Andromeda was a financial success.

If it hasn't been, then they'll probably keep working on it. Edmonton's busy with Anthem and DA; Austin's still doing SWTOR, right? Either one probably has its hands full.

That's what I'm referring to, the 1st quarter.  The 2nd quarter isn't over yet, so it has to be the first. 

EA's financial calendar does not align with the calendar year. It was released in Q4 of fiscal year 2017. This past quarter EA just reported on was Q1 of fiscal year 2018.

Why is there so much aggressivity from those who absolutely believe that there will be DLC, that MEA was a financial success, etc. and why is there so much misinformation or outright lies?

Kotaku's article that is so heavily criticized never said Mass Effect was dead. Here's an except from their article:
"That doesn’t mean there will never be another Mass Effect game, of course. It’s unlikely that BioWare will kill the popular sci-fi franchise. But BioWare is letting Mass Effect sit for a while rather than putting staff on Andromeda’s follow-up right away, those sources said."
kotaku.com/sources-bioware-montreal-downsized-mass-effect-put-on-1795100285

Yet all I read is "Kotaku is clickbait claiming ME is dead!!" I take Kotaku's articles as possible but am neither so quick to dismiss it (and believe blindly the contrary) nor do I believe what they say to be undisputed fact. But what they say only lines up with everything else we've seen/heard.

It seems some people really are in an echo chamber, only hearing what they want to hear, becoming aggressive (perhaps "triggered" is a better word) every time someone gives a more nuanced analysis of the situation. Basically to them, MEA was an undisputed financial success, no other way to see the situation, and we should expect to see a buttload of DLC and a sequel soon.

There's a difference between being hopeful and looking at these numbers as a good sign, and outright believing that your conclusion is the only valid one, discarding any discordant analyses or counter arguments. Destructoid's analysis of these good numbers take into account the weak line-up of Q1 2016 and ask the good questions. Are these results in line with their expectations? Did the game under, out, or perform as well as they expected to? These are points that need to be taken into consideration, but people here don't want to.

Remember when the Tomb Raider reboot sold well, becoming one of the best-selling game of the franchise, yet was still considered a failure by Square Enix?
www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-26-tomb-raider-has-sold-3-4-million-copies-failed-to-hit-expectations

These "good numbers" mean nothing without the correct perspective. I would not be so hasty to jump to conclusions, and I certainly would not be part of those insulting sites that have come to a different one.

[Quoted posts were removed]

---

Let's not do that. I don't agree with him or much like the way he comes across but we don't need to get vulgar here.

Besides the title, what else did it change?

It was released in the last week of Q1. So Q2 would be when you would have time to go through all the finance of what the game brought in plus the game will keep making new sales. Also, it's up to EA when they want to post the gains from ME:A chances are the digital pre order returns from the first week made them delay the earnings tell Q2. When sales stabilized. Also Video game sales as a whole are down quite a bit in the last few years so the game did really well in that aspect.     

Worth noting,during the earning call EA also revealed a new Battlefield in 2018,new Star Wars action game 2019 and of course there's Anthem........and yet zero info regarding Mass Effects because....."reasons"???????

Boondoggle and scuttlebutt will never not be fun words.

That article used to say pretty much everyone was fired and Mass Effect canned.

It was edited multiple times. That's why people say it's clickbait.

Interesting that this little gem from the Montreal Gazette in April 2017 was never picked up by the likes of Kotaku and other gaming media, yet rumors of a downsizing only a couple of months later spread like wildfire... and yet the Montreal Gazette itself doesn't appear to have picked up on such an apparently sudden reversal of policy:

montrealgazette.com/business/local-business/electronic-arts-to-create-500-jobs-in-montreal-after-getting-tax-credits

That doesn't mean that Kotaku can't be right... but I still think it indicates the existence of a clear bias in the gaming industry to largely report things mostly from a negative perspective when it's about EA and Bioware.  I honestly can't remember when I last saw a truly positive article about Bioware in the gaming media.

During the Q&A of the earnings call, EA apparently indicated that they were moving (or had moved) Bioware Montreal to be in the same building as their other Montreal operations.  There can be a number of business reasons for such things that would not necessarily be related to the performance of ME:A.

Plus again moving personell around by the needs for the company makes perfect sense and is either SOP or where EA is going in recent years.