontier model and work backwards to the compute he wishes he had. It is not that Chinese firms refuse to copy Americans. If your resources are not the leader's resources, copying the leader's strategy is not prudence. It is a mistake. Want less Then Liang says something harder to place neatly inside Mao’s playbook. DeepSeek could charge much more for its API. By Liang’s own calculation, the market could bear a hundredfold return on the hardware cost. He is satisfied with roughly six. He could keep the best model closed. Instead, DeepSeek open-sources it and helps others deploy it. He could build more of the applications downstream himself. He would rather leave much of that business to partners. Why leave so much on the table? Liang’s answer is unusually blunt: the one who wants more will be beaten by the one who wants less. He then takes the logic to its extreme. A company determined to capture 5% of the market will lose to one satisfied with 1%. And that company, in turn, can be beaten by one content with 0.1%. The one thing he will not give up is the team. It is what the raise is really for — enough options to hold the senior people in place, so that whatever setbacks come, nobody leaves. The mistake is to read DeepSeek as an American frontier lab with fewer chips. It is not running the same playbook on less fuel. Its playbook starts from the fact that it has less. Mao's strategic writing asked the same question: what does the weaker side do when it cannot match the stronger side in men, weapons or money? Whether Liang borrowed the answers or reconstructed them from the constraints in front of him is almost beside the point. The strategy is recognisable. The dangerous assumption, for the stronger side, is that the weaker side wants to fight the same war.

• 
  Jim (@staxringold) reported 16 minutes ago

  @HRpufnsting @nestapendragon That is not an answer to my question. You are claiming the modifier "in any zone other than the battlefield or the stack" What is a creature spell in a zone other than the stack. It does not exist. We can go around, I'll flag this and remind you when the official ruling issues

• 
  NPI-AMERICA (@Dr_Autistic_3D) reported 17 minutes ago

  @DETONATEDcom They need to put the TTK back to where it was on Beta day one or I’m getting a refund cause now it’s like Battlefield. I didn’t buy a Call of Duty vault edition to play. Battlefield also fix the M4. It shouldn’t take a whole magazine to kill someone that’s ******* stupid.

• 
  Wayne Nilsen (@waynenilsen) reported 19 minutes ago

  @Arthur_NC_ If you could get reliable information about the target, could you go ballistic to overcome some of these line of sight issues? Is battlefield sensor fusion a thing ? Are there good information provided by satellite via radar?

• 
  War Detective (@seekersomething) reported 21 minutes ago

  @ryangrim Here do you have 16 cases: 1. Mohammed Al-Mutawaq: He has cerebral palsy, proven by the medical report signed by Dr Saeed Mohammed Al Nassan on 20th May 2025, also confirmed by NY Times later and by the Anti-Israel site Drop Site News. The death of his father was also used as a framing for this story, claiming that: "Mohammed's father was killed last year when he went to seek food". But footage and reports from that day and location showed that he was most likely killed on the battlefield, as a Hamas soldier. 2. Youssef Matar: Toddler with cerebral palsy. He was initially meant to be used by NY Times as the cover photo, but they agreed to not do it when they found out that he had the pre-existing illness. So NY Times then changed the image to Mohammed, that later turned out to have the very same condition as him. 3. Osama Al-Raqab: He has been in Italy receiving treatment since 12th June 2025. This was confirmed in September 2025 by the hospital in Verona, by the doctor there, where he was treated for leaky SCID. 4. Karam Khaled Al-Jamal: Has a lifelong muscular dystrophy and partial paralysis. 5. Abdullah Abu Zarqa: Has a genetic disease causing deficiencies, osteoporosis, and bone thinning. 4 months before the outbreak of the war, he traveled with his mother to receive medical treatment in East Jerusalem. 6. Atef Abu Khater: Was severely burned on his foot and hand in a soup kitchen. This led to a form of psychological distress by which he stopped eating and drinking. 7. Mosab al-Debs: He sustained a critical injury that resulted in a portion of his skull being removed and severe brain hemorrhaging, leaving him completely paralyzed. 8. Najwa Hussein Hajjaj: Suffered from a long-term condition that causes vomiting and requires specially prepared food for her to digest properly. 9. Hamza Mishmish: Living with disabilities since birth and was confirmed by Drop Site News to suffer from cerebral palsy. 10. Maryam Dawas: Suspected of having a serious undiagnosed stomach illness, causing diarrhoea, intestinal malabsorption and unspecified severe protein-energy malnutrition. Her mother and her brother can be seen looking healthy in the images from that location. Her illness is proven by the medical file from Al-Rantisi Children’s Hospital. 11. Najwa Hussein Hajjaj: She had esophageal stenosis. This was later confirmed by Drop Site News, in an interview with her mother: "Before the war started, we had taken her to the hospital, and she was diagnosed with esophageal stenosis. Her condition had not yet worsened, and a surgery was scheduled for December 4, 2023". 12. Jana Ayad: This story was first presented as being from 2025, but already in June 2024 she was seen in a hospital showing these conditions and then reported for the same thing still in September 2025. Then there is other stories from earlier in the war showing the same thing. These are three more examples: 13. Yazan Kafarneh: A boy that was reported as "starved to death", but in the very same article they also stated that: "He died due to a congenital illness that required a special dietary regimen to keep him healthy". 14. Amr al-Hams: He is reported as "severely malnourished" but also at the same time had shrapnel embedded in his brain from an air strike that made all the problems, not the lack of food. In March 2026 he can be seen recovering from this conditions. 15. Ghandir Breika: Claimed by Al Jazeera Arabic, on 22 August 2025 (now erased), to have died due to malnutrition. But as proven by the a post by the Gazan journalist Mohammad Salama, that can be seen here (original post also erased now), he was suffering from cerebral palsy. 16. Siwar Ashour: Was reported by the BBC on 6 May 2025 with the following: “A local BBC colleague filmed the unmistakable signs of advanced malnutrition on Siwar’s body", then BBC continued the reporting on 13 May, on 14 May, on 25 May and on 12 June. Then there are cancer cases and fake starving journalist.

