Technologies
Battlefield 6 Review: Big-Battle Mayhem Is Back, but Destruction Is AWOL
The revamped Battlefield has some divisive tweaks, but its signature mechanic is now more cosmetic than strategic.
Marching forward down an alley, gunfire rings out and my squadmates go down. As the last one standing, I hit the ground while bullets whiz over my head, using my defibrillator gadget to crawl forward and revive my teammates one by one — the whole squad brought back to take the day.Â
It’s a moment that could only happen in Battlefield 6, EA DICE’s next entry in the beloved military shooter franchise. In my early time with the game, I’ve had a range of these “experiences” that remind me why this franchise stands out from Call of Duty and other modern first-person shooters. And while the new game feels like it’s crept closer to the rapid-paced arena-style combat of those other FPS games, it mostly keeps to the Battlefield series’ signature experience: squad-based, large-scale battles mixing soldiers and vehicles.
Mostly, anyway — though some of developer EA DICE’s choices during the Open Beta rubbed players the wrong way, including letting each class use every weapon type. That setup will likely remain the dominant way to play multiplayer, despite the more restrictive Closed Weapons mode still available. It’s a tweak to the Battlefield formula seemingly meant to attract gamers beyond the series’ playerbase. While it does dilute some of the game’s identity, it’ll be hard to gauge how much until the full release.
One of the game’s most notable visual upgrades also proves paper-thin in multiplayer matches. Destruction barely matters — fire an explosive or a tank round into a building and only the outer walls will crumble. It’s undeniable that EA DICE made the crumbling debris look stunning, but it barely serves a purpose in combat. Gone are the days of leveling entire buildings into rubble, as in Battlefield 1 and 5, when destruction could reshape the battlefield. With so many of Battlefield 6’s maps set in dense city streets and alleys, it’s a shame I couldn’t blast open more pathways and lanes for a strategic advantage.
Players may eventually find better ways to exploit the destruction mechanics. But that won’t happen on day one, since most explosive gadgets are locked behind higher progression levels or specific challenges when Battlefield 6 launches on Oct. 10. At best, players can equip all their classes with a sledgehammer melee weapon and try taking down buildings one swing at a time. They won’t get far more useful demolition tools until after lots of playtime — C4 sapper charges for the Recon class, for instance, aren’t available until reaching level 20 and a class challenge is finished.
What’s left is a competent, riveting shooter that shines where Battlefield always has — in large-scale battles where squads capture zones and outmaneuver enemies with a mix of coordinated tactics and vehicle support. That’s where you’ll find those unforgettable, had-to-be-there moments of wild survival and miraculous plays that are now easier than ever to record to send to your friends. Outside that sweet spot — in the areas where Battlefield 6 tries to encroach on other shooters’ turf — the gameplay feel less natural. I can only lose so many close-quarter gunfights before I start craving the chaos of the big battlefield again.
Battlefield 6 pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses
Battlefield 6 includes a solo campaign mode, which I unlocked about halfway through — a middling story about a NATO combat unit shipping out around the world to fight the global mercenary force Pax Armata. There’s enough intrigue in an overarching intelligence conspiracy plot to pique interest, and some fun set pieces, including an airdrop, a beach landing in an armored personnel carrier and a stealth infiltration. But mostly, it’s a bunch of shooting down corridors until you’re off to the next international location that shows up prominently in multiplayer maps.
For most gamers, multiplayer is where they’ll spend almost all their time in Battlefield 6. The large-scale modes are the standouts, though maps are hit or miss. Liberation Peak is a mountainous desert with zones split between landscape features. Operation Firestorm, returning from Battlefield 3, is an overly large map with vast stretches of empty terrain between capture points that practically requires vehicles just to reach the firefights. The best maps balance verticality with clear lanes for patient long-range shots and tighter areas packed with obstacles for cover for frantic close-range fights.
The same goes for Battlefield’s large-scale All-Out Warfare modes. Breakthrough is enjoyable, with teams taking turns between attacking and defending as they fall back across capture zones. Conquest keeps things straightforward — rack up points for holding objectives. Escalation, meanwhile, tends to drag on as teams struggle to capture and hold each map’s trio of zones to secure a win.
