Battlefield 6: We Expect Better Than This!
Ever since the beta we have been giving clear feedback and almost nothing meaningful has changed. The game still feels nearly identical, with a bit of polish here and there, but the fundamental issue...
Forum Discussion
You're representing your own opinion, not the opinion of others. This mention of "we" isn't necessary. Since the beta there have been a ton of significant changes to the game. These changes have already addressed many of the issues that people were having with the game. To give you an example, the patches have addressed weapon balance, visibility and sound design. Some things are still a work in progress though.
Some guns feel pointless, especially SMGs that barely have any role in the current meta.
SMGs were the meta before season 1 and it's yet to be seen what the current post-season 1 patch meta will be. I have no clue how you could even come to the conclusion that they are pointless.
Crossplay feels unfair for PC players. We have to deal with strong aim assist from console players.
If I look at the scoreboard, I don't see an overrepresentation of console players in the top positions. I honestly don't think aim assist is an issue at all.
There is simply too much wrong at the moment. It feels like money comes first and quality second. Loyal fans deserve better. I genuinely regret buying the game in its current state.
Battlefield games have traditionally had troubled launches, where they would be broken for at least a year before they finally fixed it. Battlefield 6 surpassed all expectations for me, especially after that trainwreck called Battlefield 2042. It's pretty polished for the scope and complexity of the game. There are certainly a few issues, but none of them are bad enough to rob me from my enjoyment of the game.
Thanks for your reply, but I want to be very clear. I am speaking for myself here, and I am using what players are widely talking about across the official forums, Steam discussions and Reddit right now.
Yes, the game has changed since the beta. There have been good improvements with visibility, lighting and audio mixes. I acknowledge that. The problem is that several of the biggest gameplay issues are still happening every day.
SMGs and weapon balance
You are right that SMGs were the meta pre–Season 1. That actually proves my point: weapon balance is unstable. The moment we get a big patch, half the weapon sandbox swings from strong to frustrating. Right now, players are arguing about inconsistent TTK, weird recoil behavior and close-range duels feeling random. That is not healthy balance. The conversation isn’t “SMGs are gone,” it is “weapons feel unreliable and the balance swings like a yo-yo.”
Hit registration and detection
This is not a “maybe.” Players are consistently reporting hits not registering, especially up close. Fire first, die first. Bullets disappearing in point-blank fights. Dying behind cover. This directly kills the trust players need in a shooter. When you aim correctly and lose because the server says no, that is a core gameplay failure.
Visibility in real combat situations
Static targets look fine. In an actual firefight you get blinded by dust, particle spam, flames and bloom. That means beautiful graphics become a disadvantage. A shooter where seeing the enemy becomes a lottery is a shooter with a serious gameplay problem.
Sound and footsteps
Audio got better, yes. Still, footstep localization is unreliable enough that you cannot consistently defend or pre-aim. If sound cannot guide a player in a tactical shooter, that is unfinished work.
Cross-play and aim assist
Top players exist on every platform, absolutely. That doesn’t change the fact that PC players constantly report awkward input parity and inconsistent aim assist interactions. If a large part of the community feels something is off, then there is a real tuning issue. Balance that, give proper toggles, and the complaints will disappear.
Monetization and direction
Battle passes aren’t the main issue. The timing is. When the core experience still needs work, pushing monetization first sends the wrong message. Bad optics matter too.
My conclusion
Battlefield 6 is a step up from 2042, yes. It still has critical gameplay flaws that cannot be ignored just because some people personally enjoy it. Shooters live or die by gunfeel, visibility and reliability. These things are still inconsistent. I paid full price for a premium shooter and I expect those fundamentals to be rock solid.
If the devs fix hit-reg, lock down visibility in chaotic fights and finalize audio directionality, this game will absolutely shine. Until then, it is perfectly valid to call out what is still broken.
Quality first. Money second. Loyal fans deserve that.
I am using what players are widely talking about across the official forums, Steam discussions and Reddit right now.
The problem with using the experience of other people, is that it feeds confirmation bias. People on social media platforms are often objectively wrong. It's to the point where people believe the exact opposite of the truth. If you base your own opinion on theirs, chances are you end up believing falsehoods.
That actually proves my point: weapon balance is unstable.
You first claim that some weapons are pointless and now you're complaining that they are making changes to the weapon balance? If you want things to get fixed, changes are a necessity.
If you're talking about inconsistency in the gunplay, that had two major reasons, bugs related to spread and the way the netcode works. The bugs related to spread were fixed in the season 1 patch. Weapons are way more consistent now. Recoil and the overall TTK had nothing to do with it.
This is not a “maybe.” Players are consistently reporting hits not registering, especially up close.
That's because those reports are accurate and to some extent, it's just the way the game works. Simply put, there's always a delay between the client and the server. What you see on your screen is usually ahead of what the server knows about. So, if the server verifies that somebody killed you, the server invalidates any damage that you did after you were killed.
