The allegations of EA’s influence in regards to Mass Effect: Andromeda sparks a wide spectrum of reactions from gamers whenever it comes up. From outright disdain to reluctant acceptance, the fourth entry in the Mass Effect universe remains one of the most polarizing—even after patches smoothed out its infamous launch issues. But technical fixes couldn’t mend an incoherent story, a cast that ranged from forgettable to frustrating, or the absence of that signature Mass Effect intrigue that made the series legendary.
Beloved for its rich storytelling, unforgettable characters, and expansive universe, Mass Effect set a high bar. Naturally, expectations for Andromeda were through the roof, but the game fell short enough for players to label it a commercial disappointment. EA’s influence on BioWare forced the studio to scrap allegedly planned story DLC before development even began, and behind the scenes, staff turnover and internal struggles created a troubled path to release. Some of this, like the scrapped DLC, has been denied by both parties, but the lack of important story beats (such as the missing Quarian Ark) and the continuation of the story in written form instead suggest that this was merely a public relations move.
Gameplay Improvements but a Lost Identity
To its credit, Andromeda introduced new gameplay mechanics that earned praise, including a modernized combat system and a greater focus on open-world exploration. But for many, these improvements weren’t enough to recapture the magic of past entries. The game’s mixed reception and underwhelming sales had a lasting impact—not just on the franchise, but on BioWare’s entire approach to future projects.
The combat was a highlight of Andromeda, giving players access to new systems, and enhanced mobility.
Unfortunately, Andromeda wouldn’t be the last BioWare project plagued by internal struggles, EA’s influence, and corporate interference. Years later, similar issues have surfaced during the development of Dragon Age: The Veilguard—and once again, EA (and Bioware’s mismanagement) is at the center of the controversy.
How Anthem’s Failure Changed Veilguard
The development of Veilguard is just as storied, though some logical assumptions have to be made to fully understand what went wrong with Dragon Age’s fourth installment during its lengthy pre-shipment cycle. What we know for certain is that Veilguard was originally meant to be a live-service game of sorts, likely building on the online concepts introduced in Inquisition, the previous title.
Anthem 2.0 was planned, but was eventually scrapped by EA to have BioWare focus on developing new games for their more established franchises.
But then came the disastrous launch and eventual closure of Anthem—another Bioware title we won’t get too deep into here, though its fallout is much worth mentioning. In short, content was lacking, gameplay was repetitive, and it wasn’t what fans of the legendary studio wanted from them. This was allegedly what pushed Bioware away from implementing live-service concepts in Veilguard, forcing the team to strip away those elements and whatever stuck out too much from their remnants, ultimately leaving us with the arguably unrefined game we have today.
Has Dragon Age Lost Its Dark Fantasy Roots?
While Veilguard is by no means a terrible game—it has the award nominations and positive critic reviews to show for it—some fans can’t help but feel that a more focused development cycle without EA’s influence would have made it feel like a true entry in the Dragon Age franchise. It’s difficult to argue that there hasn’t been a shift in tone, both visually and narratively. Veilguard feels more like a Marvel-style romp rather than delivering the same dark-fantasy atmosphere of previous titles. And before anyone cites specific levels as counterexamples, we’d like to point out that dark fantasy wasn’t just present in the older games—it was their heart and soul. Veilguard has moments where that intention shines through, but it doesn’t feel like the core of the experience. That doesn’t mean the stylization they went for is bad, but it also doesn’t mean it’s what hardcore fans wanted.
Did EA Sabotage The Veilguard?
It surely does not help that EA is being accused of purposely sabotaging the game, a claim fueled by the company’s recent statements regarding its performance.
“To break out beyond the core audience, games need to directly connect to the evolving demand of players who increasingly seek shared world features and deeper engagement alongside high-quality narratives,” EA’s CEO stated post-Dragon Age: The Veilguard, further fueling speculation about the company’s true commitment to the game’s final direction.
The failures of Mass Effect: Andromeda, Anthem, and the newest of them all, Dragon Age: The Veilguard all share something in common with each other: a studio that is unable to reconcile its vision with the requirements of its publisher. Time and again, BioWare’s titles have been shaped—and occasionally outright compromised—in the crucible of EA’s involvement to the extent that they are either incomplete, misguided, or divorced from the very thing that made the studio so well-loved to start with. With Veilguard, the question is being asked again: is this another speed bump on the path to somewhere greater, or is this evidence that BioWare’s best is behind us?
A Pattern of Mismanagement
The relationship between Electronic Arts and BioWare is clearly complicated, as we have laid out earlier in this article. An acquisition that should have benefited both parties has only benefited EA, in classic EA fashion—and that is not up for debate when the pattern is so easily identifiable with other studios as well. With this being the case, many expect this to continue until EA gives up on BioWare, although these “problems” are solvable.
EA’s influence on publishing ranges far across the gaming sphere; this includes the negative effects as well.
EA’s Vision vs. BioWare’s Identity
While BioWare built itself on deep storylines and intricate RPG systems, the philosophy of EA is to serve the widest possible audience with engagement-oriented elements. It is this tension that creates compromised titles with tacked on multiplayer elements, live service aspirations, or a shift of tone to chase fads. Veilguard is the latest example of this trend with the question being raised of whether BioWare can ever revert to its roots while being owned by EA.
Isabela is a beloved character, but the non-binary Qunari known as Taash was instantly controversial, whether you believe it was undeservedly so.
What This Means for BioWare’s Future
With Veilguard’s development troubles fully disclosed to the public, everyone wants to know: what’s next for BioWare? The studio is embarking on its next Mass Effect installment, but if the past is any indicator, the final product will likely be molded by EA’s influence to the detriment of its core fanbase. The ability to produce iconic RPGs certainly still exists within BioWare, but whether the time and latitude to do so will be allowed by the publisher remains the question.
Mass Effect 5 seems to be a make or break moment for the studio.
BioWare’s status as a top RPG lead studio is unshakable, but its pact with EA is threatening that status with increasing frequency. Veilguard’s demise proves that although the studio itself remains enamored with the work that they’re doing, they have chased after broad popularity at the expense of precisely those qualities which set BioWare apart. Whether the studio reclaims its place at the vanguard of the RPG front or allows itself to fall into the wrong hands remains to be seen—but to BioWare’s faithful following, the speculation is becoming tiresome.
