Free-to-play shooter Battlefield REDSEC was released last week alongside the first season of Battlefield 6. It’s the free-to-play alternative to EA’s latest modern military multiplayer shooter, offering battle royale mode and mission-based Gauntlet mode to players free of charge. While I love Battlefield 6, *REDSEC *isn’t resonating with me.

Although *REDSEC’s *modes are reminiscent of what can be found in other popular free-to-play games, they don’t feel like quintessential Battlefield. The Battlefield franchise does one thing particularly well: large-scale warfare with massive teams. I think EA could find more success by offering a free-to-play version of that unique gameplay, rather than chasing trends and creating its own versions of game modes we can play better versions of elsewhere.

REDSEC is fun, but doesn’t feel like Battlefield

Battlefield 6’s gameplay doesn’t feel designed with battle royale gameplay in mind

The Duo and Quad battle royale modes in *REDSEC *are competent as far as battle royale modes go. There’s something inherently gratifying about working with a team to be the last one standing that has made battle royale ubiquitous in multiplayer gaming. *REDSEC *isn’t doing anything particularly egregious with how it approaches this formula, but it doesn’t really stand out.

REDSEC does not feel like it’s bringing many original ideas to the battle royale table. Instead, different parts of the game remind me of titles I’ve already played. Dropping at the start of the match and reviving teammates works like it does in Apex Legends. Meanwhile, the weapon rarity and armor systems feel similar to Call of Duty: Warzone. That begs the question: why should I play *REDSEC *over either of those games?

Battlefield Studios was perhaps a little cognizant of that, because Gauntlet is the other heavily promoted part of REDSEC. This feels a little more like Battlefield, as multiple squads fight to be the last team standing by completing different objectives, like killing high-value targets or collecting data and getting to a drone to extract it. I quickly found myself playing Gauntlet more than the battle royale modes.

Still, Gauntlet doesn’t feel like a perfect fit for Battlefield. The gameplay of Battlefield 6 is a bit slower than that of something like Call of Duty, so it isn’t as good for modes that require snappy reaction times from players. Many of Gauntlet’s objectives encourage that quick, Call of Duty-style of play, but the underlying system in Battlefield 6 doesn’t feel quite made for it.

There would be better ways for Battlefield to go free-to-play

Find a more fitting angle into the battle royale genre, or offer something completely different

The novelty of *REDSEC *only lasted a couple of hours for me. Before long, I found myself returning to the Battlefield 6 modes I liked the most: Conquest, Breakthrough, and Escalation. In my review of Battlefield 6, I highlight that the game’s “All-Out Warfare” modes are its best. No other game can quite capture the feeling I get while making a push to capture a zone with 30+ other players at once.

My big problem with *REDSEC *is that it’s not leaning into that strength. Instead, it’s trend-chasing popular battle royale games or the not-as-good smaller-scale game modes for Gauntlet. I do think there are ways Battlefield could make a battle royale work. I recall the 50v50 mode Fortnite had for a time and think *REDSEC *could’ve offered a better version of that.

You could perhaps combine that with Escalation’s dwindling capture points to create something really distinct and special. Someone with the know-how could most likely go and make this in Battlefield Portal, but I’m still expecting the best multiplayer mode ideas to come from Battlefield Studios, the developers who spent years working on this game.

It’s rare that trend-chasers can dethrone the game that started the trend. Apex Legends and Call of Duty: Warzone found unique ways to approach the battle royale formula established by *PUBG *and Fortnite, which is part of the reason they’re still around. *REDSEC *does not accomplish that, and in fact rejects some of what makes Battlefield unique to chase a trend.

It’s possible to make a great free-to-play Battlefield game

REDSEC just isn’t the best approach to doing so

As the free-to-play offering of a fantastic multiplayer game, *REDSEC *isn’t putting its best foot forward. It’s likely that EA wanted another slice of the battle royale pie on top of Apex Legends, and hoped capitalizing on the strong launch reception to Battlefield 6 would allow them to do just that. Instead, the audience reception on platforms like Steam has been worse than the best game.

Looking at SteamDB data, Battlefield 6’s concurrent player count peaks have been higher since REDSEC was released. Considering that it coincided with the start of Season 1, it’s hard to tell exactly what should be credited to Battlefield 6 and what is the result of REDSEC. Ultimately, I’m not sure *REDSEC *is the resounding game-changer EA hoped it would be.

If EA is considering offering a free-to-play version of Battlefield in the future, they should go back to the drawing board and create something that leans into what the franchise does best. If they do so, a free-to-play Battlefield game could be the best big thing, not a trend-chasing experiment quickly drowned out by the likes of Arc Raiders and Call of Duty: Black Ops 7.

Systems

Released October 28, 2025

ESRB Mature 17+ / Blood, Strong Language, Violence, Users Interact, In-Game Purchases

Developer(s) Battlefield Studios

Publisher(s) EA

Multiplayer Online Multiplayer, Online Co-Op