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:

• 
  Dinnu daniel (@daniel_adinnu) reported 21 seconds 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.

• 
  Fixyou (@Fixyou8701) reported 2 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

• 
  jamielear (@Jamielear1) reported 3 minutes ago

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

• 
  Molly O’Shea (@MollySOShea) reported 4 minutes ago

  Neros CEO @soren_ma calls out companies who left Ukraine after finding out their products didn't work: "There's very few defense tech startups that have a meaningful amount of equipment deployed in Ukraine." "A lot of companies unfortunately would rather develop on a test range in California and then just put their head in the sand when the thing doesn't work in the battlefield." "It's a clear trend I've observed." "A lot of companies tried to go over or had stuff sent over, and then the first time around it didn't work, and instead of persisting and saying, 'We're gonna fix the stuff that didn't work and try again and try again,' just ended up walking away."

• 
  早起鸟 (@bicc8eth) reported 5 minutes ago

  @saylor 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

• 
  Battle(non)sense | Chris (@BattleNonSense) reported 9 minutes ago

  @EndersFPS @Battlefield Since you dismiss my analysis of the situation which is based on how the franchise, target audience and community composition changed since BFs inception, what is your explanation for the increasingly more frequent bad/lopsided matches you keep experiencing? And how to fix it?

• 
  3CENTAURO3 (@3Centauro3) reported 10 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Just fix the game. Remove the skillbase. Nerf the SMG's and shotguns.

• 
  Jerm (@Millwright443) reported 10 minutes ago

  Can't wait to see how long it takes y'all to "fix" **** in the game now that the Saudis own it. Hopefully they will make it priority to fix this ******* hit registration and/or tdd and ttk. Ridiculous.... @EA_DICE

• 
  live4eva (@YaBoy3249) reported 13 minutes ago

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

• 
  Enders (@EndersFPS) reported 13 minutes ago

  @BattleNonSense @Battlefield You can't fix it, it's happened for as long as I've played Battlefield and certainly before that as well. Custom servers may help a bit simply because it bypasses match making

• 
  Ben (@Ben266496) reported 17 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Are you guys actually going to fix the crossplay matchmaking at all? Ever? It’s only been a year since release and my mate (Xbox) and I (PS5) are constantly not being matched maked together. Sort it out!

• 
  Brylan (@metalboybrylan) reported 17 minutes ago

  @Wolf6120 @doctordieyoung @FrenlyOfficer ?? what does this even mean dumbass??? he easily could of had a knife on him, but first and foremost you don't get on a battlefield and expect to live after trolling the enemy do you?? then you came up with a retarded strawman that no one on earth has a problem killing

• 
  Amitryptyling (@AmiEverAfter) reported 20 minutes ago

  @alanevenson I have been exhausting the body to the point of burnout and pushed a little too hard after surgery. The trouble with EMDR is I’m still actively having to interact with my abuser and family court genuinely becomes a new abuser and arena for abuse. It’s like doing EMDR on the battlefield. We really need a new body of evidence based interventions for people living with trauma in situations where the trauma persists and they can’t stop it (I can’t leave my child behind or I would just walk away). Also, in family court you have to present like you have no deficiencies. If my ex or the judge suspected active PTSD it could be used to take my child. So you just front like you’re fine. I understand your suggestion was just to be helpful, but the aspect of trauma that doesn’t stop is the kicker here.

• 
  Hashbrown (@OrdGtrr) reported 22 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm This is just proving that live service AAA FOS games are a ******* blunder

• 
  VERTEX (@vasilyaarkhipov) reported 24 minutes ago

  1. THE KARGIL PROBLEM (Geography, altitude & limitations for platforms) We need to understand that Kargil Sector was not, or never a conventional battlefield. Pakistani army (Primarily NLI and SSG soldiers infiltrated under the cover of mujahids, with Pak initially presenting them as militants rather than regular forces) had occupied key IA positions and routes across the mushko valley, drass, kaksar, batalik & turtok sectors. Many positions were at 16–18K+ft, with some of the highest points creating an extremely difficult A2G environment.