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:

• 
  (TCAG) Командир Бред Кроуфорд (CDR Brad Crawford) (@evo1tactical) reported 1 second ago

  @BurnRichPeople @DanJBray Yeah, man, it’s a huge problem. Companies like General Dynamics and Raytheon aren’t interested in investing in a $400 reusable drone when they can develop a $70,000 system and sell thousands of them to the government. That’s the fundamental problem. The system rewards expensive, complicated weapons programs, long term contracts, proprietary technology, and licensing agreements. It doesn’t reward getting cheap, effective equipment into the hands of soldiers as quickly as possible. And when I talk about the bottom line, I mean exactly that. Stock prices, profits, government contracts, financing, and making sure nobody else can easily reproduce what they’re selling. Meanwhile, warfare is changing faster than our procurement system can keep up. I see it here in Ukraine every day. A cheap piece of technology can change the battlefield in months, sometimes weeks, while Western defense companies and governments can spend years developing, approving, and purchasing a system that may already be outdated by the time soldiers actually receive it. Until we seriously change the relationship between governments, defense companies, and military procurement, we’re going to continue having the same problem. We’ll spend more money, wait longer for equipment, and still struggle to produce what soldiers actually need at the scale modern warfare demands. So yeah, you’re absolutely correct, my friend. National defense has to be about winning wars and keeping soldiers alive, not simply protecting somebody’s bottom line.

• 
  Swaguley (@swaguley) reported 7 seconds 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.

• 
  𝕬1𝖕𝖍𝖆𝕮𝖍𝖎𝖓𝖔 (@A1phaChino_) reported 17 seconds ago

  @swaguley This is what happens when you do not listen to your QA Testers that play Battlefield. I still remember the meeting we had, we laid it all out but we're told QA Testers were overstepping. Now everything we said will be an issue is coming out

• 
  Grouse Beater (@Grouse_Beater) reported 1 minute ago

  DATA CENTRES MEET RESISTANCE Datacentre planning proposals are facing all kinds of hurdles, including suspicion and an antipathy here in Scotland, pushed back from securing energy supply to sky high construction costs. One example: the 2,000 acre Prince William Digital Gateway site in the US state of Virginia had another problem: its proximity to a Civil War battlefield. Questions asked are: why should the taxpayer pay for data centres because the big electronic companies want AI to develop their services? Who asked for more services? Where is the public clamour for greater costs and lost land? “If the development is allowed to proceed, the solemn nature of this historic site would become marred by sitting in the shadow of the monstrous datacentres, along with their associated electrical infrastructure,” said one legal brief against the plans. The US Gateway project is now in doubt after a local court ruling halted the project and a key backer pulled out. It is one of hundreds of large-scale datacentre projects around the world that are in various states of development, from chancier attempts at riding the AI boom to the more committed projects that have the support of tech behemoths like Microsoft. But while models produced by cutting-edge AI companies like OpenAI, Anthropic and Google are improving rapidly, the central nervous systems behind their technology – datacentres – are being built at a much slower pace. The Uptime Institute, which inspects and rates datacentres, has identified 250 global datacentre projects exceeding 100MW in energy demand – equivalent to around 300,000 homes – that have been announced between 2021 and 2024. It said approximately half of those projects will either not happen, or their completion will be delayed. Even if the cancellations and delays came to fruition, there will still be an “unprecedented and rapid” increase in the power required over the next five years, according to Uptime. Mega-projects cancelled last year include Project Range in the US state of Arizona and the Cyberjaya campus in Malaysia. The Prince William Gateway is also on the cancelled list. This backlog poses problems for AI firms that need data centres to train and operate their models. Google admits its cloud business – which uses datacentres to provide AI services like chatbots to companies and users – is “compute-constrained”, as demand for ever more powerful AI models and services increases. But who needs chat bots? Why do we feel the need to talk to a computer? It is clear the big companies are shifting their costly ambitions onto the shoulders of the public. Photo - Horst Friedrichs: Didcot data centre.

