Are you familiar with the US foreign policy proposed by Theodore Roosevelt? "speak softly and carry a big stick"

EA may speak softly, but they carry a big stick. Bioware has clearly catered to EA, intentional or not, and their games have suffered from it.

Mirrors Edge was not a success either, btw.

DICE marketing director Martin Frain initially projected Mirror's Edge to sell a total of three million units be sold across all platforms.[56] According to Electronic Arts, the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 versions had combined sold over one million units by February 2009.[57] In October 2010, a court document pertaining to the legal conflict between Electronic Arts and Edge Games revealed that Mirror's Edge had sold over two million units, with over 750,000 of those units having been sold in North America.[58] EA revealed the game had sold around 2.5 million units by June 2013.[59]

It took them 5 years to reach their initial projected sales, and that's after combining every available edition. That's a commercial failure.

They did still chase it with followup games, btw.

This was followed by Mirror's Edge 2D, a browser game adaptation by The Fancy Pants Adventures developer Brad Borne.[41] A prequel to the game, also titled Mirror's Edge, was released for mobile devices in 2010.[42]

Catalyst was going to be included, as it was shown at E3 in 2013 and 2014. And delay, delay, delay, all the way into 2016. Catalyst was quite literally EA chasing the money, because Mirrors Edge has only really gotten recognition long after its release -- in terms of sales, and it's availability on Steam really helped solidify it's presence as a cult classic. The game of course was received well, it just didn't sell (not much marketing and it's not a game of the era, so to say, it is not an action heavy shooter game). So now after 8 years of letting this IP rot in development hell they said oh we can add some MTX and make another one, hm, let's make it open world that's what gamers like these days. It was actually decided in 2015 that it would be open world, since that wasn't seen in any of the 2014 promotional. So 1 short year, since June 2016 is the games release.

Nah, I enjoyed parts of Catalyst but it's a shell of its original. Dying Light and Ghostrunner are almost closer spiritual successors in regards to expanding on mechanics. The gameplay was the same but without any actual dynamics (gunplay wasn't great in ME but it breaks up and gives variety), the writing was predictable and just really not that great, and that leaves new additions... Which you just avoid because it's an open world and you only have running tools at your disposal. The mechanics of the game are horrible as well, inputs get dropped all the time it's a huge problem. There's just so little about the game that's designed well, which is insane, because the game still accomplishes scratching the itch of Mirrors Edge, just very poorly.

No, what made Mirrors Edge great was the passion. It was a tight knitted and mechanically rewarding. These levels so carefully designed. Catalyst's paths do not have the same care, they are just rushed together and it shows during the gameplay and how one path flows and the others are just ways you can go. There's no depth and attention.

The developers freedom to pursue that passion was the very same thing that allowed Bioware to create the games they wanted to make (and like Bad Company 2's story with DICE before dropping it entirely for multiplayer only).

BF3 may be a fine game, and 4, but you surely understand that they are copy pasted formulas that explicitly are not impassioned. What made Bad Company beloved was its improvements over the previous iteration along with its differentiation from MW2, on top of having a fair single player story. What made Mirrors Edge beloved was its direction and its gameplay. For both of these, these IP's to EA became no more than how many zeroes they can generate. It's a pattern with EA, from Mass Effect to Need for Speed to sports games to Battlefield. Once you have a formula you wait for it to be profitable to sell it again.

Mirrors Edge was received well but sold poorly. They tried to profit on some spinoffs, failed, 4 years later sort of began development and turned Catalyst into another open world microtransaction game without any of the heart that made Mirrors Edge work. Battlefield was mediocrely received until it did something better than CoD, then they focused on repeating that over and over, leading to BF3 and 4 and 2042, with the only "unique" Battlefield even available now being Battlefield One. Before Battlefield, it was Medal of Honor.

EA is a plight. I don't know how you can say it's not that bad and shift blame to the developers, that their games are their decisions. It's just unequivocally untrue. Of course Bioware doesn't have execs breathing down their necks, the execs are selling the game Bioware pitches to them - Mass Effect now with MTX. In that interview they literally even say, "EA wants to buy a company to do something well, if they ruin Bioware then they won't get money. We make the games we want to make. They give input absolutely but we make our game." Oh, and he mentions games, Shadow Realms, which never even came out because it was cancelled in 2015. And this is a video from 2013, so it may not have even been 2 years before this video with the timestamp you like is literally proving the point of the person asking the question (Q: Will Bioware be affected by EA's acquisition; A: No, Bioware makes the games we want to make, EA wants money, EA gives input, Bioware makes the games we want to make) 2 years later, EA: Yeah, you can't make that.

All that aside, I'm not really sure what the point of the video is supposed to prove... These people don't even work there anymore if I remember right (head Bioware all jumped ship, no? I may be misremembering)? EA has the big stick. If you devs don't follow them, you won't be a dev at EA anymore. The devs at EA are inherently trapped because you cannot expect your game to be made unless it is within the expectations of the publisher, and thus you see the problem. When you pitch to EA, your creative work is already compromised. You think Bioware made the game they wanted to make with Andromeda? Anthem? Psh, Shadow Realms?

EA bought Bioware in 2007/8. EA killed Bioware in under 10 years and is now playing with its corpse. Literally 5 years after the acquisition is this video, the game of which he's referencing 2 years later is cancelled and 2 more after that Andromeda releases. I really, really think you have mischaracterized EA and their relationship with their studios. EA is very hands off, yes. But they speak softly to you. And they carry a big stick.

You, too, would compromise your passion when working for this studio. It is actually impossible not to, by design.

I lived near EA's SF studio for many years, that's really honestly the main reason I even bothered to reply with something this lengthy. I know many former devs part of studios both made with and acquired by EA. It's insane, they would be a great company to work for in so many ways. But their business practices ruin all of that. The last 20 years of EA being awful are true, just because you can point to BF2BC and say how could they be bad, you can also point to Madden Fifa and SWBF2. EA perfected this practice of seeping out the creatives from the studios long, long before Bioware was bought out.

Nuance is lost. Simplistic narratives are everywhere - and there's nothing simpler than blaming the big boogeyman for everything. I'm not saying that they haven't made mistakes and aren't to blame for a great many things, but not every time and everywhere for everything.