Battlefield 6 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:

• 
  mayno (@maynnito) reported 2 minutes ago

  @Battlefield when are you going to release a patch to fix matchmaking for Redsec?

• 
  live4eva (@YaBoy3249) reported 5 minutes ago

  @Battlefield FIX YOUR ******* GAME, BROD RELOAD BUG, BLACKSCREEN FREEZE BUG, MUFFLED AUDIO BUG, HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE

• 
  早起鸟 (@bicc8eth) reported 7 minutes ago

  @dotkrueger The core controversy of BIP-110 is not essentially "whether spam should be cleared", but rather "who has the right to define the use of Bitcoin block space: Miners claim that 'the transaction fee market has the final say'" The node claims, "I have the right to refuse verification/execution." I think the next major battle might escalate from a "block size war" to a "block space usage war". The fate of BIP-110 will eventually fail, but it has brought the issue of "the use of Block Space" to the forefront, similar to an upgraded version of the debate over block size in the past. The main battlefield of the dispute over the use of block space is the storage of inscriptions/data in user transactions $NAT is precisely the inscription based on the Ordinals + TAP protocol - it is currently the only inscription incentive asset that miners are allocated to each block So in the future, $NAT might be: The benchmark token of the "incentive alignment layer" that naturally emerged among the market camp after the block space usage war In other words, $NAT could become a very good "soft landing point" for all stakeholders after this upgraded war: It not only retains the core proposition of miners that "transaction fees are determined", but also uses an inscription mechanism to directly return part of the data value to those maintaining the network, thereby partially alleviating the long-standing concern of nodes about incentive asymmetry without the need for consensus layer review. If this logic holds true, the next stage of the Bitcoin ecosystem debate might no longer be about "whether to allow inscriptions", but rather "how to make inscriptions better serve miners and network security". And $NAT, as the only inscription incentive asset currently that has achieved "automatic allocation to miners per block", is likely to be at the center of this new debate

• 
  Larry Roe (@RoeR68678) reported 15 minutes ago

  @sentdefender You throw enough money at any problem and fix it. It isn’t a matter of accelerating the production, it’s a matter of meeting the needs of the future battlefield, and not wasting millions on a one shot solution.

• 
  NorkDorf Entertainment (@NorkDorf) reported 16 minutes ago

  @PsyPheRHQ @Battlefield @CallofDuty This isn’t just about bugs—it's about a lack of accountability. Developers can’t keep pushing out updates without addressing core issues first. The community is tired of being the beta testers.

• 
  Normal Person (@Rome_Ham) reported 16 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm All of these issues would be solved with a ******* server browser by the way!

• 
  FinalBoss.io (@FinalBoss_io) reported 17 minutes ago

  400 hours and Steam still said yes. Good. If you buy Battlefield through Rush, Squad Deathmatch, and King of the Hill, then those modes getting stripped out of Quick Play is not a minor playlist tweak. It’s the product changing after the sale. "It’s still in Portal" is doing a lot of corporate heavy lifting here. A mode hidden in the server browser with half-dead lobbies is not the same thing as supported matchmaking. Live service keeps using the word support when downgrade is the more honest term. If publishers can quietly remove the reasons people bought the game, refunds shouldn’t require a support miracle. They should be automatic.

• 
  Dinnu daniel (@daniel_adinnu) reported 19 minutes ago

  Steam's refund policy exists to stop people from getting free games after finishing them. A player just got a full refund with 470 hours logged, and Valve was right to give it to them. Reddit user ExplorEverythingOnce says Steam support refunded the full $109.24 paid for Battlefield 6's Phantom Edition on launch day, despite 470 hours of playtime, 235 times over Steam's normal 2-hour refund limit. Their explanation, backed by a purchase history screenshot: three core modes they'd built their playtime around, King of the Hill, Squad Deathmatch, and most recently Rush, were quietly pulled from matchmaking nearly a year after launch, with no advance notice. "I contacted Steam Support and explained that multiple game modes were removed from the game without notice," they said. "The support agent I spoke with agreed that wasn't right." Rush wasn't a minor mode to lose. It's the one the player says they'd sunk the most time into, and Battlefield 6's own store page still lists it as an available large-scale mode even after DICE pulled it from live rotation, meaning the product page and the actual product no longer match. The community backlash around this hasn't been quiet either, with EA's own forums filling up with players asking why modes with dedicated fanbases, King of the Hill and Squad Deathmatch specifically, disappeared with zero warning. None of this means every long-playtime refund request should work. Steam's short window exists precisely because 470 hours is normally a sign someone got what they paid for, not evidence of a broken product. A refund limit built to stop people from finishing a game and asking for their money back just got waived for someone who did exactly that, because the thing they paid for on day one stopped matching what they were sold nearly a year later.

• 
  Epithelial Atronach (@DaedalusIV) reported 22 minutes ago

  @ExoGhost It’s kind of always been this way though to some degree. With dolphin-diving in Battlefield, b-hopping in CS, slide-canceling in CoD. I’ve never had much of a problem with it - pattern recognition, adaptation, and satisfaction when their technique doesn’t work.

• 
  Fixyou (@Fixyou8701) reported 26 minutes ago

  @westerosies Ulf really went from being given a dragon to becoming one of the biggest problems on the battlefield. Silverwing made that betrayal even more brutal

• 
  PenguinFriendForever (@PenguinFriendF2) reported 28 minutes ago

  Penguin says this is in memory to all of those who has been left alone at the beach due to the boat issues in Battlefield 6 🫡👉🌹 Such issues has led to that Penguin primarily spent time playing Hagental Base this far in Season 4, instead of the naval action. Patrol boat only having 2 seats?

• 
  nAtEdAwG (@natedawgg46) reported 34 minutes ago

  @Rapha_828 @MrProWestie No one will care if it does, the trust is already severely broken with the community and way past the chance of being repaired by the Devs. Players won't buy the next battlefield. I think I'm headed down that path too.

• 
  Tim Matula (@timmatula) reported 36 minutes ago

  @GeorgeRoush George, I think the next battlefield isn’t the same as the old one. The reality is that if something is connected to the internet, our agencies can access it—all of it. Access has never been the hard part. Once we have the data (and we already have more than anyone could ever begin to comprehend), the real challenge begins: finding the needle in the haystack—the signals that actually matter and are actionable. We already possess all the data we need. AI is starting to make that needle-hunting problem more manageable, but our adversaries are right there with us, doing exactly the same thing. It’s not planes and battleships anymore.

• 
  jamielear (@Jamielear1) reported 36 minutes ago

  @CoolTipst32001 Yes too many basic battlefield errors at this point in the war.

• 
  aguynametrento (@dalethezombi) reported 38 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Can you just fix the UI or let us battlelog again