While ARC Raiders cruises, Battlefield 6's player count has plummeted on the Steam charts — but why? Here's what a diehard fan of the FPS thinks

Two of the biggest new games came late in 2025, with Battlefield 6 launching in early October and ARC Raiders dropping at the end of that month. But while both titles were massively successful across Xbox, PC, and PS5 in their first several weeks of availability, player counts and the Steam charts have begun to tell a different story as we've moved into the new year.

Presently, Battlefield 6 — a game that peaked at 747,440 Steam players at launch according to SteamDB data — only has 55,483 soldiers deployed into its digital battlegrounds. In fairness, it is Monday morning as I write this, but even so, the large-scale FPS has struggled to hit 100K players at peak hours, recently averaging 85K-100K at that time.

This is in sharp contrast to ARC Raiders, which has largely retained the following it quickly accrued at release. Embark Studios' explosively popular extraction shooter launched with a peak of 481,966 players, but as its SteamDB page shows, it's still hitting 24-hour heights of 422,348 months later, with 226,559 exploring the wastes beyond Speranza as I write this.

Despite having a terrific launch and being the best-selling game of 2025, Battlefield 6 has so far proven to have the weaker legs of the two shooters. Granted, I'm not saying it's time to ring alarm bells — it's in eighth place for daily active users on Steam, the platform's eleventh top seller, and on Xbox's most-played games chart, it's neck and neck with ARC Raiders, suggesting things are closer on consoles.

Even so, though, there's been a clear and major drop for Battlefield 6 overall, compared to Embark's fan-favorite title. But why is that? Well, as someone who's played upwards of 200 hours of Electronic Arts and Battlefield Studios' all-out warfare shooter since its release, I think there are a few different factors in play here.

Firstly, despite Battlefield 6 now featuring 11 different maps, all of them are considerably smaller than larger stages from previous titles that gave players and vehicles more room to breathe, and more space and cover to work with. This has led to widespread complaints that the gameplay feels too crowded and somewhat Call of Duty-like, even on "big" maps like Mirak Valley or the shrunken-down remake of Battlefield 3's Operation Firestorm.

There's also been expressed disappointment about the cadence of Battlefield 6's content drops, with many arguing that only two new maps — both of which were, again, too small — and a handful of limited-time modes that didn't land well weren't enough for Season 1 of the game's live service (I liked Ice Lock a lot, but maps should be the priority). To offer a point of comparison, Battlefield 4's five Expansion Packs that released in late 2013 through late 2014 each contained four maps.

The game's controversial progression system is worth touching on as well. Many feel that it's far too grindy, with many weapon attachments locked behind significant time investment and different camo cosmetics only obtainable by using specific weapons you may not like. If attachments were easier to unlock and camos were unlocked for guns individually as you got them to higher levels, I think players would be much happier. Please add more loadout options for helicopters and jets, too.

Finally, I'd also be remiss not to mention Battlefield 6's technical issues, as many players have frequently reported hit registration problems, lag causing them to die even when they get into full cover, buggy animations when engaging enemy soldiers, and other mishaps. These can make the moment-to-moment gameplay feel inconsistent and frustrating, taking away from the experience considerably.

There are some other things, like the widely-hated Netflix tile-style UI, the poor job Battlefield Studios has done to showcase community-made Portal experiences, and the contentious balancing of the Breakthrough mode. The aforementioned issues, though, are Battlefield 6's biggest problems, and I don't think we'll see the FPS regain some of its popularity before they're addressed.

Though it's hard to compare them directly since they're two different types of shooters, I'd say ARC Raiders has done a better job of delivering post-launch content so far, and also has a more satisfying progression system and "cleaner," more reliable netcode. It's for these reasons, alongside the highly dynamic nature of PvPvE games that makes the entire experience unpredictable, that I believe it's performing better than Battlefield 6.

Save 43%

Battlefield 6 (Xbox): was $69.99 now $39.97 at Amazon

Battlefield 6 was the biggest, best-selling game of 2025, and the multiplayer FPS is on sale right now for some cool discounts. Though normally $69.99, it's currently available for under $40 on Xbox, which is quite a steal.

View Deal

Save 15%

ARC Raiders: was $39.99 now $33.99 at loaded.com

Embark Studios's long-awaited, highly anticipated extraction shooter ARC Raiders is here, and it's an absolute hit. Notably, several versions of the game are discounted substantially at Loaded, so take advantage of the deals while they're there.

Deluxe Edition: Xbox | PC

View Deal

What do you think of Battlefield 6's current performance compared to that of ARC Raiders'? What do you think Battlefield Studios should do to improve Battlefield 6 and help it regain some popularity? Let me know in the comments.

FAQ

Follow Windows Central on Google News to keep our latest news, insights, and features at the top of your feeds!