The game’s close-quarters modes — like Team Deathmatch and King of the Hill, which most closely mirror Call of Duty’s small-scale, high-intensity fights — are even more polarizing. With no vehicles to take out, the Engineer class is functionally worthless. The maps, which are small chunks carved from the large-scale maps, make or break CQC: One split off from Liberation Peak was frenetically fun to play, while another from Manhattan Bridge was boring, with bland, gray buildings under construction.Â
Keep in mind, most of my impressions come from the open beta, since the Battlefield 6 review period had relatively few online players. Most of my matches had just a handful of flesh-and-blood teammates and rivals, with bots filling in around 90% of the roster on each side. While that meant I couldn’t properly preview the new maps introduced after the open beta, it still gave me an idea of what they represented — as well as all the guns and gadgets that’ll come with the full game.
Battlefield 6’s arsenal at launch is respectably robust, with 41 main weapons. Not all categories are quality stocked, though — assault rifles, SMGs and LMGs each get eight options, while shotguns and sniper rifles only have three apiece. But players will have to play awhile to use them; I’m at level 14 and can only access 11 weapons. Among the game’s four pistols to choose from, I can only use one so far.Â
Gadgets are also locked behind higher levels or challenges, which, I can only imagine, will frustrate new players who’ll likely have to slog through hours of playtime to fully diversify their kits. I was particularly annoyed to be stuck with the Engineer’s basic land mine, which can be thrown all of three feet, knowing far more advanced anti-vehicle options are waiting at levels 27 and 37.
Once players get all their toys and guns, they’ll likely better match tactics to their preferred play style. That’s not even counting the two so-called Training Paths eventually available. These paths open up new abilities during matches, including better vehicle repair or extra ordnance, encouraging players to stick with single classes.Â
Add in grenades and class items and that’s a lot of complexity to juggle during matches. This balance is one of Battlefield 6’s biggest strengths, giving a boost to players who aren’t FPS veterans — supporting teammates or taking out vehicles can be just as valuable as racking up kills.
There are still frustrating frictions within the game — some of which teach lessons — like the ultra-fast time-to-kill that can drop you in under a second, encouraging you to stick to cover and set up ambushes instead. Others are baffling developer choices: I once squared off against an enemy attack helicopter, firing off several anti-air Stinger missiles that always missed thanks to a seemingly endless supply of diverting chaff spurting from the spicy whirlybird, which always gunned me down moments after. Why even bother giving players anti-air options?
Did EA DICE ruin Battlefield 6 with open weapons?
Probably the most controversial choice EA DICE has made is switching from locking certain weapons to specific classes. In prior Battlefield games, Assault got midrange assault rifles, Engineer got close-range submachine guns, Support got large-magazine light machine guns and Recon got sniper rifles. While every class could use more limited shotguns, medium- to long-range designated marksman rifles and the all-around carbines, their “signature weapons” were most often the best choice.Â
In Battlefield 6, EA DICE opened the floodgates by letting every class use every weapon in so-called Open Weapon playlists, though there are still power-up advantages to picking guns suited to each class, including less delay in aiming down sights. In a post-mortem blog post analyzing player behavior in the open beta, the studio confirmed that “more players played with non-signature weapons in Open Weapon playlists.” But even so, the post continued, “there was not a single dominant weapon archetype, and we observed a consistent and well-distributed pick-rate between them.”
The deadly assault rifle wasn’t, for example, the de facto pick that made every other weapon pointless. That matched my experience, with players rotating between different guns. Heck, the humble M4A1, the first carbine available to all players, was the gun I was probably killed by most. There’s so much variety in play style and gun options that I didn’t see a noticeable advantage when I stuck with one specific gun across classes. More often, I was getting my kicks playing to my role by taking on tanks as an Engineer or reviving teammates as a Support.Â
Battlefield fans holding onto hope that EA DICE will reverse course will almost surely be disappointed: Open beta players who tried both Open and Closed Weapons modes tended to stick with the former, since it let them use any weapon with any class. “This reinforces our belief that Open Weapons is the right path forward for Battlefield 6,” developers wrote in the blog post. Closed Weapons game types will be available at launch as a consolation prize, but it seems like players who want to join the majority should get with the times and embrace Battlefield’s all-weapon direction.
Ultimately, Battlefield 6 gives the series’ fans the big battle experiences they’ve been wanting, though it doesn’t offer too many unique advantages in small-team firefight modes over rival military shooters. At launch, players should also be able to make their own custom games via Portal, which wasn’t available during our review period. EA DICE has shown to be reasonably responsive to player feedback with all the changes made after the open beta, but the game’s longevity relies on its bones — and how many only-in-Battlefield moments it gives players. I certainly had my share.
Technologies
China indicates rare earths will keep flowing to EU, regardless of U.S. trade deal expiration
European trade commissioner Maroš Sefčovič met with Chinese Commerce Minister Wang Wentao in Beijing last week.
