Very simple theory for why marketing isn't showing anything about ME:A.

And yet Unity sucked so much balls up to the point Syndicate got lower sales and Assassin's Creed didn't get a game in 2016. Reputation is everything.

K. Simmer down.

Complaints about the ending were by a vocal minority. That's how it is. 10000 people complaining on the Internet is still a minority compared to the 3 million units sold. Even if only 20% finished the game, that's 1.5% of people who played it bothering to talk about it.

That being said, I never made an implication that the complaints were unfounded. This does not mean that individual complaints had merit or much value. Note I didn't even say that they were wrong either.  In short, the number of complaints has little to do with the validity of said complaints.

Even the ME3 ending controversy has nothing on the constant WoW drama on the forums. There are many valid concerns, but most are nothing more than opinions with little context.

In fact, you're employing the same hyperbolic statements that contribute nothing. "Gushing wound"? Really? 

You claim it was "Capitalism". I say no shit. That was the point of my post. They did it for clarity to counter the PR nightmare that was exacerbated by video game coverage. It was less about the outrage of the fans and more of that of the media. It's like a politician calling a press conference to explain their position. It's not an admission of guilt or failure in anything other than communication.

In concession, there was an elaboration on the intent of the ending so that people would understand what was going on. It was appropriate, as most of the complaints were that the ending didn't make much sense, as well as not having the option to refuse).

I played the game after the EC (and DLC) had come out, and in my experience it's done pretty well.

--------

Frankly I'm really not interested in arguing the success of ME3 with someone who clearly has an agenda. It was a financial success according to EA. It was a critical success according to reviews. It was a development success with its multiplayer. 

The only reason it scores low with users is that a lot of people give it hilarious unfair ratings of 0 because they dislike the ending at the time of release. It's fine to not like it. It's a subjective viewpoint after all... but really... a bad game? 

Even now? After all the DLC/EC?

In my very personal opinion, I think many of those user critics are fools who can't assess something with all context objectively, much like many couldn't assess Hillary being a better candidate than Trump.

And look who won.

Aaryn Flynn specifically stated that he wanted to replicate BGS' approach with Fallout 4 to marketing. This means not really revealing anything about the game until right before launch. This tactic is intentional and happening for a number of reasons. For one, it gives BioWare time to actually work on the game and not show anything that might get cut. Secondly, having a long marketing cycle can lead to consumer exhaustion and disinterest. Thirdly, BioWare wants to avoid spoiling the entire game through trailers and demos. By barely revealing anything, almost everything in the game will be a surprise and a shock when we play it.

ME3 wasn't a failure just because a handful of psychopaths genuinely wanted to kill the developers just because they didn't get exactly what they wanted.

BioWare doesn't give a crap about people who have already decided they're going to whine about the game regardless of reality.