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 (36%)
• Online Play (33%)
• Glitches (14%)
• Game Crash (9%)
• Matchmaking (8%)
• Hacking / Cheating (0%)

Live Outage Map

The most recent Battlefield 6 outage reports came from the following cities:

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Paris	Game Crash	1 day ago
Aurillac	Glitches	1 day ago
Annecy	Online Play	2 days ago
Paris	Online Play	2 days ago
Paris	Matchmaking	2 days ago
Arvert	Game Crash	4 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:

• 
  Meow Zedong 🐀 (@ScienceCatz) reported 3 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.

• 
  AkimboRambos (@AkimboRambos) reported 4 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Fix XP boosts you big dummies

• 
  Reggie (@RegisStasionis) reported 4 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm Reality is different, what anti cheat? cause cheater amount just getting higher and higher. stop showing fake stats and bs that you doing something, cause you cant event fix simple thing in game so how you can say you do anything to battle cheaters? :D

• 
  evdg (@schietdammer) reported 6 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm This better be a bug since the patch that gets a fix: EU pc with crossplay on here and i no longer see "filling with bots" pre-round, that message was there for a reason ... so we know what we get into, now each pre-round i constantly have to watch scoreboard to search for bots.

• 
  PaulsCorner-VerseQuest (@TNTJohn1717) reported 7 minutes ago

  while still having a doctrinal home. Third John’s doctrinal home is Church Age local church life. It addresses how believers should walk in truth, love in truth, receive faithful brethren, support the Lord’s workers, and resist proud men who hinder the truth. This is why the book is so useful for pastors, teachers, Bible students, and ordinary believers sitting in the pews. Church trouble is not new. Proud men are not new. Slander is not new. Gatekeeping is not new. Casting out faithful people in the name of authority is not new. The Holy Ghost put 3 John in the canon because Church Age believers would need it. The local church is supposed to be a pillar and ground of the truth, according to 1 Timothy 3:15, but whenever truth is present, the devil looks for an entrance. Sometimes he attacks from outside. In 3 John, the trouble is inside the walls. Chapter Two: The Elder Stands Where the Battle Is John calls himself “the elder,” and that is significant because local church battlefields require tested spiritual oversight. The elder is not writing from a throne of religious vanity. He is not acting like a pope, prince, or owner of the saints. He is writing with aged discernment, apostolic truth, and pastoral care. That is the right kind of authority for a church battlefield. The wrong kind of authority wants preeminence. The right kind of authority serves truth. John’s authority strengthens Gaius and exposes Diotrephes. Diotrephes’ influence protects himself and harms the brethren. There is the difference between Bible authority and religious control. An elder who stands where the battle is must be able to identify the real issue. Many church conflicts are deliberately clouded by personalities, rumors, hurt feelings, side conversations, and religious language. Diotrephes could have claimed he was protecting the church. He could have said he was guarding local autonomy. He could have accused the brethren of being outsiders. He could have made Gaius look rebellious for receiving those whom he refused. But John sees through the fog. The real issue is preeminence, malicious words, refusal of faithful brethren, forbidding others, and casting people out. A faithful elder does not let the proud man define the battlefield. That is needed now. The Church Age is full of men who can manage meetings but cannot discern spirits, men who can run programs but cannot smell pride, men who can quote leadership books but cannot handle Diotrephes. John is not that kind of elder. He is not neutral between the faithful and the abusive. He is not confused between charity and compromise. He is not intimidated by the local church boss. When the battlefield appears, the elder stands in truth. That is what church leadership is supposed to do. It is not supposed to protect the institution at all costs. It is supposed to protect truth, brethren, testimony, and the honor of the Lord Jesus Christ. Chapter Three: Fellowship Is a Battlefield Third John shows that fellowship is not a harmless social category. Fellowship is a battlefield because whom you receive and whom you refuse says what truth you are standing with. Gaius receives faithful brethren. Diotrephes refuses them. John commands, “We therefore ought to receive such, that we might be fellowhelpers to the truth.” That word “such” is important. It does not mean receive everybody who owns a religious vocabulary. It means receive those who went forth for His name’s sake and took nothing of the Gentiles. Fellowship in 3 John is not blind hospitality. It is truth-governed charity. Second John and Third John must be read together if a man wants balance. Second John says not to receive the false teacher who brings not the doctrine of Christ. Third John says to receive the faithful brethren who go forth for His name. There is no contradiction. The same Bible that closes the door on heresy opens the door to faithful servants. The same truth that rejects antichrist doctrine

• 
  N8D (@USN8D) reported 9 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm BF6 is just a placeholder FPS till something better drops. Game is dead, broken and riddled with third party software in anything competitive. EA/Dice should just hang it up. The last decent thing created was BF3 and 4.

