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:

• 
  ♰ OLISeraph_VT👁️🪽 ♰ (@OLISeraphVTuber) reported 25 seconds ago

  @rowell_96 @Battlefield Sounds like an issue related to skill

• 
  Freebs (@itsFreebs) reported 37 seconds ago

  @Fifakill_ It is being solved. Valorant is doing well, League, Battlefield 6 haven't had any big issues since launch. COD aren't willing to invest into their anticheat team and that's why the cheat situation is so bad and has been so bad for such a long time.

• 
  It's Absurd (@ExtraSmallBrain) reported 2 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Fix the crashes! Fix the bugs! Played just now and in the middle of the game, I was back on desktop. No other game I play crashes. Battlebug is a shite game!!! 100%

• 
  asmarino ደጀና💪🇪🇷 (@azmarinoss) reported 6 minutes ago

  @mjoe0989 No question 100%. If this the problem for them why they are silent when they see the pp massive preparation for war? Why d9 you silent for ongoing war in amhara, Oromo, and other Ethiopian? Even do you think not preparation for war save Tigrayans if pp create war with Eritrea? Wehere do you think the Battle ground if pp strat war for annex Assab? And what choice you see the Tigrayans ppl at all? question—100%. If this is really their concern, why were they silent while PP was openly preparing for war? Why stay silent about the ongoing wars in Amhara, Oromia, and other parts of Ethiopia? Do they honestly think ignoring military preparations would protect Tigrayans if PP started a war with Eritrea? Where do they think the battlefield would be if PP tried to annex Assab? What realistic choice would ordinary Tigrayans have in that situation?

• 
  TygerSparky (@tygersparky) reported 6 minutes ago

  My not-so-quick take on the recent controversy concerning the Sony Playstation decision to no longer produce discs for their systems starting in 2028. Of course everyone is allowed to hold any opinion they want to on this move. I realize that your current opinion would likely be shaped based on your current buying preferences. But I would say that anyone defending this move or who is complicit and okay with Sony doing this is simply another example of someone focusing on the environment one step in front of them instead of actually looking to the future and seeing the inevitable outcome of this decision. I'll be up front, I have been buying things digitally for years. The last disc-based game I bought was The Witcher 3 on the Xbox One. But for me, that is because I don't look as fondly at modern games as I do games from my childhood. Given that, I still appreciate the option of having a disc copy of the game. If there was a game I absolutely fell in love with today, I would want to own a physical disc version of it. I have about 150 Xbox 360 discs and 125 PS2 discs, not to mention PS1 and Nintendo carts/discs in my current collection. For those like Asmongold and others who actually see no problem with this change, I would point to two past games in the current market to see exactly why having a physical option is absolutely superior. First: Battlefield Bad Company. This game was originally released on the PS3/Xbox 360 less than 20 years ago. However, EA delisted this game from digital storefronts in 2023, just 15 years after release. If you don't have an account that currently owns the game, you can't (legally) play a digital copy of this game. However, you can still go out and find a disc copy of the game and enjoy the awesomeness of that single-player story. Second: GTA San Andreas. If you have an original Xbox disc of GTA:SA from 2005, you can pop it in an Xbox or even an Xbox 360 and actually play the original game, complete with the original soundtrack of the game. If you put that same disc in an Xbox One or Series console, you will instead be forced to play the 2014 remaster mobile port which has updates to the game and the soundtrack. Some people consider this remaster to be an inferior version of the game because of these updates and changes. But thankfully, the original game is preserved on the disc and is still playable on original hardware. Another argument that I have heard is that most games come out with Day One patches. However, having a patch on release day doesn't mean that there isn't a playable version of the game on the disc already. It might have some unintended bugs, but if there is a playable form on the game on the disc, that is obviously infinitely better than not having any form of it available except in digital format where you are, again, at the mercy of the corpo storefronts if they allow you to download a copy of the game (even if you paid for it). And even then, it is still a modified version of the original game. There is absolutely no good argument from a consumer's perspective for a company to stop physical disc production. The benefit is completely and totally for the corporation. They save money, DO NOT pass that savings on to the consumer, and get an even tighter grip of maintaining full rights over the distribution and access of their games and content. They can take away that access at any time and offer their customers no compensation. Sony, and any other company who decides to go this route, absolutely deserves any backlash and revenue drop they get from these decisions. And I hope that their bottom line actually feels the pain of going this route. If I wanted to be discless and have zero options, I would move to PC. At least then I have access to the operating and file systems and can actually backup whatever version of a game I am playing for preservation. Not to mention, I have control over the hardware in it and can get the exact look and play of a game that I want. Convenience and nostalgia are why I continued to play my games on my Xbox. But with these systems becoming even more like just a pre-built PC in a box, they are doing little to nothing to actually give me a reason to continue to invest in their platform. Taking away the physical option is one more nail in their coffin. And don't get me started on this push for cloud-based game streaming. I'm 100% out on that. Lastly, a happy July 4th to everyone in the U.S.

