BioWare’s Closure Could Put EA’s Dormant Game Franchises on the Market

A portfolio without a studio

BioWare’s closure leaves EA with a portfolio question: what should it do with franchises that no longer have a studio making games for them? Former executive producer Mark Darrah thinks a sale has become more plausible, but says EA’s immediate focus is likely to be reducing costs rather than generating revenue from dormant properties. That distinction matters: owning a recognizable series and having a near-term plan to make money from it aren’t the same thing.

EA owns Mass Effect, Dragon Age and Jade Empire, regardless of BioWare’s status, Darrah said in a video discussing the studio’s shutdown and the cancellation of its Mass Effect game. With no one at EA working on a BioWare game, the publisher could eventually decide to sell those rights. It could also leave them unused, he cautioned. The choice isn’t simply whether a franchise has fans; it’s whether EA sees a practical reason to develop, license or sell it.

“There’s nobody working on a [BioWare] game, or games, within the EA organization, and chances are there never will be,” Darrah said. “That might make them more likely to sell off those IPs. But it might also make them more likely to just try to forget that they ever existed and bury them in the vault.”

Cost cutting comes first

Darrah’s timing caveat matters. He described EA as being in “cost control mode,” a phase when the company is more likely to look for expenses to cut than to pursue new sources of revenue. In his view, selling dormant franchises may become more attractive later, once EA shifts its attention to generating income. A portfolio review can be a way to simplify what a company owns, but a sale still requires a decision about what the rights might be worth and whether they’re useful to someone else.

That wait could be shaped by the company’s financial position. EA was acquired for $55 billion by a consortium comprising Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, Affinity Partners and Silver Lake. The deal required EA to take on substantial debt, leaving cost control a likely early priority as the company manages its financing obligations. In that setting, management may favor choices that address immediate pressures before spending time and resources on projects whose returns are uncertain.

That doesn’t mean a sale would automatically be the simplest answer. Franchises can retain value through future games, adaptations or other uses, but each path depends on having a willing partner or a credible plan. If EA has no such plan for a particular property, holding it can mean foregoing a potential source of cash while keeping it out of another developer’s hands. The trade-off is real, even if the source offers no way to know how EA would weigh it.

Later, EA could review the dormant franchises it has accumulated over decades. Alongside BioWare’s properties, its catalog includes Command and Conquer and Dungeon Keeper. A sale could make sense for a franchise if EA has no concrete plans to develop it, though Darrah’s comments leave open the possibility that the publisher will simply hold on to unused rights. The numbers here are underwhelming in one sense: a large catalog doesn’t itself show that the owner intends to bring every series back.

Mass Effect may take a different path

Mass Effect could be an exception. Rather than sell the franchise outright, EA might license it to an outside development team, a route Darrah’s discussion raises as a possibility. That option would let EA retain ownership while another studio handles game development. For a publisher, licensing can preserve control of the underlying property while shifting some of the work of creating a game to a partner; it also means the result would depend on finding a team and an arrangement EA considers acceptable.

This is more significant than it looks. A license could keep a series active without rebuilding the original studio, but it wouldn’t by itself guarantee a game, a release or a close match to what longtime players expect. Nor does the possibility tell us whether EA is pursuing such a deal. Darrah is describing a potential route, not announcing a decision.

There’s also a separate reason EA might keep the property in play: reports say BioWare’s closure hasn’t stopped plans for a television adaptation. No details have been announced, but work on the series is reportedly continuing at Amazon MGM Studios. An adaptation and a game are different projects, yet continued activity around the property could make an immediate sale less straightforward for EA to assess. (And this is the part most people overlook: a franchise can remain active in one format even while game development is paused.)

What EA’s next move would signal

For now, EA’s likely approach is to stabilize its finances first; the future of its dormant franchises may become clearer after that. The company’s decision will show how it values properties that have recognition but no current BioWare team attached to them. If you’re working in this space, the useful signal won’t be speculation about a sale alone; it’ll be whether EA commits to development, explores licensing or leaves the rights untouched. Each outcome would reflect a different judgment about the cost of keeping a franchise alive and the value of waiting.

That said, silence can’t yet be read as a settled strategy. Darrah’s comments describe the tension between reducing costs now and finding revenue later, while the reported television work gives Mass Effect a possible reason to remain in circulation. EA hasn’t announced what it plans to do with these properties. For now, the franchises sit between ownership and use. Unresolved, and consequential for anyone hoping to see them return.