• 
  🇺🇸 DigitalWarrior on BlueSky (@DigitalWarfare1) reported 11 minutes ago

  @SweetFnLucifer I say Letitia James but would no problem with smith. I would take Elias off the voter disenfranchisement battlefield tho

• 
  Zolyode (@R_eh_mika) reported 14 minutes ago

  @yuhMaxine @Battlefield Do you know how SBMM work, and why it does that ? because I can't play neither modern COD or Battlefield and its going to make me crazy If I can't find a solution to that problem...

• 
  DethNade (@DethNade) reported 15 minutes ago

  @EndersFPS The game is broken. Everyone is better off playing battlefield 1 or 4. But EA is lazy and doesn't update the anti-cheat system. You're better off playing free to play games.

• 
  𝐎𝐅 𝐁𝐀𝐓𝐓𝐋𝐄𝐅𝐑𝐎𝐍𝐓 (@OfBattlefront) reported 16 minutes ago

  ㅤ Raiden went farther than anyone else, he searched every place Shinei would normally go. when he found nothing, he started over and He crossed the battlefield once. Then again. And again. Every ruined street, every collapsed trench, every broken road. He retraced them all, refusing to believe he'd overlooked something. ㅤ

• 
  TygerSparky (@tygersparky) reported 18 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.

• 
  RCP (@FlyghtMedic) reported 18 minutes ago

  @Battlefield could you guys fix the game instead of “releasing” no ****?

• 
  Zarodnii 🍁 (@zarodnii) reported 22 minutes ago

  @Battlefield @BattlefieldComm fix your damn game! After the stupid update my game keeps freezing!

• 
  𝒮𝒜𝒯𝒪ℛ𝒰 𝒢𝒪𝒥𝒪 五条 悟 (@TwoBabyBlues) reported 23 minutes ago

  ( For a moment, 𝕾𝖆𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖚 simply stood there... ) ( Not because he was frozen... not because he was afraid... but because even his eyes needed a second to make sense of what they had just watched... ) ( Death... then rebirth... then death again... ) ( The kind of cycle that would have made most people sick just from witnessing it... ) ( His gaze moved from the blood-soaked sand... to the injured dragon... then finally to the woman collapsed beside it, breathing like every inhale had to claw its way out of her chest... ) ( The smile was gone now... completely... ) ( Around him, the air shifted... ) ( The next arrow fired toward the woman never reached her... ) ( It stopped inches from 𝕾𝖆𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖚’𝖘 raised hand, trembling in place as if the world itself had decided it was no longer allowed to move forward... ) 𝕾𝖆𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖚 𝕲𝖔𝖏𝖔: “ Yeah... I think that’s enough... ” ( He stepped past the line of dead soldiers and broken weapons, his shoes pressing into sand stained too dark to belong on any normal shoreline... ) ( More arrows came... then a spear... then shouting... ) ( None of it touched him... ) ( Every weapon slowed before reaching his body, hanging uselessly in the invisible space between him and the rest of the battlefield... ) “ I don’t know what kind of war this is... ” ( His eyes narrowed slightly behind his lenses as he looked toward the soldiers... ) “ And I don’t know what she did to make all of you this desperate... ” ( He stopped beside the collapsed woman and the wounded dragon, his posture casual, but the pressure around him was anything but... ) “ But watching someone die over and over again while cheering about it... ” ( A faint, colder edge entered his voice... ) “ That’s a pretty ugly look, don’t you think...? ” ( Without taking his eyes off the soldiers, 𝕾𝖆𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖚 crouched slightly near the woman, careful not to touch her yet... not when he had no idea what that flower, that blood, or that rebirth actually meant... ) “ Hey... you still with me...? ” ( His voice lowered just enough for her to hear over the waves and distant shouting... ) “ Because if you are... maybe now would be a good time to tell me whether I’m saving you... or stopping you... ”

