2026-10-22 09:49 UTC
Yeah, because EA gave Bioware a chance to bounce back, in fact multiple chances. You could say EA killed the Bioware of old which the talent leaving the studio, but the new Bioware could’ve bounced back. They had everything they needed to succeed. A credible studio name that people trusted and a bunch of beloved IPs that people would give a chance. They even had EA giving them more than one shot to not fail (which is more than most EA studios get) and also plenty of time to get it right. All Bioware had to do was put out a good game and they simply couldn’t.
So let me ask in reverse. Let’s say Bioware was indepedent. What would Bioware have to fuck up for you to say its their fault for going under? Because to me they ticked all those boxes already. Had it been any other studio they’d already be dead and forgotten.
Replies (1)
-
@cmhe@lemmy.world 2026-10-22 10:06
Persued ‘live-service’ games, using game engines that don’t fit, constantly shifting direction of games in development, focusing on a generic streamlined cinematic experience then telling a good, character-driven story with impactful and controversial choices, use Denuvo, stop releasing modding tools, … If an independent studio does this stuff… Then they should look for better managers. The first games that felt off to me where DA2 and ME3, but I played through them, they were still enjoyable. DA:I was bland and boring, so I dropped it, after that I didn’t see a return to the studio that I remembered.