BioWare is closing. The next Mass Effect project, which was in early development, is ending with it. For the people losing their jobs, that is the immediate story, and it deserves more attention than another argument about what a studio’s catalogue means to the rest of us. But once we have acknowledged the people affected, there is a question the industry needs to sit with: how does a company that helped define the role-playing game become something its owner can no longer see a future for?
I don’t think the useful answer is “BioWare made good games once.” Studios change. Games miss their targets. A famous name isn’t a business plan. The more uncomfortable answer is that the games industry has become very good at recognising the outputs of game design while becoming less willing to invest in the process that creates them. It can count franchises, content, production speed, engagement and revenue. It has a much harder time accounting for the judgment that makes a player’s choice feel consequential or a fictional companion feel worth coming back for.
That gap matters even more when the proposed answer to every production problem is to make more things, faster and cheaper. AI can generate material at extraordinary speed. It can’t decide why a player should care about that material, what their actions mean within it, or which tempting feature should be removed because it weakens the experience. Those are design decisions. BioWare’s closure doesn’t prove that AI caused anything here. It does expose what we risk losing when design becomes subordinate to throughput.
WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED
In its closing statement, BioWare confirmed that the studio is shutting down after more than three decades and that early development on the next Mass Effect project is ending. EA’s announcement says a small team had been working on that project and that its decision not to proceed means closing BioWare and its Edmonton workspace. Game Developer reports broader layoffs and other changes across EA’s portfolio.
EA describes this as a decision about where to concentrate talent and investment for long-term growth. That is the company’s stated rationale. We don’t have a complete view of BioWare’s internal finances, the project’s condition or every alternative considered, so I’m not going to invent a single secret reason for the closure. The argument here is about the priorities visible in the decision and the wider industry conversation around them.
| What’s confirmed | What isn’t established |
|---|---|
| BioWare is closing. | That one technology or one executive decision alone caused it. |
| Early development on the next Mass Effect is ending. | That AI was used on the project or drove the closure. |
| EA is concentrating investment around selected portfolio opportunities. | That keeping BioWare open would have guaranteed a successful game. |
You can accept those limits and still question the framework being used. Financial discipline is necessary. It is not, by itself, an understanding of game design.
Insider Tip: Separate a company’s confirmed decision from your interpretation of it. The design lesson becomes stronger when it doesn’t depend on a cause nobody has established.
A FRANCHISE ISN’T THE THING THAT MADE PEOPLE CARE
When people talk about BioWare, they often reach for the names: Baldur’s Gate, Knights of the Old Republic, Dragon Age, Mass Effect. Those names have commercial value, but they aren’t an explanation of why the games mattered. BioWare’s own reflection on Mass Effect emphasised player choice, character development and decisions that affected later events. Its discussion of the Mass Effect 2 suicide mission described the work required to account for many possible player histories.
That work wasn’t simply writing a lot of dialogue. It was designing a relationship between action, character and consequence. The player made a choice, the game remembered enough to respond, and the response helped them believe that their version of the story belonged to them. Sometimes that response was large. Sometimes it was a line, a look or an uncomfortable absence. Its power came from the player recognising a connection between what they had done and what happened next.
| The visible output | The design work underneath |
|---|---|
| A memorable companion | Behaviour, dialogue, timing and reactions that earn the player’s investment |
| A branching choice | Clear stakes, meaningful alternatives and consequences the player can recognise |
| A dramatic finale | Earlier decisions prepared, remembered and brought together under pressure |
| A distinctive RPG identity | Consistent rules about who the player can be and how the world responds |
It is easy to see the first column in a pitch deck. The second column takes people, time, iteration and the freedom to discover that an impressive-looking idea doesn’t actually work. You can commission more characters. You can fill a galaxy with missions. Neither guarantees that the player will feel known by the game.
Insider Tip: When evaluating an RPG feature, ask what the player will understand differently after interacting with it. If the answer is only “there is more content,” you haven’t yet identified its design value.
OUTPUT IS EASY TO COUNT. JUDGMENT ISN’T.
A business can measure how many quests have been written, how many assets have been produced and whether a milestone arrived on time. It should measure those things. Teams need budgets and schedules. The trouble begins when measurable production becomes a substitute for evaluating the experience. A game can contain hundreds of choices while giving the player no reason to believe any of them matter. It can have enormous worlds full of people who never respond to what the player does. It can be technically complete and emotionally empty.
Good design often involves producing less. A designer might remove a system that undermines a central choice. A writer might cut a branch because the consequence can’t be supported honestly. A level designer might rebuild a spectacular encounter because players can’t read the rules. Those decisions can look inefficient if the only question is how quickly the team is producing material. They are exactly how quality is made.
That is where the obsession with speed becomes dangerous. If leadership treats the design process as a bottleneck, the apparent solution is to push more content through it. But the bottleneck may be where somebody is asking whether the content serves the player. Remove that judgment and production moves faster right up until players meet the finished game.
