I believe one of the core issues facing Battlefield 6 PC players stems from the very reason many people choose PC gaming in the first place: freedom of choice and customization. PC platforms allow players to tailor their experience, whether that means using a keyboard and mouse, an Xbox controller, a PlayStation 5 controller, or a bespoke accessibility setup, to suit their personal preferences and physical needs.
On PC, while controllers such as the PS5 DualSense are technically supported, they often suffer from poor or inconsistent dead-zone behavior, which can negatively affect aiming precision and overall gameplay feel. Historically, PC gamers have relied on tools such as Steam Input or other third-party software to correct these shortcomings. These solutions have long been an accepted and legitimate part of the PC gaming ecosystem, enabling players to overcome hardware limitations and enjoy games as intended.
The issue arises because a small minority of players exploit these same tools to gain an unfair competitive advantage. By deliberately manipulating third-party software, some users can make a game believe they are using a controller while actually playing with a keyboard and mouse, thereby benefiting from controller aim assist. This is a clear abuse of game mechanics and rightly undermines fair competition.
However, it is critical to distinguish between malicious exploitation and legitimate use. The vast majority of PC players who use third-party software do so not to cheat, but to fix technical issues, improve comfort, or enable accessibility. The mere presence of such software on a system should not automatically classify a player as a cheater.
A key example is reWASD, an input-remapping tool designed primarily for controller and keyboard configuration. Beyond general customization, reWASD plays a crucial role in gaming accessibility. Many disabled players rely on software like this to participate in first-person shooters at all, some using adaptive controllers, head tracking, or sip-and-puff devices, where actions such as crouching, reloading, or aiming must be mapped in highly specific ways. Without these tools, gaming becomes inaccessible for a significant portion of the community.
Personally, I use reWASD to play games such as Squad with a controller, an experience that would otherwise be impractical due to the game’s heavy reliance on keyboard and mouse. This use case is about accessibility and comfort, not competitive advantage.
To their credit, the developers of reWASD have reportedly attempted to engage with EA to find collaborative solutions that would prevent abuse while protecting legitimate and accessibility-driven use cases. Unfortunately, these attempts appear to have been met with automated or non-committal responses, rather than meaningful technical collaboration. As a result, players who simply have reWASD installed on their systems risk being automatically and permanently banned when launching Battlefield 6, regardless of whether the software is being used at all.
This brings into question the fairness of EA’s ban and appeal process. If a player is banned solely because software exists on their system, and not because of proven exploitative behavior, then any successful appeal should be handled transparently and responsibly. In such cases, EA should clearly state something along the following lines:
“Unfortunately, our current anti-cheat technology is not advanced enough to reliably determine whether the third-party software detected on your system was being used to exploit the game for an unfair advantage. As a result, we have lifted the ban. However, we recommend uninstalling this software to avoid future bans while we continue to improve our anti-cheat systems. We apologise for any inconvenience caused.”
Such a response would acknowledge technical limitations, restore access to innocent players, and set clear expectations going forward—without unjustly punishing users who rely on legitimate customization or accessibility tools.
Ultimately, context and intent matter. Anti-cheat systems should focus on behavior-based detection, not blanket software bans. Failing to make this distinction not only alienates large portions of the PC community but disproportionately impacts disabled players, accessibility advocates, and those who rely on adaptive technologies. If EA wishes to foster an inclusive and fair gaming environment, meaningful engagement, transparency, and nuance in enforcement are not optional, they are essential.
