I always had a suspicion that most of the fault was on Bioware for making these crappy games and honestly Jason's prior article basically proved that. Aside from EA stepping in and just outright cancelling projects (which gamers would still find a way to blame EA on) there was not a whole lot that EA could have done - Anthem basically restarted development at multiple times, it needed to be released. 

Whether Dragon Age turns out to be a GaS or not, it still is made by EA and post-Andromeda Bioware. That alone is reason enough to stay far away until a long time has passed.

And I have always swore that EA have always told developers what they want. EA have always wielded power, I do not believe half of the shite that has come from Bioware is what they actually wanted to make. Just like Rare did not want to make that shitty fable game, that was all MS's idea, there are probably very few developers who are given complete freedom aside from Sony ones.

My opinion is bias, as I may have stated, but I will add to Matt's reply. DA:O is more tactical than this. You can definitely spam attacks as more of an action RPG than Origins. The fetch quests were a big gripe for many but honestly, ignore them, they are 'side' for a reason. Only reason to do them is for trophy hunters. (Ignore shards and requisitions, helps loads).

The game becomes 100% better when you aren't trying to reach some silly area farming or collecting stuff but just getting on with the game. There is more than enough content for that. First part is in one are where you are meant to meet a person then gain a small amount of power to progress the story (power is needed to do that). But based on early impressions people just stayed in that first area and farmed and gain power not leaving or opening up the main game. Once you finish the first chapter the game opens up with more of the world to explore.

I have no problem with that. I like the idea of game as service; really looking forward DA4.
It is different than being an MMO tho.

Ok - that is not an argument against quality, though. Most AAA titles get the criticism of feeling "soulless" and no doubt countless people in the industry work at a job not because it's what they want to do but because it's stable. Guess what? Those games still get received much better, have less problems, and sell millions. And the reality of having a job is that you're going to have to separate doing what you want most from making the best product possible on occasion. 

The whole "EA DOES/DOES NOT GIVE BIOWARE CONTROL HISSSSSSS!!!" argument is ultimately pointless because it's always based on speculation. All I'll say is that most Ex-Bioware and Bioware employees have attested to the amount of creative freedom EA gives them when interviewed. And yes that could very well be because of the industry and studios not trusting employees who badmouthed prior employers, but even in this Jason Schrier (you know, an actual insider?) interview with a Bioware employee that was not in any way "official" or known by the EA/Bioware prior to its publication - it is basically said that Anthem was Bioware's idea. 

Bioware had multiple opportunities to make a better product and failed. They have been failing not since the mid-eigth gen but since the ending of the 7th one. Even Dragon Age Inquisition was a game multiple employees wanted to fail so that the higher ups in Bioware would get the message that this kind of development process is risky and stupid  

Honestly, I'd prefer it if Dragon Age 4 were an actual MMO, as that's at least a tried and true genre. The Games as Service thing is basically the worst of both worlds.

Surely they wouldn't GAAS Dragon Age?

GAAS is not a genre, it's a concept. A concept that doesn't really mean anything. Most online games since the beginning of time are GAAS. Every MMO ever is a GAAS. If you're wishing for an MMO you're wishing for a GAAS.

The idea is who it works. To 'keep people playing'. That's what they are after, your time but I don't see how making all these games about continued play encourages you to spend money? Only thing it means is that your time is split between 2 or 3 games, instead of buying 7 or 8 over the year.

League of Legends is F2P, people can spend numerous hours playing and not spend a penny but then if you get enough players because it's free, there will be enough people to spend money on small transactions to make it worth while. Fortnite, Apex and many other MMOs are like this.

Then there is WoW, which is subscription and it's success come from getting people to pay for continued play. Which works in MMO settings as they are ever expanding games with ongoing events and things to do.

But for what should be single player RPGs/Shooters on consoles that you pay once for the game? I've played Destiny and while it was fine the game lost it's appeal to me once I realised I was no longer their target as I was never going to buy DLC or the expansions. I had my fun and moved on. Destiny 2 was the same, got it on PS+, played it, enjoyed my time with it but then stopped as the idea of constant grind is not fun. Infact with Destiny 1, I think I spent more time playing the story over and over than actually doing what they wanted me to do which is grind dungeons. 

The problem is, Anthem's failure might be too late. If EA's mind is set on making DA a MP online game 1.5 years ago, do the developers have the resources and time to scrap that? as they've done it once already. What then when DA4 only sells it's normal amount of 5 million or so and EA expected 10 million because of the time and investment?... oh wait. RIP Bioware.