Bioware is closing down


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

One of the most historic studios is closing down.
Unfortunately it was dead long ago.
Fuck EA
in reply to Master167

IIRC there were numerous articles after launch talking about how it was EA that actually made them add the flying mechanics, easily the best part of the gameplay, after it got stuck in development limbo for years.

Whether that was truly accurate or not, it does fit the extended development timeline, the lackluster story in the end product, and the failure to revamp the game after launch like the developers very publicly said they were trying to do. If they couldn't do it the first time, and couldn't do it the second time... it seems they were the problem, not EA (for once).

in reply to halcyoncmdr
I do not believe it for the simple reason that the levels are very vertically based, iirc. If core verticality was a mandate from shitheads after production started rolling, it would've come out in an even worse state.
Esta entrada fue editada (miércoles, 21 de octubre de 2026, 20:43)
in reply to spankysalmon
Are you looking at the same game? The world was vertical in the sense that you had to fly anywhere... but none of the combat or gameplay used it in any way beyond going from one place to another. That's exactly what would happen if verticality and a new map was added later in development. They just put clearings in to place the flat missions.
in reply to halcyoncmdr

Eh, that doesn't necessarily define where the source of pressure came from. Making unique games is an entirely different level of skill/time/commitment than what they were given.

IMO, it's nigh equally likely that they started with the verticality design as part of it and didn't have the time to cook the idea into something neat, vs it being a later mandate after some core designs had development. The only thing that really leads me to believe that the ideas were in early is in the character designs: They were clearly meant to fly in some way, even if it might've been in a Halo jetpack sort of way early on. (which has less evidence)

This is one of 94747252795 reasons to NEVER give these big corporations a single ounce of control over anything.

Esta entrada fue editada (miércoles, 21 de octubre de 2026, 21:14)
in reply to spankysalmon
in reply to halcyoncmdr

So then, that really begs the question: Why were they not allowed to take it back to the design board when the design fundamentally changed?

Again, this is not a "developer" problem, but a fucko owner problem.

in reply to spankysalmon
Esta entrada fue editada (miércoles, 21 de octubre de 2026, 23:31)
in reply to halcyoncmdr

Ohgod... that still SCREAMS interference to me... Nobody could be confident in their stance because dissent from corporate mandate meant firing, not a hearing out and debate...

Otherwise, lead devs have many ways to force progress in a certain direction. Only fuckhead exec "direction" comes with such constant blueballing of actual progress.

Esta entrada fue editada (miércoles, 21 de octubre de 2026, 23:39)
in reply to spankysalmon

It's still a developer management lack of decision making. They don't get off scot free because they don't want to make a decision that EA might not like. The result of that... was a piece of shit EA didn't like. That's still on the developer.

Unless EA is telling them to change something, decisions are still on them. Like EA saying the demo is terrible and developer management deciding to add flying back in to try and fix. That comes from an EA decision/request rather than the developer being indecisive.

Are you trying to separate the Bioware team between developers and management, and lumping Bioware mangement into the EA side? Because that's not the discussion here. Bioware management being indecisive is still a developer issue, not an EA issue.

Esta entrada fue editada (jueves, 22 de octubre de 2026, 0:29)
in reply to spankysalmon

Bioware management doesn't get a pass for mismanagement of Anthem development just because EA is involved. EA bought Bioware in October 2007.

In that time before Anthem they released:
Mass Effect - 2007
Dragon Age: Origins - 2009
Mass Effect 2 - 2010
Dragon Age II - 2011
Star Wars: The Old Republic - 2011
Mass Effect 3 - 2012
Dragon Age: Inquisition - 2014
Mass Effect: Andromeda - 2017

Are you trying to claim that EA didn't interfere until we got to Anthem? Or even that it didn't interfere until the last few years before? Because that doesn't seem likely. If they were going to, they would have from the beginning.

in reply to alphabethunter

Man I miss when the "pick your color" ending for ME3 was controversial because the trilogy was so beloved that anything but a momunental ending wouldn't feel like enough.

