I think in the process of EA killing of a lot of developers people are getting a little blind-sided here.

Even though from what I know EA's justification for cancelling their other studios was more or less bullshit(I really only know about Bullfrog and Visceral, and even then we don't have the whole story), if EA closed Bioware it honestly would be deserved.

Bioware has many, many, many problems and at least half of them are about the studio and not the company that publishes their games. People have tried to brand every issue with any EA studio as a fault of EA, yet other developers like Respawn Entertainment are getting a huge amount of support and more post-launch marketing than most developers would get. EA might not be making better games but in some ways they're improving and if Bioware closed after Anthem failed? Sorry, that's on Bioware. Maybe their legacy would have been better under another publisher, but they're simply too inconsistent a company(and yes, I know they have different studios).

Respawn Entertainment is an independent company, EA merely publishes for them.  They are not under the control of EA.  

Care to list the issues with the main BioWare dev?  Cause the BioWare most people know and think of last released Dragon Age Inquisition, which did very well critically and commercially.  And is of course, working on Anthem.  Mass Effect Andromeda is the result of EA just not being willing to leave well enough alone and wanting to milk a franchise that was pretty concisely wrapped up but also wanting BioWare propper to make a new franchise.  

As for Anthem, we'll see what it's like.  But if it is a lootbox riddled, milktoast, blatantly-focus tested Destiny-esque pseudo open shooter with a lame story and forced multiplayer and gobs of microtransactions...well I HIGHLY doubt that would be BioWare's idea given their past several releases.  As a subsidiary of EA, they take their marching orders from them.  

Well then more companies should just go for publishing rights and not creative control(although that's hindsight)

I don't think Inquisition is a good case for Bioware staying around. It's essentially the go to "But but Bioware still make good games!" because it's literally the only semi-positive thing to come out in years. It got Game of The Year award but it came out in a year of mediocrity for the most part. I don't hardly ever hear anyone talk about it like Dark Souls or Skyrim or The Witcher 3 or many many other RPGS. I've heard "Elex" on this forum more than Dragon Age(ok jokes aside). 

Reality looks more like this: Mass Effect 3 terrible ending debacle(it's not a good game in general though), Dragon Age 2 is hated by a majority of the fanbase, Inquisition comes out and is forgotten quickly by gamers(I'm sure you or some Bioware fans will beg to differ), and Andromeda fails .. based on what we know ... mostly because of Bioware.

And even if EA FORCED BIOWARE against their will to make Anthem(which I won't judge yet), it's not an excuse for a mediocre game. So, when Anthem eventually comes out and gets a 90/100 from reviewers on Metacritic but a 6.5/10 from gamers that's something to keep in mind. 

You have to understand that for new generation gamers we did not grow up in an era where Bioware is this massive force, where Knights of the Old Republic and Jade Empire and Sonic Chronicles(hehe) and Mass Effect and Dragon Age Origins are all in recent memory. What Bioware is now is a cynical, hollow shell.

That being said, i'm open to the idea that i'm just an idiot and wrong.

At3.26 million sales for 2, the series could have survived and done well, if EA didn't grossly overspend in an effort to make it what it could never be.  It was never going to be the super monster blockbuster mega franchise, it was going to be a healthy horror series.  

But EA didn't want that.

And if you think the cynical changes made to Dead Space 3 that caused the backlash and horid reception were Viceral's idea and not EA, you are pretty naive.

And it is hardly shocking the studio failed making games it isn't good at making in the name of chasing EA's lust for the profits of the military shooter goldrush.  

Battlefield Hardline was hardly a lifeline either since they basically told them to reskin Battlefield 4 on a tight timeline.

When you force a dev to work on stuff they aren't good at and shove in terrible business practices on top, it's no shock games born of that are mediocre at best.

And no, the game won't continue.  The singleplayer, story driven game people were hoping for is gone.  It will be retooled, reshaped into something "more mainstream".  This isn't about quality.  It's about EA wanting their twisted version of games as a service instead of a straight forward singleplayer game.  If the game released is ANYTHING like the action adventure game proposed, I will eat my right hand.  

And yeah, you're right, this easily traced pattern of devs doing their thing and doing well, followed by cynical design choices creeping in, followed by milktoast mediocrity,  followed by closure could just be a coincidence and all these studios just magically lost their touch.  It's also possible this entire post was typed by me dumping three boxes cereal on my keyboard and all the pieces happened to hit the keys in this order.  Not very likely though.

It's really too bad, looking at their portfolio - mostly older games, such as the original Dead Space or Future Cop:LAPD.

Doesn't sound like this SW game was anything interesting, though.

EA milk companys of all the good will of their fan bases, and then cut the head off and close it down.

Its like its their bussiness practis, its how they make money.

...probably more like this

It probably doesn't affect that many jobs when the entire industry is always in a flux or musical chairs regarding their dev teams. Bungie for instance went from 100-150 employees during Halo 3 to having possibly over 500 with Activision. It also led to the creation of 343 industries. The gaming industry seems very forgiving just when I read the wiki history of all the 343 employees that were from bankrupt companies or failed games. 

If this thread is anti-micro transaction then I agree. However, let's not pretend that micro transactions kill games. They hurt gaming as a whole and hurt gamers, but they certainly don't hurt revenue. 

There is also Dante's Inferno that flopped. Dead Space 2 didn't sell bad, its budget was too big. Dead Space 3 flopped due to EA's business decision, as well as releasing with MGR, DMC, GOW A, TR and BI.

That's true but Battlefield Hardline did sell well for using same assets as Battlefield 4 and Star Wars was certainly going to sell on name alone, so that can't be the case. If you read there statement of termination it looks like they focus tested the game excessively and the linear single player didn't sit well with them cause a linear game can't keep a massive playerbase for long to support microtransactions and loot boxes. That's why its reasonable to say that this was a terrible decision on EA's part and it has to do with the kind of game they were making, not its quality.