I’m aware they have different studios but I’m not sure it’s necessarily a good thing, it’s been reported that they do not get along very well and it leads to turmoil. Stuff about them fighting amongst each other, trying to swing their dicks around trying to prove who the “real” Bioware is, childish shit like that. It’s part of why Andromeda/Anthem turned out to be such shitshows (and the BW studio that made Andromeda doesn’t exist anymore).
I’m (morbidly) curious to see how Austin handles Anthem 2.0 - if it even comes out, which I’m still skeptical of. From what I’ve heard they might have a better grasp on what they’re doing than Edmonton, but the game’s name is so tarnished at this point it would have to be insanely good to even have a chance of making a comeback.
anthem was basically all edmonton and them being retarded (think there's a report floating around, just look for "bioware magic" where they thought "all will come together magically in the end"). doubt edmonton is even involved with anthem anymore at this point, same way austin is in charge of TOR and dice LA of whatever dice sweden shits out, so the main studios can
fuck up work on the next project. honestly I don't know why EA doesn't just give those projects to them directly, because edmonton and sweden
always crap themselves and have for years. imagine a mainline battlefield (which sells on name alone) done by visceral, RIP.
the andromeda studio was just a random EA studio (although I think they also did the ME3 multiplayer), they just got named bioware to sell mass effect. after that cratered there was no reason to keep them around (good riddance, now curry king is back being a nobody when he's not twittering under the bioware banner). that's where the possible animosity could come from, because afaik studios mostly work on their own.
as for anthem... they fixed the most egregious stuff like crashes and loading screens everywhere, progression is actually good (speaking as someone who's not the biggest fan of shitty designed looter shooters), suits play distinctly enough to offer actual gameplay diversity etc.; if it would have come out in the state it is now it probably would've been received quite differently. shame really, because all it's missing is content - you can only fly around the same map for so long, although they tried hard to make you not notice it with their additions. however with no one playing it (and adding money) that state will never change. I would go as far and say the game is actually
fun now.
tarnished name... dunno, people still play destiny and warframe, and those were probably bigger crap repeatedly for longer than anthem, which just got laughed at and then forgotten. if EA is smart they make it f2p with the basic suit and offer the rest a la carte in the beginning so people can at least give it a try without much investment, and since they're back on steam it should be even easier to get people to install it. if it works out great, if not not much harm done but at least some people might have changed their perception about the game (and possibly EA). but since we're talking about EA the chance of them being smart is slim to none. fuck I expect them to go full retard with 2.0 because the first version obviously didn't sell, completely missing that it was not the gameplay or basic design that made people drop it, they'll probably take a game that is fine at it's core and just needs a more little polish and more content and turn in into some abomination they think is "hip with gamers" at the moment or whatever while spending time on bullshit that didn't need fixing in the first place.
well, at least I got my money's worth out of it and can remember the good parts. still, I have to give EA props sticking to it and at least trying, not like the faggiest studio in the industry with battleborn...
