When the situation is difficult, it’s usually the reasons for it, particularly those that are not apparent, that are very complicated and hard to figure out. The limitation of third-party mapping in Battlefield 6 was the one that eventually highlighted and indirectly punished the highly sought-after Call of Duty content, which included the well-known Shipment map.
It has been reported that players are being warned via notifications that including “third party content in Battlefield 6” might result in that player’s account being banned, and this has led the gaming community to react very negatively to the whole situation.
The situation blew up very fast after the news broke that EA was sending warnings to the creators of Battlefield 6 Portal. Battlefield 6 Portal must be such a wonderful and imaginative tool for the players to create their own modes and maps out of the entire Battlefield universe’s assets but, it seems even creativity has its limits when it comes to copying content from other franchises, especially the direct rival Call of Duty.
So, what I am asking is what exactly is happening at the moment? One of the most popular among gamers recreating maps is the porting of Call of Duty’s Shipment. For those who do not know, Shipment is a small and very chaotic map in Call of Duty, consisting entirely of a specific arrangement of shipping containers. It’s the source of chaotic gameplay, so it is no wonder that among the CoD players, this map has become legendary.
The gamers’ reaction has been to say the least… let’s just say, they are not very pleased with EA’s decision. A user known as Tagger made an observation of the whole situation portraying it as a double standard by saying “It doesn’t really add up when one of the first major Portal games at launch was a Counter-Strike mode, on Dust2, from the Official Battlefield team.” This is a rather convincing argument – if DICE can recreate the most recognizable map from the CS:GO universe, why not allow the players to get the same with COD content?
Others are simply questioning the whole legality of the thing. User Contymor told, “The game has no CoD assets in it. The arrangement of containers in a particular way is not an intellectual property.” And they are indeed correct – we are not talking about characters or textures that are copyrighted, we are just talking about the layout and overall idea that the people are recreating.
There is however another counter-argument. User CathyyHalsey said, “Get creative! This is not a BF or Portal issue, but an Activision one; they acted the same way with Forge and the custom clients for their old games, and they DO NOT like having their maps on 3rd party games.” So, it is quite possible that EA is just trying to steer clear of any possible legal disputes with Activision, who are very possessive of their intellectual property.
The whole situation raises even bigger issues about the limit of the creativity in the gaming space. User Bensam123TV compared it to “people making ‘copyrighted’ heroes in City of Heroes” and wondered how Roblox manages to cope with endless DMCA issues despite having “boatloads of copyrighted material.” It is really a strange gray area where fan creations are in a legal limbo.
Some players are already feeling the effects that go beyond simply receiving warnings about the maps. User Schlevvy disclosed, “They are not kidding at all. I have already been banned for a week because of the fact that my name was Gay Tranny Sonic,” which is an indication that EA is pretty strict with their enforcement across the board.
The aspect of timing is indeed very interesting as Portal was seen as a tremendous gift from Battlefield to its players this year—the innovative method that would make it different from Call of Duty and other games. Giving players the power to create through DICE was like saying, “Hey, make this game your own.” But now they seem to have started to restrict that creativity and the community is not at all happy about it.
A few users went on to say that there are easy workarounds, for instance, RainbowNailGal who said, “There may be some IP issues, I understand. Just turn it around and call it ‘package.’ Invert the containers” or TrucePeters who suggested, “Could have called it container yard.” However, the reality that players have to rename and slightly modify their works to avoid bans seems to be counterproductive to the original idea of creative freedom.
What is interesting here is that the comparison to other games that provide creation tools is applicable. Observing that “People do this in Fortnite and Halo with no issues. tf” user Deathtracker130 noted, which leads us to ask why EA is using such a stringent approach while other companies are more ‘fatherly’ with fan recreations.
The entire situation gives the impression that EA is killing the very thing that made Portal stand out. User sxemini said it very clearly: “Ok, they kill Portal very fast.” And they may be right—if creators are not able to produce the content they want without the risk of their accounts being banned, then the purpose of the creation tools is lost.
Then there is the competitive aspect of the situation. User JetJay35 was actually in favor of the bans, saying, “If they only ban Call of Duty maps I’m all for it. That’s funny. If someone wants to play CoD, just go play CoD. Go away.” So, there is indeed a segment of the Battlefield community that would like to see the games remain distinct and different.
But the reality is, that gaming has always been about the community and their creativity. The modding community’s Half-Life to create Counter-Strike, to Minecraft servers recreating entire fictional worlds, players expressing their love for games through recreating content has been a fundamental part of gaming culture. EA’s line seems to be contrary to that tradition.
Of course, the legal concerns are understandable—no one wants to get into a lawsuit, and Activision has been proven to be very aggressive in defending their IP rights. However, there has to be some sort of compromise between unrestrained creative freedom and banning everything that even remotely resembles content from other games.
The situation is very fluid, and it will be an interesting one to watch in terms of the adaptation of the community. Will the developers come up with clever “inspired by” maps that do not activate EA’s detection? Could EA possibly clarify their policies more explicitly in the future? Or could Portal slowly lose its creative community as players become worn out with the restrictions?
However, one thing is certain—the moment you give the players the powerful creation tools, they will create their love and that includes iconic maps from gaming history for many FPS players. Thus, finding the sweet spot between legal protection and creative freedom will be crucial for Portal’s long-term survival. Right now, it seems like that balance is tilting in the wrong direction. This situation is also relevant to PlayStation and Xbox platforms where similar community creation tools exist.
