If ME:A had gotten quality Quarian Ark DLC would you have forgiven EA/Bioware for the botched launch

No. When I pay for a product, I expect it to be completely finished and fully functional from the instant I take it out of the box (or in the case of a game, finish installing it). "Forgiving" a shit launch because they released something shiny and new only further reinforces the idea that a shoddy and broken product can be released whenever they please so long as they keep dangling a carrot in front of you.

Heh, playthong.

Yep. The Milkers take screen time away from the Andromeda species. The game should have had a max of 3 Milker species: Humans + 2 underdeveloped species. And that's still too many Milkers. The rest of the game should have been filled with at least 4 native Andromeda species.

The folks at BioWare Montreal were lazy though. Sad! 

Just because you believe fans might be upset by a certain change doesn't mean that you shouldn't pursue such a change, that's what it means to be a creator. Your job is not to give fans what they think they want but what they truly crave. People only cried about wanting the Milker species before release because they knew nothing about this new galaxy. But, had Andromeda had its own set of unique and diverse species on the same level of the OG trilogy I doubt there would be much complaining. I'm sure there would be a few die hard BSN users crying that they can't romance Quarians anymore but the majority would have been happy to see a plethora of new species with their own unique history, culture, and biology. After all, the whole point of going to a new galaxy was to be able to see new things and chart our own new fresh adventures. However, Andromeda is too scared to try anything new and instead wallows in the past.

All your post really seems to come down to is the fact that you don't like the type of game Anthem is, as I don't see how Anthem is indicative of "BioWare moving further away from what made their games so great in the first place." Last I checked, they've stated that Anthem will have a strong story and can be played solo so that sounds like BioWare's bread and butter to me. Or are you trying to imply that games like Mass Effect and KOTOR were wholly original types of games? Second, Dragon Age Inquisition was criticized at the time for its fetch quests, go read any review of the game at release. The difference is that despite those lackluster fetch quests there were plentiful well written and meaningful side quests to go along side everything else about the game that was great. I didn't say Andromeda was bad solely because its side quests were lacking, I listed it as one of the many reasons it was a disappointing game including its story, characters, world design, soundtrack, art design, and quest design.

Second, I don't really understand your insistence about "Anthem being prioritized over Mass Effect." First, you make a bold claim that Mass Effect "was a flagship series" to who exactly? EA? No. They own franchises like Madden, Fifa, and Battlefield, Mass Effect has never done those types of numbers? To BioWare? Well, BioWare is comprised of different studios each working on their own projects and among them I'm not even sure that BioWare is the most successful series compared to Dragon Age or SWTOR. Thus, acting as though Mass Effect was some crown jewel mega seller that they gave away doesn't really sound right. What it was, was a wholly original IP that EA/BioWare owned and thus could fully reap the profits from unlike say any SW licensed game. But, one BW studio deciding to move on to make something new is hardly throwing the franchise under the bus. They gave the series to a new BioWare studio who they presumably trusted at the time could get the job done, they were then allowed five plus years to develop the game. Again, that's hardly throwing something under the bus. Mass Effect 2 was developed in two years, as was Mass Effect 3. Dragon Age 2 was a game that was thrown under a bus, developed in less than two years and forced out quick by EA. Yet, I can tell you that Dragon Age 2 is a better game that Andromeda. Again, speaks to the talent of the different studios. Lastly, I'm you said "im "downplaying the amount of jank" found in previous BioWare titles, though I suspect you mean "overplaying." Last I checked, Mass Effect 1 still has horrendous texture pop-in, yet that still doesn't affect my enjoyment of the game. And, if you've played any Bethesda game you know they are jank city right from the start, yet they routinely sell gangbusters. Almost as though technical glitches in isolation don't ruin a perfectly great game.

There's a lot to unpack here.

First, trying something new doesn't mean abandoning the strengths you have relied on. BioWare is known for telling rich stories with memorable characters and meaningful quests. Trying something new means attempting to apply these same strengths to new genres and settings. For example, BioWare had never attempted an MMO before SWTOR, it was something completely alien to them. Yet, with SWTOR they chose to apply those same strengths I listed before to the MMO genre. The results were mixed. What we received was a wonderful amount of story content and characters, pretty much unprecedented for an MMO, however, they floundered when it came to the more game centric portions of an MMO ie end game content. Anthem may not be an RPG, though it's hard to know at this point, but we already know they are seeking to apply their strentghs regarding story, characters, and quest design to this new IP. As I said, trying something new doesn't mean completely reinventing ever aspect of the wheel.