Insider Tip: At each milestone, review a player decision from setup through consequence. If the team can show plenty of completed content but can’t explain the player’s understanding, uncertainty and response, the design needs attention before the content count rises.
AI CAN ACCELERATE PRODUCTION WITHOUT DESIGNING AN EXPERIENCE
I’ve argued before that AI can be useful for rapid prototypes and placeholder work while a team tests an idea. That is a limited, practical use: make something rough, learn from it and then build the real production with people who understand what they’re making. The problem is treating AI-generated volume as though it solves the harder question. It can quickly give you dialogue, images, variants and plans. It can’t take responsibility for whether those pieces form a coherent experience.
Imagine generating fifty companion conversations. The hard work isn’t obtaining fifty conversations. It is deciding what the companion knows, what they misunderstand, how trust changes their behaviour, which player actions they will remember and when silence will say more than another line. Generate those conversations before answering those questions and you have accelerated the wrong stage of production. Now somebody must sort through a larger pile of material to find the game.
This isn’t a claim about BioWare’s closure or its development practices. EA has not said AI caused this decision. It is a warning about the industry’s wider temptation to use automation to address financial pressure without examining what the pressure is doing to design. If a studio has lost the time, talent and authority to make careful decisions, faster output won’t give those things back.
Insider Tip: Use a quick prototype to test a design question, not to avoid forming one. Write down what you need to learn before generating placeholder material, and have the production team replace it once the direction is understood.
MONEY MATTERS. SO DOES KNOWING WHAT YOU ARE BUYING.
I don’t expect a publisher to ignore costs or fund every beloved idea indefinitely. Keeping people employed requires a viable business. Some projects need to stop, and not every studio can be saved by telling its leadership to be more creative. But a financially serious industry should be able to explain what its best designers actually create and how that capability will survive a portfolio change.
A franchise can be owned. A team’s shared understanding can’t be stored beside the trademark. The craft behind a strong RPG lives in people who know how narrative, systems, feedback, art and production choices support one another. It is built through arguments, tests, failed attempts and lessons carried from one project to the next. When a team disappears, those people take their skills elsewhere, but the particular working relationships and accumulated knowledge don’t remain neatly packaged for the next corporate plan.
That doesn’t mean BioWare’s past work made its future success certain. It means that when an industry talks confidently about valuable intellectual property, it should also talk about the conditions needed to make something valuable with it again. The Mass Effect name can open a presentation. It can’t make a player care about a decision that the game doesn’t meaningfully answer.
Insider Tip: When reviewing a franchise plan, list the design capabilities it depends on, the people who hold them and the time required to test them. The licence is an asset; the experience still has to be made.
ASK BETTER QUESTIONS BEFORE ASKING FOR MORE CONTENT
If we want to understand game design again, we need to change what gets asked in the room where projects receive support or lose it. “How much can we produce?” is a necessary planning question. It shouldn’t be the first question about the game.
| Ask less of this | Ask more of this |
|---|---|
| How many hours of content are there? | What will the player care about across those hours? |
| How many choices can we advertise? | Which choices can the game remember and answer? |
| How quickly can tools generate assets? | What design question will each asset help us test or communicate? |
| How large is the franchise opportunity? | What experience makes this entry worth the player’s time? |
| Can we finish the feature? | Can we support its consequences consistently? |
None of those questions is hostile to business. A coherent game gives a business something meaningful to sell. A production plan that protects the player experience gives teams a better chance of delivering it without spending years manufacturing content they later discover has no purpose. Design isn’t the expensive decoration applied after the commercial strategy. It is how the commercial promise becomes a playable reality.
Insider Tip: Bring one playable example of the game’s defining relationship to a portfolio review. A small interaction that makes the player think, choose and see a response can reveal more than a large collection of polished assets.
FINAL THOUGHTS
BioWare’s closure should first make us think about the developers affected. It should also make us ask what the industry considers worth preserving. If we answer only with brand names and revenue forecasts, we’ll keep recognising the value of games after they succeed while cutting away the judgment needed to make the next one.
The future of game development doesn’t need more content produced for its own sake. It needs people with the authority and time to decide what an experience means, what the player can do and how the game will respond. Money keeps a studio operating. Design gives its work a reason to exist. An industry that forgets the second part shouldn’t be surprised when producing more and more games leaves players feeling less and less.
That’s it for this one! Subscribe to The Design Lab for more breakdowns and analysis. Please like, share, and comment if you found this article useful AND…
Need help applying these concepts to your game? Most games don’t fail because of bad ideas. They fail because the systems don’t work together to evoke immersion.
> Work with me:
https://thedesignlab.blog/services/
> Or go deeper into this framework:
Register for my upcoming book – Immersive Design Framework – below and get a second book, now, free!
Grab Myles’ FREE ebook now and find 15 indispensable design patterns that will equip you to craft exceptional Web3 gaming experiences. We’ll also notify you when his new book on immersive design is out!