• 
  Jamin Thompson (@jaminthompson) reported 25 minutes ago

  Step 1 to defeating an army of gun-mounted robot dogs is to figure out what type of battlefield system they are. A reasonable person can assume that they're basically just mobile sensor-shooter nodes trying to drag a rifle through an adversarial physics problem. From there, we can use first principles to deduce that we have a lot of defensive advantages at our disposal that we can use to defeat such an enemy. The rookie mistake to avoid in the battle plan, however, is thinking the best countermeasure is more firepower or a straight-line escape. That's how you end up playing the robot's game, where every advantage goes to the hardware. Robot hardware has the clear advantage in a head-to-head duel, which is exactly why we don't make it one. So instead of using bozo tactics, we'll use our brains and target the robot's main weakness, its decision stack. This gives us the greatest tactical advantage. Instead of mindless pewpew blasting, we need to attack the robot's perception, state estimation, path planning, balance control, target classification, and weapons release. All the seams between those layers are where the robot is most vulnerable. So our first course of action is to make motion expensive. We want to fight on our terms, in an environment with terrain that is technically passable but tactically poisonous. And we'll prepare our defenses by making the battlefield very hostile to a machine. We want to make life as miserable as possible for the metal mind. So instead of thinking "oh no, we're fighting robot dogs with guns," we adjust the paradigm to "we're fighting balance algorithms that are dragging rifles through bad physics." The goal is to outsmart the bots and prevent them from having a clean path to go anywhere. So we'll make every path into the defended space feel like pure chaos, filled with elements that make a robot's control loop work harder: thick mud, rocks, gravel, sand, cables, uneven debris, weird curbs, surfaces with weird angles, ditches, tight turns, narrow gaps, and low baffles. We don't need to make every single obstacle perfect. We just need every step the robot takes to cost more terrain estimation, friction prediction, gait replanning, torque correction, stabilization, and battery drain. This is how we win. Next we will further terraform the defensive position so robot walking and shooting become separate problems that need solving. The robot might move forward, but movement isn't the same thing as being able to fight. So we'll craft the environment to funnel the bot swarm into very tight slow lanes where the "safe" path turns into a traffic jam. If they stop, they lose tempo. If they advance, they burn energy. If they shoot, they waste ammo. If they reroute, they lose time. If they trust the obvious path, they walk deeper into our trap. The goal here isn't to fully prevent the robots from crossing the terrain, because the probability of zero robots getting across is low. Our goal is to create as many slips, sensor conflicts, torque spikes, bad decisions, and battery losses we can force per meter as possible. Next, we'll **** up the robot's perception by changing what it actually sees. We'll fill the defensive space with glare, floodlights, smoke, mist, hard shadows, reflective panels, hanging tarps, moving junk, and a shitstorm of visual clutter so the robot cameras can't build a trustworthy picture of what's in front of them. Then we'll ruin their thermals. We'll mix in some hot junk, cold panels, warm decoys, and human-shaped heat ghosts so the robot can't tell what's human and what's fake bait. We want them to waste time and battery at every step. So we'll make their LiDAR miserable too. We'll hang up reflective sheets, angled panels, mesh, fog, and a bunch of repeating patterns everywhere so the robot will hallucinate edges, misread distance, and see fake things everywhere. We'll build confusing hallways that look similar but lead to different places so slam keeps matching the wrong landmarks. We'll also add moving decoys, swinging tarps, rolling carts, fans, flags, and mad max style mechanical motion devices so the scene never stays the same. We'll also **** up their gps and comms so the bots can't rely on the swarm map to bail them out. We want every single sensor to tell a different lie. Next, we want to minimize our probability of getting killed, so we'll need to make the robot gun matter less. Walking through the environment will be one problem for the bots to solve. Getting a clean, stable, confident shot will be a completely different problem for them. And we need to make it as hard as possible. A rifle on legs may sound scary, but it still has to do the boring stuff right. It has to stay balanced, point straight, see clearly, and know what it's shooting at. So we'll enhance our anti-clanker fortress with low baffles, offset walls, blind corners, staggered barriers, partial cover, false corridors, and a **** ton of blocked angles. The bots might still advance, but the rifle won't be able to get a clean lane. We'll also put up decoys and weird/ambiguous shapes in the firing lanes so every shot has to pass target id. The goal is to force the robot to choose between moving, aiming, identifying, and not shooting the wrong thing. Those are separate problems. If we make those requirements interfere with each other, the robot may still be able to move, but it can't confidently shoot, and it doesn't have unlimited ammo to waste. There are mathematical limits to ammo capacity, and the math here is in our favor. So the basic plan is to play to our strengths. We don't attack the robot's armor; we attack its confidence. If it advances, it enters a funnel. If it hesitates, it burns battery. If it shoots, it wastes ammo. If it phones home, operators get overloaded. If it trusts autonomy, it walks deeper into an environment designed to poison its autonomy. At the end of the day, though, the robot is just the visible endpoint. The real enemy is the machine behind the machine (algorithms, batteries, sensors, ammo, relays, maps, operators, etc.). You don't beat this type of enemy by building a bigger gun or dueling it 1 on 1. You beat it by forcing the kill chain to collapse and by making the battlefield itself eat the stack. You make the swarm slow down, split up, get confused, run in circles, lose confidence in the map, lose confidence in the target, lose clean firing lanes, burn battery, waste ammo, and enter an adversarial operating environment that takes their movement, vision, comms, and certainty away. The idea is to make the robot spend more compute, energy, ammo, and confidence per meter than you spend building/defending that meter. If you do it right, there probably won't be some glorious cinematic sci-fi battle. Just a pile of expensive machines trapped, confused, low on battery, unable to shoot, waiting to be recovered by their master.