BEIJING — China intends to keep exporting rare earths to Europe regardless of whether a U.S. trade deal with Beijing gets extended past January.
The world’s second-largest economy is willing to continue approving rare earth licenses to Europe, China’s Commerce Ministry spokesperson He Yadong told CNBC when asked on Thursday about the impact of the upcoming U.S. deadline.
Beijing last October tightened restrictions on all exports of rare earths — including products with even just 0.1% of China-sourced rare earths. The move followed a new U.S. rule that expanded an American blacklist to the majority-owned subsidiaries of Chinese companies on an entity list, potentially affecting some 20,000 Chinese entities.
However, both the U.S. and China agreed to suspend those measures for one year at a meeting in late October 2025 between Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Donald Trump. Ahead of the leaders’ latest summit last month, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the truce was extended by two months to January.
Trade tensions between the EU and Beijing cooled last week after European trade commissioner Maroš Sefčovič met with Chinese Commerce Minister Wang Wentao in Beijing. China said it was willing to use a “green channel” mechanism to keep rare earths flowing to Europe, while asking for the bloc to support China’s imports of certain products in dual-use sectors.
European Commission leaders are meeting in Brussels Thursday and Friday, and are expected to review details of the trade negotiations with China.
Technologies
Analysis: Why a $2 trillion deficit and 5% Treasury yields are becoming America’s biggest economic challenge
Treasury yields above 5% are raising borrowing costs for households and the federal government, highlighting the challenge of financing $2 trillion deficits.
Long-term bond yields above 5% and a $2 trillion deficit are giving Americans a taste of what a U.S. debt crisis would be like. A true emergency would hurt much more, and isn’t baked in. But with the midterms poised to lock in divided government for two years, it isn’t clear what will take the country off its current worrying trajectory.
Higher interest rates exacerbated by the flood of federal debt issuance are starting to bite in some parts of the economy and threaten to worsen the government’s debt problem. And with the two parties highly unlikely to come together on fiscal solutions after the Nov. 3 midterms, any fixes are years off in the future.
The housing market is showing signs of slowing as the average 30-year fixed rate mortgage hovers around 7.5%. Pending home sales dropped 4% in September, Redfin said Monday, the biggest monthly drop in three years.
Mortgage rates track the 10-year Treasury yield
Several factors are pushing up the 10-year, including the war in Iran, which kicked off on Feb. 28 and precipitated the rise in long-term yields. Oil and diesel prices are up sharply, and that has bond traders asking for more yield to account for the possibility that central banks such as the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates.
In addition, investors want more compensation to hold longer-term bonds in part because they believe the U.S. government will continue to flood the market with them. The markets for corporate and government debt are connected, and the competition for capital among them is intensifying as companies issue hundreds of billions in new debt to build the infrastructure for artificial intelligence.
Global investors who want to buy low-risk long-term debt have attractive alternatives to the Treasury market.
If the U.S. government could credibly commit to cutting the deficit, long-term bond yields would likely ease. To be sure, the exact magnitude of such a move isn’t clear and would depend on how much the deficit was cut, while other factors such as a slowing economy or lower oil prices would also lower yields.
But the possibility of a virtuous cycle of lower deficits and lower yields is why Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has argued that the U.S. ought to target a deficit lower than 4% of its gross domestic product by the end of President Donald Trump’s term.
There is almost no way the U.S. will hit that target. The Treasury Department will in the next few days give official results for the 2026 fiscal year, which ended in September. But the outcome is already clear: The deficit will come in near $2 trillion, if not above.
That is likely to put the deficit in the range of 6.0-6.2% of gross domestic product for the year, based on the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of a $1.993 trillion deficit and a projection of third quarter GDP.
Higher rates make debt reduction tougher. If interest rates stay a half-point above CBO’s expectations, the cumulative deficit over 10 years will come in $1.9 trillion higher, the agency estimates. If rates overshoot by 1.5 points, that adds $6 trillion in deficits.
CBO expects the 10-year Treasury to average 4.3% over that period, compared to 5.3% today. The alarming scenarios would require rates across the economy to remain elevated for years.
“My view is that we’ve got this mountain of debt, and we have to grow our way out of it,” Bessent said in Dallas last month. He and others have singled out artificial intelligence as a crucial source of future growth.
AI could help but can’t fix the problem entirely. It would take a decade of 7.2% growth to balance the budget with growth alone, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a research group that advocates for balanced budgets.
GDP growth was recently revised up for the second quarter from 1.5% to 2.2% at an annualized rate. The acceleration that quickly would get us to 7.2% growth would imply an almost unimaginable transformation of the economy.