Second, your personal opinions regarding Dragon Age Inquisition are affecting your view of the game and its comparison to Andromeda. Now, while you are entitled to your own personal opinions it does not change the objective overall reception of both games. Dragon Age Inquisition was praised at its release, sold amazingly well, and won GOTY. Andromeda was laughed at its release, received mediocre to poor scores, and is no serious person's contender for GOTY. So, while you may personally enjoy Andromeda more than Inquisition or feel Andromeda did quests better, that doesn't change what the majority of the public felt regarding both games.

Third, please source where any person within BioWare or EA has described Mass Effect as a "flagship series." I'm serious, I'll wait; because I've never heard that phrase from anyone within those companies. While you as a fan may regard it as a "flagship" that doesn't mean diddly squat to what the actual developer and publisher thinks about the franchise. That's not to say that Mass Effect as a franchise isn't important but it was hardly some mega pillar with regards to EA's success as say Madden and Fifa are. Also, of course EA/BioWare are attempting to chase success, they are a company, they are interested in generating a profit for themselves and their shareholders. Why do you think BioWare moved away from isometric DnD style CRPG's towards a more console friendly RPG with games like KOTOR and Jade Empire? Because they recognized that the console market was important and could grow their company more than sticking solely to the nice PC market. And, this was all BEFORE EA bought them out. Companies do what they believe will generate them the most profit. It makes no sense to develop a super hardcore CRPG that costs hundreds of millions of dollars to develop when the market is only a few hundred thousand people.

EA, for a long time, has wanted an RPG like game on the level of success of Skyrim and I'm sure the Edmonton employees feel that way as well. Still, EA is happy to push money into developing games like Mass Effect and Dragon Age so long as they produce comfortable returns at a reasonable development timeline. Mass Effect 3 took two years to develop and likely cost around 40 millions dollars to make and likely sold at least around five million, according to reports. That is a comfortable return on investment. If you take things like budget, marketing, and the cut of console manufacturers EA is still likely left with a net profit of around 130 million dollars following ME3's release, that's more than double their investment. Right now it's hard to judge Andromeda's financial numbers but let's spit ball based on some things that have been revealed. Let's just assume for sake of argument that Andromeda's budget was 100 million dollars, that's simply taking ME3's budget (20 million per year) and applying it to Andromeda's development timeline. And, this is being really generous since Andromeda likely cost MUCH more than ME3's annual budget especially due to rising inflation. We also haven't even added in marketing which is usually budget x2. In any event, by April it was reported that MEA had sold around 2.5 million units which left EA with an apparent incremental revenue of $110 million. I'll say again, "revenue" not profit. What that means in lay mans terms is that Andromeda netted EA about 10 million bucks by April on a budget of 100+ million dollars. That is a BAD investment. You don't spend 100 million dollars to make 10 million dollars more, what any company wants is at a bare minimum to double their investment. That will not happen with Andromeda. Thus, its easy to see why they were unwilling to sink more money into a failure of a studio. It's better to let the franchise sit and bring it back in more capable hands with a more manageable scope.

Lastly, the level of jank in Andromeda was ridiculous and was appropriately made fun of, but it is not the reason for its failure. As you mentioned, "Bethesda can seemingly get away with anything" why do you think that is? Could it be that because under that layer of jankiness found in Bethesda games there is actually an enjoyable and rewarding game underneath? People look past jank in games that are good, Bethesda jank are on the same level of memes as Andromeda. Yet, people still love to play them because they are fun to play. Andromeda is simply not fun to play. Andromeda didn't receive poor review scores because Ryder's face animated weirdly at times, it received mediocre to poor score because it is a mediocre to poor game. Inquisition, on the other hand, received good to great review scores and sold well because it is a fun game to play and is actually good.

At one time they said, it won't be an RPG. As for playing solo, you can play COD solo. The only question is what you're getting out of it. Next to nothing, since it's geared at being played online. Chances are, SP will be a similar appendix for Anthem. Maybe ten hours of solo content, since they're making no secret over this being an "online experience".

Wins the thread, imo. This is why the topic question is incredibly stupid.

Yes, but it gets old. And I think, it's getting old very quickly. There is a point where you can't fix it anymore - first impression is strongest impression. Publish a turd and it'll stick. Everybody publishes turd and it becomes a fucking swamp.
"Publish now - patch later" has kinda become a malpractice - and why fix when you already got the money? Just roll out the MVP fixes so we can wash our hands clean. Do you really want to do this wager about product completion when you purchase a game? Isn't that what Early Access is for? AAA publishing should be AAA product condition on shipping, not some fucking indie asset flipper QA standard.

A game can be redeemed by having quality post-launch support, but redemption and forgiveness are two completely different things.

I still don't get why "online" always has to mean team raids/strikes are mandatory to advance or to have satisfying play. Can't we have a social gaming experience without it being War or Sports lite? Maybe someday someone will figure out how to make the MMORPG experience appealing to those who want more than combat-centered experience and/or to introverts who don't want to be forced into co-op.