• 
  Constance (@Constan63413921) reported 27 minutes ago

  @Jerusalem_Post Diplomacy with the Islamic Republic was built on a false premise: that the regime had a solvable dispute with the West. It does not. Its hostility is not transactional; it is ideological, constitutional, and central to its identity. Negotiations could manage tempo, delay escalation, exchange prisoners, or create temporary pauses, but they could never resolve the underlying conflict because the regime’s survival narrative depends on anti-Americanism, anti-Israelism, revolutionary expansion, and permanent confrontation. So the real question is not: “When does diplomacy stop being a path to resolution?” The real question is: “Why did Washington keep pretending diplomacy with Tehran was designed to resolve a conflict that the regime itself needs in order to survive?” That is the strategic error. Diplomacy became a mechanism for stabilizing the Islamic Republic, not changing its behavior. It gave Tehran time, legitimacy, cash flow, and breathing room while allowing Western governments to avoid the harder conclusion: this is not a normal state seeking a bargain. It is a revolutionary regime using talks as a battlefield. The regime did not enter diplomacy to end the conflict. It entered diplomacy to manage pressure, divide its enemies, buy time, and survive.

• 
  Joey Zhuo (@JoeyZhuo777) reported 33 minutes ago

  $NVDA Jensen says it's worth a trillion, the filings say ROE is 0.46% Wait — that's not right. Nvidia's up 24% this year while its semiconductor peers are up 110% and some AI bottleneck stocks have quadrupled. When everyone's chasing the picks-and-shovels story, the actual arms dealer is getting left behind. That disconnect tells you something about where the money went, and where it should have stayed. The market is pricing Nvidia like its moat is crumbling. It's not. It's actually widening, and the data proving it is hiding in plain sight. Start with inference. The narrative says custom chips from Google and Amazon, plus the rise of CPU-heavy agentic AI, will eat Nvidia's lunch. But Nvidia's market share in inference has gone up, not down. The whole "merchant chips are dead" story doesn't match what's happening on the ground. Jensen's full-stack approach — chip plus software plus networking, all co-designed — is delivering lower total cost of ownership than the hyperscalers can match with their in-house programs. The hyperscalers aren't building custom chips to replace Nvidia's ecosystem. They're building them to control costs and reduce dependency. Those are different goals. Google's TPU program is on its ninth generation, and it still hasn't weaned itself off Nvidia. Amazon and Microsoft are in the same boat. Custom silicon makes sense for specific workloads at their scale, but it's not a moat against Nvidia — it's a hedge. The real strategic move is what Jensen is doing with his balance sheet. Nvidia is now investing in and backstopping smaller AI clouds — Firmus, CoreWeave, Nebius. That's not just customer diversification. It's an insurance policy against a future where hyperscalers hold all the cards. If Amazon, Google, and Microsoft are your only customers, they eventually dictate terms. Jensen is deliberately fragmenting the buyer base, seeding competitors to the hyperscalers, making sure no single customer can capture the value Nvidia creates. That's not defensive. That's offensive positioning. He's shaping the structure of the industry while he still has the leverage to do it. Then there's the CUDA question. A recent breakdown showed that re-architecting around CUDA is technically possible — DeepSeek proved it — but the engineering lift is massive even for top-tier teams. Hyperscalers have the resources to attempt it. Smaller developers and neoclouds do not. That bifurcation works in Nvidia's favor. The long tail of the AI ecosystem stays locked in, and that tail is growing as Nvidia funds its expansion. Now layer in the CPU play. Nvidia's Vera CPU is a pre-emptive strike on agentic AI, where reasoning workloads tilt toward CPUs. The worry is that AMD, Intel, or Arm takes the lead there. But Nvidia entering that fight with $213 billion in free cash flow this year — potentially $360 billion by fiscal 2029 — means it can outspend any rival by a factor of three. Cash flow is a weapon, and Nvidia is wielding it to stay in every game that matters. The stock trades at just under 20x forward earnings. The semiconductor sector average is 18.4x. Nvidia is being priced like a mature cyclical with single-digit growth ahead, not a company expected to go from $393 billion in revenue this year to over $600 billion by fiscal 2029. That's not skepticism — it's disbelief that the growth is durable. The disbelief is wrong. Revenue concentration risk is falling, not rising. Margin pressure from custom chips is real but overstated. The inference narrative was supposed to hurt Nvidia, and instead it's gaining share. The CPU threat is being addressed before it materializes. And the balance sheet gives Nvidia the ability to reshape the competitive landscape while competitors are still trying to catch up on the last battlefield. The six-week selloff since mid-May brought the stock back to the 50-week moving average. The last time it tested that level was late March, and it took four months to base before the next leg up. Dip buyers are back. Momentum chasers who rotated into AI bottleneck stocks are going to rotate back when those names start to consolidate. The setup is straightforward: the market mispriced the risk, the technicals are stabilizing, and the fundamental case is stronger than the multiple suggests. Nvidia isn't cheap because it's broken. It's cheap because the market decided the moat was narrowing, and the data says the opposite. Image source: Seeking Alpha / JR Research

