Andromeda was a financial success.

Only one person was riled up.

It seems odd that if EA is actually happy with how much money ME:A made that BioWare Montreal was essentially cut down and turned into a support studio, which puts the future of Mass Effect in question for the time being.

What's more surprising is how many people believe that when absolutely no evidence points to it at all.

It wasn't cut down, it was moved into a new studio space. This is from yesterday's transcripts posted in another thread (credit to Heimdall for providing the hot take);

Q: I was wondering, can you tease out what you mentioned earlier on the step-up in OpEx maybe on the R&D side with the new genres. And perhaps how much of the increase is more a timing issue versus a higher run rate for R&D?

A: So we will have a slightly higher run rate for R&D. We're building out a new studio in Montréal, as we've told everyone. And we've hired over 100 people into that studio that are brand-new to EA. This is to build the new IP around Jade Raymond's team that she's been building. I was in that studio last month. And it's a wonderful new addition to our team. And we brought our BioWare Montréal team into that same facility. So they now all sit in one new studio together. We're obviously investing in Anthem, which everyone got a chance to see at E3. That's out of the BioWare Edmonton team and are very excited -- they're very excited. We'll see some increases around that in terms of spending. And then we're continuing to invest across all of our network and platform activities. I don't see any of those going beyond the targets that we've talked about, trying to keep R&D expense in the 21% to 22% of revenue range, but it is -- the goal is to drive new revenue. And if for some reason we weren't able to drive new revenue, clearly, that would be overspending, but we're very confident that we can drive new revenue around the action genre and continuing live service build-out across all of our products.

The claim that the series/studio is "on ice" came from a pandering clickbait hack who misrepresented a standard industry practice as a sign of doom just to get clicks from people who want BioWare to die.

Given that we have actual evidence that the game did well and was not a failure, unlike what said pandering clickbait hack wants people to believe, is a good reason to not lend any credibility to pandering clickbait.

They've already said how successful it is financially, it really upped the percentages for them. And they've been adding content in the form of new MP content, new guns and a new romance path all via free patches. Do I expect DLC on the quantity of ME2 or Inquisition? No. Do I expect we're getting a piece or two of DLC? Yes!

As I understand, Andromeda only increased EA's revenue compared to the same period last year, which didn't saw any major release. That says nothing if the game managed to meet expectations.

I am not interested in MP rubbish.

They can make 1000 dlc's for mp if they like but if there are no sp dlc then the game is finished for me.

There is also nothing to support that there will be sp dlc or a sequel.

This article says literally nothing to contradict MEA being a success.  It compares the number of times that it was mentioned to Battlefield 1 (which has announced DLC and is, honestly, a much bigger deal to EA than the entire Mass Effect franchise) and FIFA, which makes EA more money than God.  This isn't so much an article of facts as it is someone comparing things that are incomparable for the sake of their own narrative.   There were other articles, like the PC Gamer one, which took the exact same information and came to the opposite conclusion.  So, in any case, the interpretation of the data is apparently inconclusive, but we'll have to take EA at its word since, again, it can't lie to investors, and say that MEA was a huge contributor to the growth of several areas of income.  

I saw this article this morning and was wondering when someone would cite it as truth.  

Is it? It seems to be becoming the new norm.