Any news about Mass Effect Andromeda 2 ??

Exactly, Unity was a mess and Syndicate underwhelmed but regrouped.

You can't have the cake and eat it. MEA charted in the same manner as ME3 did. ME3 "fell" lower in the same manner so if that is proof of failure for MEA then it has to be proof of failure for ME3 as well? Is it?

Andrew Wilson has gone on record twice now saying MEA sold really well. They made a business decision for whatever reason but bad sales clearly wasn't to blame. Personally I don't feel that the SP campaign actually needs a story DLC. I was as surprised as the next one when they announced there would be none but the game itself is about the size I prefer.

I'm not done with the MP maps yet but in the long run some more maps and mission for it would be nice. As well as Quarians when the book about their ark hits. But I guess we won't get that. Still there is a fairly large insurge of fresh meat in MEA:MP these days.  

Vice President of EA said he'd like to see more Mass Effect. It still depends on BioWare and the other higher ups at EA finding a right time and place and available development team for it. In case they ever greenlight a Mass Effect title under a non-BioWare studio, chances are it'll just lose what little identity it has left.

EA before the game came out said that they expected the game to sell three million copies in the first week or so.  And, that those sales would make up 30 - 50% of the overall sales.  Which means that their projections were between 6 and 10 million copies.  The low end of the projections is understandably ME3, which sold six million copies, because as I said earlier, as a business you want to grow your fan base with each game.  Have you read anything saying that ME:A was the best selling ME game ever?  Anything I've ever seen says second only to ME3, and seeing that they're the only two games that were released on all three platforms at once, it should be second.

Now given that DA:I was Bioware's best selling game of all time, it means that your most recent Bioware release (Andromeda) sold worse than the previous two Bioware titles.  Since ME3 sales were the starting point of the projections, if it didn't beat ME3 it probably didn't sell the way they wanted it to.  On the ME3 earnings call after release, they said that ME3 was the best selling ME game of a all time, for DA:I they said it was the best selling Bioware game of all time.  

It's no different than when DA:O was Bioware's best selling game, and then they had a misstep with DA:2.  It didn't do as well, and if you believe the stories they cancelled content for that game as well, the exalted march expansion (Not the only parallels you can draw).  They also said in the press that DA:2 was selling well in the beginning.  They did something new in the next game, with success.  Which is what I think they'll do here.  The next ME game will probably be another named title and not a 2.

www.technobuffalo.com/2017/02/01/ea-says-mass-effect-andromeda-will-sell-3-million-at-launch/

EA is expecting pretty big numbers out of the upcoming Mass Effect: Andromeda, ballparking it at roughly 3 million copies worldwide at launch.

EA CFO Blake Jorgensen put the number out during the company’s Q3 earnings call. The game is also set to launch several days before the end of the financial quarter, and Jorgensen stated that we can expect roughly 30 to 50 percent of its lifetime sales to fall within these first few days.

Afterward, the remaining sales are expected to match the launch, and if the 50 percent holds up to EA’s estimates, it should sell roughly 6 million in total. This is the same number of copies that Mass Effect 3 sold over its lifetime, starting in 2012.


Like I said, it makes sense, because obviosuly you want the sales for each game to be better than its predecessor.

Edit: DA:I sales obviosuly didn't drop like a stone or it would not have gotten all the DLC it did.  It received some kind of DLC in March, May, June, July, August and September.  It's like DA:O, when they couldn't get stuff out fast enough to capitalize on the market that was out there.

I am not trying to disagree, I am just the type of person that wants to see the information for myself especially if it isn't something I have heard before. I really don't have a problem with what you were saying I just wanted to see the numbers.

One thing I did find is this comment from Andrew Wilson during the Electronic Arts Q3 2018 Earnings Conference Call which to me is more accurate then what people calculate themselves for there could be big problems for EA if they lie to investors as they have already tried to sue them in the past.

"...even if you look at Mass Effect, and while there was some polarizing sentiment in that franchise, it's actually performed really well, and player engagement is really strong..."

Q3 F18 Earnings Call

To me that means the franchise isn't nearly as dead as people have been proclaiming. EA might want to figure out how to remove the polarization that happened with it's launch, but it sounds like they are not abandoning it. One of the other investor's calls I did a look at specially said that Titanfall 2 didn't meet their expectations, so I don't think the negativity people keep saying EA might have towards EA or BioWare might not be the reality of the situation.

I never put too much stock in market speak.  Something can perfrom well even if it didn't meet expectations.  No one here is saying that they lost money on the game, at least I hope no one is saying that.  When there has been good news with past games they made sure to say it, best selling game ever, best launch ever, etc.  If this game sold four and half million, it probably performed well compared to the money they put into, it just wouldn't have sold the six to ten they were expecting.  That would also have nothing to do with the market that was there for future content.  The money they took in off pre-orders and day one sales probably covered them financially.  I'll never know what the actual sales were, but from their own CFOs statements, I can tell what they were expecting, and what ME3 sold.  Unless someone can link a mention of ME:A being the best selling mE game ever, I have to go with it didn't perform up to expectations.  Now, could it have still made money and help drive earnings, or course.   But once again that has nothing to do with the market for follow up content or the viability of future titles or a sequel.  

Also, this kind of thing cannot turn into lying to investors.  Saying the game was profitable when it wasn't would be lying to investors.  Saying you met earnings when you really didn't would be lying to investors.  Making subjective comments about something however, is not.  I work in accounting, and I've sat in on earnings calls for my company, and I've seen what marketing has written up for these calls.  Just think about it.  The game is did really well but we stopped support.  Players are engaged, but we're not giving them any more content.  

I don't even buy that they don't have the people.  Our company has 3rd party people we contract with to help us when demand is more than our current staff can handle.  People who we've worked with for years that know our software in and out, and can step in almost as well as our developers, consultants or support people.  I'm sure a company like EA has this as well, and more than one source.  They gave the game itself to someone other than their main team, but now somehow support and DLC can only be done by the main team? 

I'll ask again, is their anyone that thinks had this game gotten great reviews, hit the three million in the first few days and was on pace to hit the high end of the projections of ten million units sold that this game wouldn't currently still have support and DLC?  If you say no, you're saying that EA, EA of all people said we just didn't want the money.  It was out there to be made, we just didn't want it.

EA has a dozen subsidiaries and studios making games that are not BioWare.

It depends on why they cancelled the DLC, we don't know the real reasons why its all guesswork and frankly anyone's guess is just as valid another persons.

Even if those factors you mentioned were true and the other contributing factors still existed I could see a lack of DLC. An example would be they fired or moved all the management out of BioWare Montreal for they didn't like their performance which still meant everyone was transferred to Motive and that is why we didn't get DLC this time, I could see them not making DLC with the success you talk about. Unless we know more there is still a chance that regardless of how the game did the factors could still exist that meant we didn't get DLC.

They also said to keep your ME3 saves and that turned out to be pointless.

Unclear. Some have said that BioWare is more or less given a free reign to do whatever they're going to do. That means the game that came out is the result of whatever BioWare did. Now, I don't know who assigned BioWare Montreal to making an ME game. A studio that had only ever done one DLC (which was great, but still not the main game) was probably not the right choice. EA seems to be the ones behind no further DLC, something which might have been able to make up for some of the issues in MEA. Tbh, though, I'm just guessing. We do know Anthem needed help but had MEA been a huge success you can bet they'd have devoted time and resources to DLC and probably working on its sequel right now.