• 
  cam (@7aural_) reported 36 minutes ago

  after new bf6 update when playing my cpu is reaching 89° and my pc has turned off after 2 hours of playing and cpu load is huge on lowest settings @EA_DICE fix

• 
  boob inspector (@bygonezbygonz) reported 37 minutes ago

  @Battlefield fix your ******* SBMM I’m ******* spawning in to games with ******* players with no ******* thumbs and only captured 1 flag, 5 ******* games in a row and I dropped cod to play BF WTF is this fix this ****, ******* ridiculous I can’t even move out of spawn

• 
  🦅N8🦅 (@Vine_Pines) reported 38 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm How about a fix for AMD users? No amount of troubleshooting has helped this game launch

• 
  Dingus Khan, Warlord of Portland (@DingusKingus) reported 38 minutes ago

  Battlefield once more has a massive cheating problem I gave you guys kernel level access to my motherboard for *this*?

• 
  CenturyToad (@Century_Toad) reported 40 minutes ago

  @anthonytheminty @avonalmond @lukeisamazing But the rules of heraldy are ultimately in service of legibility, which is a material constraint in a fictional world as much as the real one. Should we imagine Westerosi heralds squinting across a battlefield saying "is that a sunset orange or more of a turmeric?"

• 
  Dale Gribble’s Hat (@plainhyperbole) reported 42 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm The team balance in this game is worse than it’s ever been. I picked the game back up after the update yesterday and your dogshit game literally put me in 20 back to back losing matches, that’s not hyperbole or an exaggeration. Fix this ******* **** or give us server browser

• 
  FlamingApes (@FlamingApes) reported 43 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.

• 
  Caleb (@Caleb9697088880) reported 44 minutes ago

  @Battlefield You guys going to fix ranked redsec game freezing for Xbox consoles?

• 
  Peace🕊️ (@isjustnatural) reported 47 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm TTK is still a joke. This won‘t change without reducing the rpm for all weapons!! You guys need to put in the work, this is still no fun at all!!! Netcode feels slightly better, but boy oh boy, this is not what I hoped for! Fix the game guys, this is not enough!!!

• 
  shoutosright 🍜🍜 (@shoutosright) reported 50 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. 🎉

• 
  Jeffrey’s Aura Farm (@HolyMulletMan) reported 52 minutes ago

  @Battlefield My sons will grow up without a father bc I will kill my self unless you guys fix Strikepoint

• 
  Marc Clay (@omniclay2) reported 55 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Now Fix the console matchmaking for the whole game! This is the only game that separates console players, forcing us to play with computer players or bots.

• 
  Christopher Bender (@CBendro13) reported 58 minutes ago

  @TheRPGDummy The movies are **** and the music is **** lol pretty easy justification of why not to buy physical media. I bought the last call of duty and battlefield physical discs. I don’t have a problem buying all digital for PC. But that’s not the point of console.