A open question to EA employees why no upgraded servers?

Year after year, a new FC game is released, yet we're still dealing with the same server problems: input delay, inconsistent gameplay, lag, stuttering, button delay, heavy gameplay during peak hours, and matches that feel completely different from one game to the next.

It's 2026. For a company worth billions, it's difficult to understand why these issues continue to define the online experience. On a Friday evening around 6 p.m., when player numbers are highest, the gameplay often becomes noticeably worse. Passing feels delayed, players take extra touches, skill moves don't register when expected, and the game simply feels unresponsive.

Then you look at other competitive games like VALORANT, which invested in 128-tick servers and modern networking infrastructure to provide a more consistent online experience. Whether it's the server tick rate, network architecture, or overall investment, the difference in responsiveness is obvious.

What frustrates the FC community most isn't just the gameplay inconsistency—it's the lack of transparency. Every year, thousands of players raise the same concerns about input delay and heavy gameplay, yet the issue is rarely addressed in any meaningful detail.

So here's the question many players want answered:

What is the real reason?

Is it a financial decision because upgrading infrastructure for millions of players worldwide would be too expensive? Is it a technical limitation caused by the Frostbite engine, server architecture, or global matchmaking? Or is there another reason the community hasn't been told?

Players aren't asking for perfection—they're asking for consistency. We'd simply appreciate an honest, detailed explanation instead of silence. Competitive games should reward skill, not whichever player happens to get the better connection to an overloaded server.