• 
  Iran Flash News (@FlashWireNews) reported 3 minutes ago

  @KobeissiLetter #BREAKINGNEWS 🚨: Iran's Foreign Ministry and IRGC issue parallel warnings to regional countries any state allowing its territory to be used for U.S. strikes on Iran will be treated as a hostile target. The Foreign Ministry warned it "will not hesitate" to strike the origin of attacks and any bases used against Iran. The IRGC declared that any support for U.S. aggression is a "legitimate target" for Iran's armed forces. The message is directed at Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar all host to U.S. military assets. Iran is drawing a clear line: host U.S. strikes, become a target. The Strait remains the battlefield. Tehran is signaling that regional states risk being pulled into the conflict.

• 
  Gatzestreicheln (@FabianSchu96203) reported 6 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldInte **** this game and **** @EA_DICE before ending new stuff to get in our pockets fix your ******* unplayable trash game Gunplay still sucks Sounds still sucks Maps are ******* horrible EA is right about fireing your useless worthless asses

• 
  Erik (@OopsAllErik) reported 7 minutes ago

  @itbShane The effect being base speed and having the ‘at a battlefield’ clause hinders it a lot… It’s Condtional list…. If her signature is bonkers broken then she’ll be good. If not I think she just sits below the other blue purple legends

• 
  don (@iceyicon) reported 10 minutes ago

  since the aim changes on battlefield 6… my aim has been so bad. literally every-time i fix my settings they drop another update and **** everything up.

• 
  ashlyn 🏳️‍⚧️ (@ashlyninstereo) reported 11 minutes ago

  i think we're heading towards another videogame crash because what do you MEAN we're not getting any more NFS or Burnout games??? Criterion are just making Battlefield now.

• 
  Rune Børsjø (@RuneBoersjoe) reported 12 minutes ago

  @ColbyBadhwar @WeaponScientist Is it, though? Because none of their stuff has worked on any battlefield so far. And they're having problems with all their domestically produced stuff as well. Including their fighters.

• 
  Stoic Investor (@Stoic_investr) reported 14 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.

• 
  Are You Still There? (@imo_omar) reported 14 minutes ago

  @bankertobuilder @mr_anderson Hospital means anything but safety Its I got a problem and need to be fixed. Its uneasiness Its also the place people die due to illness Its the furthest thing from safety besides a battlefield

• 
  steve (@Troll81357830) reported 14 minutes ago

  @Battlefield FIX THIS BLACK ******* SCREEN FUCKKK!!!!!

• 
  Andre Robinson MS (@AndreDoctrine) reported 16 minutes ago

  Fresh scan verdict: no major update needed. That is a good sign. The existing guidance already covers the central terrain: deliverables over loyalty, air defense before optics, anti-ballistic defense before summit theater, and 5% as capability rather than tribute. What the stories show is not a new strategic problem. They show your framework being stress-tested from several angles and still holding. - That does not require a new doctrine. It requires a guardrail: Turkey can be used as an Ankara conduit, not as an Ankara distraction. Any U.S.-Turkey defense side deal should reinforce Ukraine, Black Sea security, NATO interoperability, and alliance production — not crowd out Patriot/interceptor deliverables. - But this needs a caution: drone diplomacy must not be allowed to substitute for Patriot/PAC anti-ballistic defense. It should complement the Patriot doctrine, not replace it. So the only non-redundant update I’d add is this short operational note: Ankara should treat Ukraine as both a recipient of anti-ballistic protection and a provider of drone/counter-drone battlefield expertise. NATO should take Ukraine’s drone lessons, fund Ukraine’s production base, and still deliver the Patriot interceptors and production licenses needed to stop ballistic strikes. Drone diplomacy is leverage, not a substitute. Bottom line: no new major guidance. Your framework is still sufficient. The new stories mostly validate it. The only fresh additions are tactical: keep Turkey from becoming a side-deal distraction, and elevate Ukraine as a defense provider while keeping Patriot interceptors as the summit test.

• 
  Brett Lee (@real_brett_lee) reported 22 minutes ago

  The problem isn’t just the tech. It’s Washington’s speed. We study, delay, rebid, redesign, and somehow call that strategy. By the time a system arrives, the battlefield may have already moved on. Kendall’s warning is really about time and production. Autonomy is moving. Electronic warfare is moving. Sensors are moving. If procurement stays frozen, our troops pay for it later.