• 
  Loony Lucy, Toony Ringmistress (@LoonyLucyRM) reported 21 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

• 
  𝐁𝐒𝐏𝟑 (@RealBSP3) reported 24 minutes ago

  @kyrtuck @SandyofCthulhu @kreutzxcoldnow He's got a solid philosophical point. Both are required, but one can logically lend more weight to either side, and people have been debating that for thousands of years without a concrete result. Pacifists won't usefully band together. If they did, they couldn't stop anything; and that includes expanding grazing lands, or simply out-picking the berries. At what point do you have a war? Is it mere starvation, or does it require active strikes? Do both sides have to take up arms on a battlefield for it to be a war, or can one side just lay down and die? When in groups, humans must protect their resources. If they do not, other humans will take them in order to prosper. That is the way of Earth. Right now, people are being slaughtered over grazing lands, and nobody here cares. They will not collectively organize an effective resistance. As a result, the more organized group rolls right over them. Both are stuck in the same limited landscape. Because civilization largely wants to remain pacifist, when possible, that bloodshed continues. Nobody steps in to stop it, because it's below media interest. Your neighbors do not consider it a war. They consider it a scuffle over a few acres of grass, and unimportant. At what point, again, does a war exist? We may have different problems, in the civilized world but, in the end, it's always just berries and grass.

• 
  PSYCHO Mad (@PsychoMadTv) reported 28 minutes ago

  @GhostGamingG @Battlefield Gotta love the Rug Pull they did for the second time 💯 2042 Bones with a Modern Warfare skin visuals look Weird and nothing groundbreaking on graphics to Push Soldiers Bundles / Skins .Dumb down mechanics across the board. The entire game is a Broken Mess. YUP BETA TESTERS

• 
  Steve (@sjc6254) reported 29 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.

• 
  Hussain Abdul-Hussain (@hahussain) reported 30 minutes ago

  Turkish military or weaponry in Syria is a Turkish problem. No one thinks Syrian sovereignty interferes with Turkish plans. Turkey wants to turn Syria into a proxy battlefield with Israel. Israel is stopping it. This is exactly similar to Iran turning Lebanon into a proxy battlefield with the Jewish state. Makes sense now?

• 
  9GUY (@nine_deez) reported 31 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”

• 
  Bbz (@Eazybzbz) reported 31 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm Just never ever ever FK BRING IT BACK ! DON'T EVER BRING THE FK GAS BACK ! DON'T FIX IT. LEAVE IT DEAD

• 
  Pyresek (@Pyresek) reported 36 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm Wish I could explain my problems like frame drops, weapon balancing like Redsec guns haven’t been touched once since it been released. This needs to be addressed, I live the content but need to focus on bugs and making game fresh again

• 
  Josh Lavis (@JoshLavis) reported 39 minutes ago

  @ApollosMission naw I still play call of duty and battlefield every day. overwatch is frustrating so I ragequit but very active with players. you might be bored with fps games is the real issue

