Taking a look at Dragon Age sales figures -
Origins - 3.2 million copies sold (as of Feb 2010, about 4 months after its launch)
Two - 2 million copies sold (as of two months after launch)
Inquisition - over 12 million copies sold (10 years post-release, unfortunately I can't find a more comparable time frame for sales)
Veilguard - 1.5 million "players reached" (about 3 months post-release, expectation for 3 million copies sold, unclear definition of players reached)
Awhile ago, when the generally positive critical reviews for veilguard came out, I said I was pretty sure bioware would be fine and would make it long enough to at least produce mass effect 5. Now, looking at these stats, I'm not so sure. Dragon age 2 was generally treated as a bit of a commercial flop for bioware, so seeing veilguard undersell it by a minimum of half a million units is not encouraging. Especially when it undersold ea's expectations for it by at least half. And I don't think ea's expectations were unreasonable! Three million in sales would put it in between the first two games and well below inquisition, the game it's a direct sequel to. That honestly feels a little odd, since it would imply that the studio didn't believe they picked up any new fans from inquisition's success.
I think that the 10 year gap was absolutely corrosive to the fan base. I understand why it happened on a development level, but it was an absolutely massive mistake. They completely lost the ability to capitalize on the excitement and name recognition inquisition generated as the incredibly popular game of the year for its direct sequel. Again, I completely understand what happened. I just think that all of the decisions that allowed this to happen (canceling project joplin, generally putting the series in the back burner, etc) were incredibly bad. They lost hype and momentum and ended up with far less in excitement and sales than they could have, especially since they lost a lot of long-time, key employees because of the development hell that ensued. This is on both bioware and ea. Bioware for their incredible mismanagement and just constant bag-fumbling and terrible working conditions and choices generally, and ea for allowing this to happen and generally pushing their studios toward a live-service model (plus all the other general ea fuckery).
It's also worth mentioning the "players reached" wording. That obviously doesn't mean the same thing as "copies sold," which likely means that the game sold less than 1.5 million copies. Admittedly, it's probably worth asking exactly how relevant sales numbers still are as we enter the era of game streaming services. It's genuinely hard to say, and that's going to be an industry-wide shift. But no matter how you slice it, the game clearly didn't do well commercially.
Looking toward the future, the first question has to be not what bioware will learn from this, but if bioware will even survive long enough to learn from this. They've had three poor releases in a row in an industry that isn't exactly forgiving. There have also been a few high profile departures recently, and while that might not be particularly unusual after a game launch, it can't be overlooked entirely. The studio is very much at risk of shutting down at this juncture.
But assuming bioware doesn't shut down, where do they go from here? What lessons will they learn from veilguard's failure? While it clearly wasn't a commercial success, it reviewed fairly well with a metacritic score of 82 (compare Andromeda's score of 71, Inqusition's of 85, origins' of 86, da2's of 79, and the Mass Effect trilogy's low 90s). Player reviews, on the other hand, were more mixed. Will bioware decide they made a good game and players just didn't get it? Andromeda and veilguard's writing definitely had some similarities, so maybe this is just the direction the studio has decided to go in and nothing will shake them from it. Or will they see the feedback and lurch too far in the opposite direction? They have a habit of doing that (they did it with inquisition after da2 and anthem's facial animations after Andromeda, for example). It could be that they decide it needs to be even more generic, even safer, to make sure they get the broadest possible appeal. It could be that they decide they need to double down on the nostalgia factor to attract the players of the older games. I don't know. I don't think anyone really does, at this point.
Honestly, I don't think bioware knows either. The studio clearly has a lot of issues that will take a lot of time, money, and introspection to fix. These issues are likely very entrenched in the studio's culture, and have been present for at least a decade, if not longer. And I don't know that bioware has the resources or the willpower to address them, given the circumstances.