The trilogy still was awesome and I still like the debates about the choices in that game!

in reply to Mrsilkworm
They've been zombies for at least, what, 10 years now? It's also amazing how ME:Andromeda, Anthem and DA Veilguard all sold over 1 million copies, yet were still "failures"
in reply to Townlately
You're not alone, Andromeda's take on combat was so much fun - the skill synergies and the mobility was properly thrilling. Though definitely lacked on the story side, however, it was still quite enjoyable.
in reply to Townlately

I remember vagualy enjoying playing ME:A but I, for the life of me, do not remember what it was about. I can how ever debate decisions I made in ME:1 lol

It had good bones just didn't get fleshed out in the writing to me. Neither the characters nor the lore grabbed me enough. I think I even beat it, but again i couldn't really tell you if that's true or not

in reply to Mrsilkworm

This and microsoft bleeding ID Tech are the greatest insults than the Computer Video Game eccosystem have ever testified.

I fucking hate those big videogames comglomerates, i hope every single shareholders from those giant piles of shit die on the gutter drowning in their own piss

in reply to Mrsilkworm
Was any developer who contributed to Baulders Gate 1 present for Anthem? I highly doubt it. The bioware I cared about stopped existing decades ago.
in reply to FishFace
For Bioware, no. It's too late for them. For the future, it'd prevent companies like EA buying up every half-successful dev company and feeding their IP into the machine to milk our nostalgia for profit.
in reply to FishFace
It would reduce it, at least. Part of what makes those deals appealing to devs is the idea that the umbrella corporation will handle the business so the devs can do the dev work they love. Many of them would be much more reluctant to sell off ownership of their concepts and work entirely, and the ubrella corps would find it harder to milk nostalgia when they've only bought the name and not any of the creative team that made it real. Not impossible, but harder.
in reply to sunsofold
If buying a company is illegal, there's still no (practical) way to prevent the buying company say, "we'll put you in your own separate Bioware team, no management changes for at least a year, we'll hire anyone who wants to come over" etc. Basically, you'd have the exact same situation practically, just the legal bollocks would be different and it'd be slightly less convenient.
in reply to FishFace
Good. So much of adjusting people's behaviour is just making it more convenient to do the right thing and less convenient to do the wrong thing. It's impossible to get people to behave perfectly all the time, but the more inconvenient you make it to do the wrong thing, the more the human tendency toward laziness will keep them passively on the right path. There are no desire paths in a hedge maze.
in reply to FishFace
What legit reasons? Seriously. What real world situations are there where allowing companies to own companies promotes a healthy society/economy/etc.? (Not just benefitting the shareholders, and not just the accountants. That's not enough.)
in reply to sunsofold
Well not allowing it is just an inconvenience, as I said, so it's really a benefit for the accountants in this comparison. But if you're saying that has a big effect on discouraging the harmful form of ownership, the innocuous forms would be discouraged as well. That means also companies would be less likely to merge at all (regardless of resulting struxture) which would be unhealthy for the economy as it prevents synergising. But for the record I don't think it would have a massive effect on either case.
in reply to SitD
Vote with your wallet is mostly a scam. You can't buy what isn't there. Devs are too reliant on the business freaks to turn their art into money. I don't have a good solution. All I can think of is maybe something like a registered not-for-profit version of steam/GOG/itch. No investors expecting a return allowed. No for-profit company that owns the not-for-profit as a bypass. Just a system devs can use to turn art into money with no BS about ensuring profits for someone else. I don't have the devops/software engineering knowledge to make that happen, but I hope someone does.
in reply to Echo Dot
Anthem had some of the most innovative and fun core gameplay of any AAA in the last 2 decades. The issue was there was nothing else, it was essentially a prologue that just suddenly ended. It's also an interesting case because the good part of that game (flight) was an idea forced by a CEO or some useless fuck like that.
in reply to Echo Dot

Considering they hamstrung Anthem with no support and killed it shortly after release, I was surprised to see it on the list.

Man that was a great game with incredible potential but they (EA) shit the bed by forcing a release before it was ready and then pulling the plug just as the game was getting in a really good place after a roxky start.

in reply to Mrsilkworm

It’s hard to believe that titles like Mass Effect: Andromeda, Anthem and Dragon Age: The Veilguard couldn’t save them.