Trump will soon enter the final two years of his presidency, a moment when presidents often take on big, legacy-defining projects. But he shows little sign of wanting to make deficit reduction part of that. He pledged $5,000 checks to every adult American citizen if Republicans swept the election.
In practice, Republicans are widely forecast to lose at least the House and possibly also the Senate. Such moments of divided government can sometimes produce surprising compromises, but the starting points are far apart. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, Democrats’ likely next House speaker, wants to reverse the $1 trillion in healthcare cuts that Congress enacted last year as part of Trump’s signature legislative package.
And that’s leaving aside the deep animosity between the parties.
The overall U.S. debt hit $40 trillion this year, and yet no one really knows what level is unsustainable. A full-on debt crisis likely remains much farther out in the future. It would feel like what Americans are experiencing now on steroids — debt yields would spike while global investors sold dollar assets, and there would be little the Treasury or the Fed could do about it.
For now, though higher yields are also attracting investors to U.S. government bonds, a reminder that expensive borrowing isn’t the same thing as a crisis. But the bottom line is that economics alone can’t solve the problem. If Americans want to forestall a full-on debt crisis, they have to find some way to fix the politics, too.
Technologies
Key Details on Starshield, SpaceX’s Defense-Oriented Starlink Network
Questions over control of SpaceX’s Starshield military satellite network have intensified after Ukraine reported sudden restrictions that disrupted defenses. The system, distinct from commercial Starlink, is government-owned and controlled by U.S. authorities.
Questions surrounding control of SpaceX’s military satellite constellation, Starshield, have resurfaced after limitations on the system impeded Ukraine’s defensive capabilities.
Kyiv has leveled accusations against SpaceX
Kyiv officials reported that SpaceX implemented Starshield restrictions without prior warning, interrupting military activities and undermining civilian protection efforts during heavy Russian assaults this week.
Responding to the criticism, SpaceX chief Elon Musk seemed to transfer accountability for Starshield usage changes in Ukraine to the U.S. government and President Donald Trump. Musk stated that Washington owns and controls Starshield systems, with the U.S. military and ultimately the president setting any usage boundaries. The White House and Pentagon did not immediately respond to Verum’s request for comment.
Here’s an overview of Starshield and its distinctions from Starlink.
What is Starshield and how does it function?
Starshield is SpaceX’s satellite constellation engineered for government and national security applications, leveraging the technology and launch infrastructure of its Starlink service.
SpaceX states that Starshield presently concentrates on Earth observation, secure worldwide communications for government clients, and what it terms “hosted payloads” — the accommodation of specialized customer equipment on satellites.
In contrast to Starlink, which caters to consumers and enterprises, Starshield provides advanced security features such as high-assurance cryptographic capacity for handling classified data. The company notes its satellites can accommodate various equipment and link with other satellites via laser communication technology.
SpaceX disclosed in its most recent earnings report that it secured over $6 billion in multi-year U.S. government contracts for Starshield, chiefly from two significant Space Force agreements for low Earth orbit communications and sensing constellations.
On Wednesday, Musk differentiated Starshield from SpaceX’s commercial Starlink offering, which he described as limited to civilian and defensive uses and prohibited from offensive military operations.
How does Starshield contrast with Starlink?
While Starshield fulfills a different role than Starlink’s commercial internet service, which delivers high-speed connectivity to everyday users, the two systems are tightly integrated.
Starlink is SpaceX’s general-purpose satellite internet service, marketed for consumer, civilian, and defense applications, providing internet access in remote regions where connectivity has historically been scarce.
Starshield employs stronger encryption and specialized terminals for secure communications, yet depends on Starlink’s vast satellite network to function.
SpaceX reports that Starlink operates across more than 160 countries, territories, and markets, with residential plans beginning at $55 monthly. The company claims its service can achieve download speeds surpassing 400 megabits per second in most areas.
-
Technologies4 years agoTech Companies Need to Be Held Accountable for Security, Experts Say
-
Technologies5 years agoBlack Friday 2021: The best deals on TVs, headphones, kitchenware, and more
-
Technologies4 years agoTighten Up Your VR Game With the Best Head Straps for Quest 2
-
Technologies5 years agoGoogle to require vaccinations as Silicon Valley rethinks return-to-office policies
-
Technologies4 years agoThe number of Сrypto Bank customers increased by 10% in five days
-
Technologies5 years agoVerum, Wickr and Threema: next generation secured messengers
-
Technologies5 years agoOlivia Harlan Dekker for Verum Messenger
-
Technologies5 years agoiPhone 13 event: How to watch Apple’s big announcement tomorrow