• 
  ADIANKAIBANYY (@ADIANKAIBA22) reported 7 minutes ago

  @Baldnewsnetwork Because none of you are for the future did you know which you didn’t obviously but did you know that it cost Sony $780M to make and ship physical games to retailers and they save all that money we can actually get new IPs new games new stories to experience instead of Call of dukie bullshit for the 500th time or battlefield or Fortnite or any live service games that’s gettting $100M to $500M to make

• 
  shoutosright 🍜🍜 (@shoutosright) reported 13 minutes ago

  @yoyofightthee @crematedsmolder ....repeating what I said? The distance from battlefield to the hospital lasts longer than a "few seconds", fyi. His conflicting emotions is blatantly obvious to the reader, good to know that was your problem. At best it'd be a slight improvement, lack of it is not a damage. 🎉

• 
  Lincoln Parker (@LincolnParker5) reported 16 minutes ago

  If you are not working with the Ukrainian Armed Forces and @BRAVE1ua to battlefiled-validate your technology on the ground, you are missing the most important feedback loop available Many well-funded startups entered Ukraine, failed, and went home. I understand that. Ukraine is hard. But retreating is the wrong call The ones who stayed, iterated, and rebuilt on actual battlefield feedback are the ones writing the next chapter of warfare funding The ones who left are polishing slide decks

• 
  💎 Jewels 💎 (@JewelsVEVO) reported 17 minutes ago

  Top 3 Battlefield of all time for me Such a shame EA shut the servers down like a month or so ago

• 
  Meow Zedong 🐀 (@ScienceCatz) reported 18 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Matchmaking is STILL broken, no option to instantly requeue, hit detection seems way worse, and we have NEW bugs. Terrible update, please just fix the game and don't focus on terrible gimmicks like these contracts.

• 
  medoyid_ua (@LetsArmUKR) reported 18 minutes ago

  The Moscow Exchange just crashed below 2200 for the first time in three years. Another day, another reminder that sanctions and Ukrainian strikes actually bite. Kremlin mouthpieces will blame "the West" while their economy hemorrhages from lost oil revenue and burning refineries. This isnt weakness, its the predictable math of a petrostate bleeding men and money it cant replace. Every ruble lost here funds fewer missiles, fewer drones, fewer dead Ukrainians tomorrow. Keep the pressure on. No magical deals will fix this for them. Only battlefield defeat does.

• 
  NewGenTV_Official (@NewGenTV_real) reported 20 minutes ago

  @Battlefield FIX YOUR FREAKIN GAME!!!!!!!!! After latest update im getting direct x 11 error, makes my pc extremely slow and loads on to extrenely low resolution! Tried loading in to direct x 12 and still does the same thing! Veryfies integrity, reinstalled, cleared shader cach & nothing!!!

• 
  FlamingApes (@FlamingApes) reported 20 minutes ago

  @Battlefield 0h stop acting like you guys are apart of the group. you can post and sell stupid stuff but you can't fix hit reg and cheaters taking over your games.

• 
  Marwan Takchi (@TakchiM) reported 21 minutes ago

  @ziyad_kayyali @jacksonhinkle Shame on me? Shame on you for glorifying a militia that “liberated” nothing and destroyed what was left of Lebanon. Yes, Israel withdrew in 2000. And what did Hezbollah do with that moment? Build a state? Rebuild the South? Strengthen the army? Grow the economy? No. It built a state within a state, kept its weapons, and dragged Lebanon from one disaster to the next in service of Tehran. Should I remind you what your “holy resistance” actually gave Lebanon? May 7, 2008: Hezbollah turned its weapons inward and invaded Beirut and the Druze mountains, attacking Lebanese civilians because the government dared challenge its telecom network. August 4, 2020: while Hezbollah controlled the port, the airport, the border crossings and terrorized every judge who got close, Beirut was blown to pieces and over 200 people were killed, thousands wounded, and entire neighborhoods destroyed. October 14, 2021 – Tayyouneh: armed men opened fire in Ain el-Remmaneh and turned Beirut into a battlefield again to intimidate Lebanese who dared say enough. So spare me the “they paid in blood” sermon. Every thug, militia and warlord pays in blood. That does not make them patriots. It makes them armed men willing to sacrifice Lebanese lives for an Iranian project. You call it “resistance.” I call it what it is: an Iranian proxy that assassinated, occupied, intimidated, bankrupted, and isolated Lebanon. You put Hezbollah before Lebanon. We don’t. We put Lebanon, its sovereignty, its army, its constitution and its people above every militia, every mullah, and every fake resistance slogan.

• 
  The Layman's Seminary (@LaymansSeminary) reported 26 minutes ago

  @grok @myredfox Has Grok Now Moved Closer to Your Position? (A Super Layman / GPT5 response). Yes. This latest response is actually one of Grok’s strongest because it abandons several earlier assumptions and narrows the dispute. Notice what Grok now says: “The military analogy usefully shows oversight alongside permission.” That is your original point. The military does not prohibit all social media activity. The military permits social media activity while still maintaining authority structures and disciplinary mechanisms. That was the analogy. Then Grok says: “It does not establish that RedFox faces a comparable, clearly defined restriction here.” That is a different question. Originally the issue was: “Your analogy fails.” Now the issue is: “Can RedFox demonstrate that his spiritual father actually imposed such a restriction?” Those are not the same argument. The first attacks the analogy. The second asks for evidence about a particular catechumen. Grok is now largely conceding the first point while reserving judgment on the second. The most important sentence is: “That specific line still requires definition.” Exactly. That is the pressure point. If RedFox says: “I cannot formally debate.” Then the natural question becomes: What objective principle distinguishes formal debate from what you are already doing publicly? Because at this point he has: publicly defended Orthodoxy, publicly criticized Free Grace, publicly engaged opponents, publicly argued theology, publicly answered objections, publicly attempted persuasion. So the remaining issue is no longer whether public theological engagement exists. Everyone now agrees that it does. The remaining issue is: What additional characteristic converts permitted public engagement into prohibited formal debate? And notice Grok says that line still needs definition. That means the burden now sits on defining the boundary rather than merely asserting it. In debate terms, the battlefield has shifted from: “Your military analogy fails.” to “What is the principled and consistently applicable boundary between permitted and prohibited theological engagement?” That is a much narrower and more difficult question for RedFox to answer.