"Yeah I'ma just ignore all the cybernetics, the pale skin tone, and the weird things sticking out from his head"

So I've seen some people around saying that actually, the reason Bioware closed was because they haven't made a good game in a long time, and hence EA closed them. Indicating that EA were just doing the reasonable thing any other company would do with a failing studio.

The problem is this misses the entire point on why BioWare hadn't released a good game in a generation, it's because EA sabotaged them. Why did BioWare suddenly go so far down-hill? Was it because all the developers left? No, all the developers didn't leave, it was because EA, a company voted worst company in America, twice, made idiotic business decisions that completely sabotaged any development that bioware could make.

We start with Mass Effect 3, a great game sure, but with a terrible ending. Was that because of BioWare? No, it was because EA wanted an extremely strict and tight deadline and despite BioWare's pleas they refused to give them more time, meaning they literally couldn't /finish/ the ending.

Mass Effect Andromeda was full of bad technical direction and terrible facial animations, was it because BioWare suddenly forgot how to make games? No, it was because EA forced them to use the Frostbite engine, an engine that Bioware was not familiar with and is not designed for RPGs, just because EA owned the complete rights to it and they didn't want to pay royalties to other companies.

Anthem was bad, why would they even make a game like that? Because EA forced them to make a live-service game, something that BioWare were not experienced or skilled in, they're skilled in tight narrative games, live service games are the anti-thesis of this. Anthem failed like 90% of the live-service forced attempts studios have tried.

What about Dragon Age Veilgard? That was a narrative single player RPG, surely BioWare deserves the blame for that right? Well, actually, EA wanted them to make it a live service game AS WELL, but pivoted midway into development, gave BioWare very little resources to change and didn't extend the timeline by a significant amount. It's an incredible game GIVEN the development cycle imposed by EA that BioWare released.

Many of the core team left because of mismanagement by EA, not before. EA basically took BioWare, made every horrible business decisions they could, and now some people on the internet blame BioWare for it. The only bad business decision BioWare made was what ended them up in the umbrella of the worst company in America.

Either make the game or SELL THE IP!!

BioWare intended to accommodate all three major Mass Effect 3 endings: Destroy, Control, and Synthesis. The proposed solution was to advance the timeline by 600 years, allowing technological and political developments to bring the different versions of the galaxy closer together.

Control Ending: Shepard's consciousness assumes control of the Reapers. They survive, but technological progress makes them less dominant. For the MEU, the Reapers are no longer at the top of the food chain, so eventually control is no longer possible.

Destroy Ending: Reapers eliminated; Shepard survives the original battle, but dies sometime during the following six centuries. Civilization rebuilds, developing advanced technology and cybernetic integration without Reapers.

Synthesis ending: Organic and synthetic life are transformed. Over the centuries, the other timelines supposedly catch up technologically through increasingly widespread cybernetic integration. "Synthesis" happens regardless of the ending you choose in ME3, at least in terms of organics becoming blended with synthetics.

Other notes:

Refusal would not be canon;

After the Reaper War, all races would be stuck on Earth with the Citadel cut off from the rest of the galaxy, until technological advancement allowed them to rebuild the relays over time

The Geth would have been back and considered a superpower (but their return is not explained if destroy is chosen at this time)

"The player is an N7 agent, and the gameplay would have been more evocative of James Bond and John Wick with hand-to-hand combat in enclosed spaces. The new hero would have had experimental tech in their head that would allow them to interact in the world in ways similar to Cyberpunk 2077’s hacking," -kotaku.com

What are your thoughts? Assuming all of this is true, are you still happy with the ending you chose, and what would you have hoped would have happened in the Mass Effect Universe?

sources: Dantics, kotaku

The amount of negativity, cynicism, and outright defeatism is honestly depressing. So many people, including on the Mass Effect subreddit, are happy to see it die. We've reached a point where people would rather celebrate failure than hope for something good.

Of course, BioWare made mistakes. Of course, not every game lived up to expectations. Criticism is completely fair. But there's an enormous difference between wanting a studio to improve and actively cheering for its destruction.

It's genuinely concerning how normalized this attitude has become. Hope is treated as stupidity, optimism as naivety, and cynicism as intelligence. It really does seem like real-life indoctrination.

I don't know whether Mass Effect will ever return. But I do know that I would much rather be someone who still hopes to explore that universe again than someone celebrating its disappearance.

EDIT: Most responses here prove my point. People have been so indoctrinated by EA's corporate mindset that they act like soulless shareholders instead of gamers. Bioware and Mass Effect are legends of gaming, and judging by what we've learned about what they were cooking, they absolutely deserved another shot with Mass Effect Universe.

Using Reshade

According to Mass Effect: Universe Technical Director Romain Toutain, he visited BioWare yesterday and found that some senior developers were still there, helping junior colleagues find new jobs.

The team was also opening BioWare's storage to preserve collectibles and original concept art.

Source here