• 
  Rateb Slik (@rateblab) reported 41 minutes ago

  The hidden battlefield is repetition. The feed repeats outrage, fear, comparison, novelty, and urgency. A learner needs different repetition: recall, labs, debugging, writing, explanation, review. The feed and the learner are both in the repetition business. The difference is what each repeats. The feed repeats the inputs that hold attention, and the repetition is the training: the more outrage you see, the more your mind expects outrage; the more comparison you consume, the more your self-image runs on comparison. You become better at what you repeat, and the feed makes sure you repeat its menu. A learner needs a different menu, and the menu is boring on purpose. Recall, because retrieving a fact strengthens it more than rereading it. Labs, because running the thing teaches the thing. Debugging, because fixing the error teaches the system. Writing, because explaining forces understanding. Review, because the spaced return is what makes the knowledge durable. The fight is not between the feed and your intention. It is between two repetition schedules. The feed's schedule is engineered to win, and it wins by volume: it is always on, always new, always urgent. The learner's schedule is fragile: it needs the phone away, the block protected, the loop repeated. You become what you repeat. Choose the repetition, because if you do not choose it, the environment will choose it for you, and it will choose what holds attention, not what builds you.

• 
  CognitiveDissonance (@CDinHD) reported 42 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm VOICE CHAT IS NOW BROKEN CHAT IS BROKEN

• 
  billysundown (@BillySundown) reported 44 minutes ago

  @CheeseheadTroy @JakeSucky There really is no issue w/ players doing that except that community server browser is flooded with “exp farm” like battlefield 2042 was When I could find a creative gamemode buried in the browser, it had no players

• 
  Edboy (@10_vapor_ed_31) reported 45 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm 2)stop making game modes FOMO. Bring carrier strike to wake island at least. Wonder why there are more players on other game modes than say rush? 3)get rid of this streaming service main menu. How do you expect people to expand their mode menu when you shove them behind tiles?

• 
  Tyler Frank (@mrtfrank007) reported 45 minutes ago

  @Battlefield The Interdictor is not a 1 shot and and actually terrible. Fix it.

• 
  🇦🇺Craig Tindale (@ctindale) reported 47 minutes ago

  @David40070881 Rightish on the plumbing. Bill-funded buybacks are roughly neutral. 
TGA-funded buybacks inject reserves. Hard to disagree with that ( facts ) . I should have been tighter on that distinction :) But it doesn’t change my core point. Whether the duration is removed by issuing bills or by running down the TGA, the operation is still debt management aimed at stopping the long end from becoming a hard binding constraint right now. Anyone who says that’s the wrong move has to watch it burn down entirely . Druck says that’s the right move . The problem then is existential it’s 1937 not 1945 My points the same it’s is still buying time on the Financial Ledger. Though it’s my same question : is that time being used to repair the Material Ledger, or is it just delaying the conversion failure? 110%% Gold may well be pricing the liquidity injection. Though that’s good because it revalues the world biggest reserves . That doesn’t mean the dual-ledger problem will be saved / solved by gold . You can still be defeated on the battlefield , sound money won’t save anyone if you don’t have the materials it might even accelerate the process . It’s a very slippery slope . Gold belongs to anyone that can take it either by coercion or force.

• 
  RUNEWALKER (@GamerCyberpunk) reported 48 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

• 
  Th3FaLL3nGh0St 💿 (@FaLL3nGh0St) reported 51 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Fix the grenade indicator not showing up and the black screen bug!

• 
  Shawd (@shawd4mvp) reported 52 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Your game is junk. All it does is crash on PS5.

• 
  Bubble Boy🫧📌 (@EverythingBubbl) reported 53 minutes ago

  @Battlefield This is cool and all but instead of trying to wow your fanbase why not fix the ******* game and stop giving us corny cosmetics

• 
  IANS (@ians_india) reported 53 minutes ago

  Ranchi, Jharkhand: BJP spokesperson Pratul Shahdeo says, "The Hemant Soren government has completely backfired on the issue of the student agitation. Instead of trying to resolve the students’ concerns, the government has tried to suppress the movement. The protest site was turned into a battlefield, and students were allegedly lathi-charged. JMM workers also attacked the students while the police stood by and watched. Moreover, allegations of harassment have also been raised against women associated with the JMM leadership..."

• 
  Abhiram Garapati For Congress (@abhiramgarapat2) reported 55 minutes ago

  I’m going to join former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s call for Congress and Secretary Hegseth to look into the matter. The only two reasons I can imagine are that it is either not lucrative enough for defense contractors or that someone among the highest ranks of the military wishes to see the United States fail on the battlefield. National security and the lives of American service members must always come first.

• 
  Jody (@Jod82403Jody) reported 56 minutes ago

  @Melibson_ 1. Yes. DJT fixes most all countries battlefield; go home fix your country and leave ours alone🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

• 
  That Guy In IT (@That_Guy_in_IT) reported 58 minutes ago

  @planefag I doubt they fixed the battery drain issues, but weapons like this are coming to the battlefield in our lifetime.