It takes a tiny bit of time before your client receives the information from the server. In practice this means that it may look like you're shooting an enemy, but the last few bullets don't register. One potential reason this happens up close, is because people use weapons with a higher fire rate, which means that there's more bullets shot for each server tick, so the amount of bullets that get invalidated is larger.
It's a complicated subject though and there may be other bugs at play. Having a low ping and a high server/client tickrate certainly helps though.
Sound and footsteps
It's certainly an issue, but it doesn't affect everyone in the same way. I've heard people complain they can't hear footsteps, while others complain that they are too loud. It could be how the game is designed as well, since there are specific perks that may make footstep sounds louder or more quiet.
PC players constantly report awkward input parity and inconsistent aim assist interactions.
I'm not seeing those reports all that often. I don't believe it's a large part of the community. I'm not seeing objective comparisons. What I am seeing is people describe how they feel about things. It doesn't tell me much. People could just be chasing a placebo.
When the core experience still needs work, pushing monetization first sends the wrong message.
This is such a weird statement to make. They already waited to monetize this game until after the season 1 patch. It seems completely impractical for them to wait until an arbitrary and subjective level of quality has been reached. The core experience always needs work. If they had to wait for that, they couldn't ever monetize the game.
I don't believe any of these issues are actually "critical". When you call flaws critical, it means that they render you unable to play. While they can certainly be frustrating, you can play just fine.
I am absolutely forming my own opinion. Community feedback doesn’t replace my judgment, it reinforces what I already experience in the game. There will always be players like you who think everything is perfectly fine. That is valid. What is also valid is that a huge number of players are dissatisfied, whether you personally like that or not. Your enjoyment does not overwrite theirs.
You say players on forums are “objectively wrong.” That is quite ironic, because the same applies to any one person claiming their view is the truth. If anything, large volumes of player feedback highlight trends that a single individual cannot dismiss with “confirmation bias” every time it disagrees with them.
Weapon balance
You’re twisting what I wrote. I never complained that weapons change. I said that balance swings are extreme and gunfeel inconsistency remains. Patches fixing spread exploits doesn’t magically make the sandbox stable. A game of this scale needs fine tuning, not pendulum swings.Hit registration
You gave a textbook latency explanation like nobody understands basic netcode. High TTK invalidations aren’t the core issue. The real frustration is that in extremely common close-range engagements, the result feels disconnected from player input. When the core feedback loop of shooting feels unreliable, the shooter has a fundamental gameplay problem. “You can still play” is not an excuse for poor gunfeel.Visibility and audio
You claim issues “don’t affect everyone.” Exactly. That inconsistency is the problem. When critical information like footsteps or enemy silhouettes behave unpredictably between players and situations, that undermines fair competition. A tactical shooter demands consistent sensory feedback. Sometimes footsteps are loud, sometimes they vanish. Sometimes enemies are clear, sometimes swallowed by VFX. Variability is the enemy of skill-based play.Aim assist and cross-play
You are “not seeing” the reports often. That doesn’t mean they do not exist. It means your experience is not representative of the entire community. Plenty of PC players feel cross-play interactions are off, whether due to rotational AA or input mismatch. Ignoring them doesn’t erase the issue.Monetization timing
You call my point “weird.” I call your bar extremely low. After a disastrous franchise entry like 2042, quality perception matters more than ever. Monetization arriving while core systems still frustrate a large portion of players creates the exact impression that trust has not been earned yet. That isn’t subjective. That is basic consumer confidence.“None of these issues are critical”
For you. Awesome. For many players, these issues directly reduce enjoyment, performance consistency and trust in the game. A competitive multiplayer shooter is not judged on whether it “runs.” It is judged on whether it feels fair, responsive and skill rewarding.I am glad you are having a great time. Truly. I want to have that too. Calling out flaws isn’t negativity for the sake of it. It is asking a premium shooter to deliver premium gameplay. If something is holding that back, I have every right to say it without someone telling me my experience is invalid because they are fine.
You enjoy the game as it is. Good for you. I expect better from Battlefield.
So you honestly believe that the game is fine as it is, no need to patch or update it, just pay full price for a game that plays like every other game despite the rise on price or doing the complete opposite of what they promised. If it needs fixing they will get to it when they get to it, thats your argument
Your entitled to your opinion but don't assume we all enjoy to settle. Battle royale has a better feel then the actual base game and that is frustrating. Not to mention you agree that there are issues but don't mind it cause it should be expected. How about we only pay for games if they meet our expectations, that is the biggest BS to give as a counter argument. You point flaws on a game to refine it, constructive criticism improves upon what is already there, what is the point in not pointing an issue that is there as downplaying it will make it seem like there is no issue at all. They tested the game and if they didn't fix it they are fine with it and we are paying for it.
I don't think I've ever said the things you said I did.
How about we only pay for games if they meet our expectations, that is the biggest BS to give as a counter argument.
You may think this is BS, but that's absolutely what you should be doing. It's simply not a good economic decision to buy a game that fails to meet your expectations to begin with. If you don't enjoy the game you're purchasing, you're just going to be frustrated while you wait for fixes that may or may not come. That doesn't exclude you from giving feedback to further improve the game though. You can absolutely do both.
