Battlefield 6 says no to ray tracing now and in the near future — dev says decision made to ‘focus on making sure it was performance for everyone else’

Battlefield 6 open beta
(Image credit: EA)

Battlefield 6 is one of the most anticipated games of the year, more so because of its friendly system requirements that let it be played even on modest hardware. One of the ways the game’s developers were able to achieve this was by side-stepping any ray tracing technologies.

“No, we are not going to have ray tracing when the game launches, and we don’t have any plans in the near future for it either,” Studio Technical Director Christian Buhl of Ripple Effect, one of the studios behind BF6, told ComicBook.com. “That was because we wanted to focus on performance. We wanted to make sure that all of our effort was focused on making the game as [optimized] as possible for the default settings and the default users. So, we just made the decision relatively early on that we weren’t going to do ray tracing and, again, it was mostly so that we could focus on making sure it was performance for everyone else.”

Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our up-to-date news, analysis, and reviews in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button!

Jowi Morales
Contributing Writer

Jowi Morales is a tech enthusiast with years of experience working in the industry. He’s been writing with several tech publications since 2021, where he’s been interested in tech hardware and consumer electronics.

  • TheyStoppedit
    I think Ray Tracing has been DOA since the 20 series. For the massive toll it takes on a GPU, is it really worth it? Is the difference really that eye popping? Not really. I think it's more of a gimmick/buzzword than anything. I think leaving it out gives developers more resources to spend money on optimization and better gameplay, as well as keeping the system requirements lower for more users to access the product without fake frames and DLSS
    Reply
  • Notton
    Ray Tracing looks exceptionally good in the games that I've played and seen.

    However, in a fast paced game like BF, you should aim for a steady 120fps over image quality.
    Reply
  • epiczombiekill
    So just like PhysX RayTracing going to disappear into the background of forgotten Nvidia gimmick technologies, I won't what will come next
    Reply
  • Yourhuckleberry
    It's not necessary in a game like Battlefield. It's great without it.
    Reply
  • JayGau
    I agree that competitive shooters like BF and COD don't really need it, but how would ray tracing prevent anyone to play the game? Just set it off by default and if someone has a 5090 or whatever they can enable it if they want to.

    There is this new trend that devs implement RT into the core of the games so it can't be disabled and thus makes them unplayable on low-end hardware, but not so long ago it was unthinkable to have a game without a RT on/off option. So this excuse of "we want the game to run well for everyone" is total BS.

    They could have said something like since the game doesn't need RT, they chose to pass on it and use the time this decision saved to focus on others aspects of the game, but saying it's to allow everybody to play the game doesn't make any sense.

    It could also be that nowadays, plenty of people feel like they are treated unfairly when they can't run games at max settings with their 3060 (it's why you hear all of those comments like "devs should stop focusing on graphics", "RT is a gimmick", "4k monitor are useless", "nobody needs a 5090" and so on). Maybe EA decided to skip on an optional ray tracing implementation to please those people's self esteem. A kind of marketing strategy actually. And reading some comments right here, it seems to be working very well.
    Reply
  • JayGau
    epiczombiekill said:
    So just like PhysX RayTracing going to disappear into the background of forgotten Nvidia gimmick technologies, I won't what will come next
    Those "gimmick technologies" are what made the games looking like they look nowadays. If Nvidia or AMD stopped using new techs every time broke people complained they couldn't run them we would still have PS1-like games, maybe even worse.
    Reply
  • BrokenN571
    I mean. They should implement RT and even PT but in the way it's supposed to be implemented, as an OPTIONAL setting, just a different way to deal with light, shadows and reflections, but with an already VERY competent and perfectly fine solution with classic rasterization
    Reply
  • Amdlova
    @JayGau it's not about broke people... It's about console not running these new games at all...
    portable devices will have a long run to achieve ray tracing... More consoles, more money...
    industry care about money not your happiness.
    Reply
  • S58_is_the_goat
    Jensen: it would be a shame if bf6 would start running choppy and slow after the next driver update...
    Reply
  • wilfreeman
    So the story goes (and contrary to the post by @TheyStoppedit), the promise of tech like RT/PT for developers is that games may be produced faster and at a lower cost than is currently required when using all the workarounds (e.g., baked lighting, SSR, shadow maps, etc.) needed to achieve a similar experience. Some folks in this thread seem to be taking that aspect of the game lighting discussion for granted.

    Given this, it is commendable (and wise) to forgoe using RT/PT in titles where achieving the highest FPS is the primary concern. Maybe in another 5-10 years, the tech will be advanced enough to run at 60-120 FPS on a Switch-like device, at which point it will become the standard.

    In the meantime, RT/PT makes more sense for single-player games that allow players to enjoy the visuals treats made possible by the tech.
    Reply