It sucks to them die, but they did played an hand in their downfall.

in reply to Mrsilkworm
Civvie11 on the YouTubes often lists some of the fine Studios the EA has voraciously consumed only to spit out when their bones are dry.
Raven Software (via Activision merger) comes to mind. Also Neversoft... and MAXIS...
Esta entrada fue editada (jueves, 22 de octubre de 2026, 3:27)
in reply to Mrsilkworm

Who cares about a brand?

Did they make any notable game past mass effect? Honestly the last game I played from them that I thought was awesome was Jade Empire and that was when it first came out.

Never had an opportunity to play mass effect when it was new but had no interest when I finally did have it on offer.

Guess my point is Studio/publisher names mean nothing—it’s the actual people creating at the time that make the good stuff. Sorry for the seat warmers getting canned but anyone who made anything of note at that ~brand ~ had probably long since stopped making anything of note or moved on.

in reply to Mrsilkworm

I wish people would get less emotionally attached to these corporate game studios. Like, it's not the same people. Not the same leadership. Not the same artists. And so on.

It's just a collection of IP's, that's about it. Bioware from 2000 is not the same bioware from 2015 or 2026.

Same can be said for the vast majority of game studios except a handful of indie shops, but do they really count as indie if they've been nurturing one IP for 15 years?

in reply to NotAnOtter

Why do you assume it the studios they’re attached to and not the IPs? I for one am devistated that a) people are losing their jobs and b) I’m losing beloved future games I was hoping for.

Maybe try a little empathy. Your comments constantly lack it.

in reply to IamMoonPie
Because the IPs fuckin suck under the studio. Nobody cares about Anthem. Andromeda was a mid cashout of Mass Effect. Lord knows wtf they were going to do with Dragon Age. Few, if any people, like these IPs as they are; you like the promise they once held, because you forgot the one rule to responsibly engage with fiction: Good stories get to end. The games still exist. They'll always exist, or at least as long as you or I are alive. Thus the IP always exists. What goes away is the studio, which, OK, bye
in reply to Garbagio
The IPs were created in a specific environment, with a specific set of people coming together to make them. Sure, others can join and create things of the same quality if the same environment is still present. But after so many years the minds these the IPs spawned from have almost all long since moved on or fill other roles. So if the current owners of the IP have no respect for it, dont care, etc. There's zero reason to still remain invested after its shown they cant live up to the quality and promise of the original creators.
in reply to NotAnOtter
And most of these legendary devs worked so hard for so long for such a small paycheck and zero benefits just to get layed off when it conveniences the studio
Esta entrada fue editada (viernes, 23 de octubre de 2026, 3:05)
in reply to Mrsilkworm

Fun fact: same-sex sexual activity, both male and female, is not only illegal in Saudi Arabia, it is a capital offense punishable by death.

Fun fact: Bioware's parent company, Electronic Arts, is now owned by Saudis.

in reply to Lileath

They just won't make The Sims.

The Saudis won't touch it or anything like it. They have the death penalty for adultery, The Sims is unacceptable (at least, the sims that we know).

They might have a Sharia Law version where the fully-covered women juggle raising children and making meals to please their husband.

They will make games for their market (and China).

Sims is a US-market-game that is against Islamic law.

Instead, they can make FIFA and other sports games and shooters. I doubt they'll even make RPGs as we know them, Baldur's Gate 3 for example would not be made in a Saudi studio.

Esta entrada fue editada (jueves, 22 de octubre de 2026, 17:02)
in reply to Mrsilkworm

Yeah, exactly what we expected to happen when Saudis bought it.

Saudis are Islamic, there are no pride parades in Saudi Arabia. There will be no more "secular" games from Electronic Arts, so somehow EA has found a way to suck even more.

The Saudis are an embarrassing US ally, not even getting into the royal family. They're no better than Iran in my opinion.

I can understand doing business with them, I think trade is the best way to open doors and find common ground. But an ally?

It's against my religion.

in reply to chronicledmonocle
For real. At this point it's like, what's the common denominator here? It's also nuts because they keep doing the same bullshit and wonder why they keep losing money and getting bad PR. They are so out of touch with reality.