With just 3 days until Battlefield 6 launches, DICE pleads its case in the Open vs Closed weapons debate one final time: "Open Weapons is the right path forward for Battlefield 6"

Battlefield 6 is set to go live on October 10 and it's coming in hot. Battlefield Studios has been on the offensive as it attempts to shake off the reputational damage inflicted by Battlefield 2042, the 2021 release pushing too far outside of the series' comfort zone to be truly viable. The Battlefield 6 open beta attracted over 20 million players who invested no fewer than 90 million hours into the playtests, with lord knows how many more being drawn into the 30 Battlefield Labs sessions that have been hosted over the summer.

A Battlefield studios rep says that "Battlefield 6 is the most tested and iterated Battlefield game in history, and player agency remains at the heart of it." It's a defiant statement, one which arrives at a time where Black Ops 7 appears to be struggling to gain traction ahead of its release on November 14. But this messaging and propagation of big numbers isn't designed to demonstrate strength in what will surely be a bruising battle for the FPS throne in 2025 – it's recognition that there's still one debate raging in the Battlefield community, and that there's little chance of it being resolved before launch.

I am of course talking about the distinction between Open and Closed Weapon playlists.

(Un)locked and loaded

The big sell for Battlefield 6 is that it's basically going back-to-basics. 64-players, locked into dazzling medium-to-large maps that work to propagate scale and spectacle at every turn. Destruction once again reigns supreme, with a rebalanced focus on shifting frontline combat. From what I've played of Battlefield 6 through its betas, it would appear that we're in for an excellent time.

The one area where Battlefield 6 is taking a real creative risk is with its new Closed vs Open weapon playlists. Closed seeks to replicate a classic Battlefield feel, where the Assault, Engineer, Support, and Recon classes have defined (and largely unretractable) roles, perks, and weapons – a balance that's designed to encourage teamwork and empower you to make vital individual contributions.

Open takes us into uncharted territory, where players are able to equip weapons outside of their preferred classes' signature. Want to be a Support player wielding a Sniper Rifle? Go right ahead. It sounds like a simple amendment, but it's one which has sparked fierce debate in the Battlefield community.

The purists, desperate to see this franchise off of life support, are worried that such an integral change runs a very real risk of doing irreparable damage to Battlefield's balance. There's another battalion who value the change, arguing that the Signature Weapon perks do enough to encourage players to stick with the class appropriate weapons whilst giving everybody the freedom to experiment. Battlefield Studios argues that there's room for both Open Weapon and Closed Weapon experiences, and that delivering both demonstrates its commitment to community engagement.

My heart says that the purists are right. That the line between a good Battlefield game and a bad one is often razor thin, so every step should be taken to ensure that class balance is at the heart of BF6's all-out-warfare – particularly as Battlefield 2042's principal undoing was the removal of classes in favor of Operators. But then my head says that maybe it just doesn't matter. That the Signature Weapon perks – Assault classes getting faster sprint-to-fire times if they stick with assault rifles, for example – is more than enough, and that Battlefield 6 is owed an opportunity to experiment.

Here's some data points from the Battlefield team, insight drawn from Beta and Labs tests:

• Players pick identical classes between Open and Closed Weapon playlists.
• Kills Per Hour was virtually consistent for both playlist types.
• Time in combat was virtually identical for both playlist types.
• Match duration and Revives were higher by ~3% in Closed Weapon playlists.
• Players were more likely to equip non-signature weapons in Open Weapon playlists.
• When players wielded a non-signature weapon, there was no dominant archetype alternative.
• After trying both playlists, players typically gravitate toward Open Weapon setups.

The observation around match length and revives is worth investigating further. Battlefield Studios says that both Breakthrough and Conquest modes run for an additional 3.75% in Closed Weapon playlists, and that it "also observed a slightly higher revive rate for Closed Weapons at 3% for Breakthrough and 2% for Conquest, which coincides with the slightly longer match duration."

This data surprised me. I would have expected Closed Weapon playlists, where everybody is more dutifully embodying particular battlefield roles, to have a significantly higher Revive-rates versus the Open Weapon playlists – where Support players would, perhaps, be more focused on sniping or pushing frontlines than playing combat medic. Maybe Battlefield Studios has been right all along.

Here's another interesting insight: "Lastly, another key insight from the Open Beta was that the vast majority of players, after trying both playlist types, chose to stick with Open Weapons. This reinforces our belief that Open Weapons is the right path forward for Battlefield 6. At the same time, we recognize that some players prefer the Closed Weapons experience. To support them, official Closed Weapons playlists will be available at launch."

With this statement, I think Battlefield Studios is trying to say a couple of things. Firstly, it's a pretty firm assurance that it will not back down from its intention to launch with prominent Open Weapon playlists, regardless of what the noisiest members of the community have to say about it. Secondly, that it will continue to support Closed Weapons playlists from launch, and that "Closed Weapons mutators will remain part of the Portal toolset, so players can create and share their own custom experiences."

I suppose this statement does actually speak to my fear with Battlefield 6 long-term. That, eventually, as playlist populations start to dwindle as players ultimately gravitate towards Open or Closed in the long-term, it'll be increasingly difficult for me to play Battlefield 6 the way that I want to play it. Battlefield Studios may be hinging its overall decision on a desire to promote player choice, but if history has taught me anything, it's that eventually one option will become the primary and the other the secondary as developer intent and focus narrows over time. Given how thoroughly Closed Weapon playlists were buried in the beta menus (which, if we're honest, could be a contributing factor to some of that data the studio is present), this eventual shift seems likely.

I've been playing this series for 20 years, and at this stage there's little that's going to convince me that strict, standardized classes aren't a key (if not essential) component of Battlefield, a key differentiator between it and what little remains as competition in the online shooter space. Yes, I'm old and I am set in my ways. I have no shame admitting this. The data and insight from team Battlefield indicates that the playerbase is perhaps changing, shifting around me. Maybe the rigid roleplay and camaraderie which once used to guide the Battlefield experience is becoming less integral, with players instead coming purely for the large-scale carnage, chaos, and utter mayhem that only Battlefield can reasonably provide – especially in a landscape where your options are basically either Call of Duty, pick-your-favorite-battle-royale, or a handful of extraction shooters.

With Battlefield 6 just days away, it'll be interesting to see how the Open and Closed Weapons debate plays out once the FPS is in the hands of millions across the launch weekend. And if nothing else, I have to thank Battlefield Studios for igniting this age-old debate right at the finish line. If anybody needs me, I'll be in the comments, defending Closed Weapons playlists until the day that I die.

Battlefield 6's expanded Portal mode is so powerful that even its devs are having a blast: "Someone on the dev team actually created Pong"