EA CEO Andrew Wilson has claimed Dragon Age: The Veilguard underperformed on company expectations as players expect “deeper engagement” and more “shared-world features” in their games – seemingly implying the title would’ve been better off with its initially-planned live service elements.
“In order to break beyond the core audience, games need to directly connect to the evolving demands of players who increasingly seek shared-world features and deeper engagement alongside high-quality narratives in this beloved category,” Wilson said in a recent financial call (via PC Gamer).
“Dragon Age had a high quality launch and was well-reviewed by critics and those who played; however, it did not resonate with a broad-enough audience in this highly competitive market.”
Notably, Dragon Age: The Veilguard was initially developed with live service elements in mind, before the failure of live service game Anthem seemingly inspired a rethink. It appears EA believes it was on the right path initially, and that The Veilguard may have succeeded with players if it had more live service elements that kept players engaged for longer.
But as those who played the game will note, this is seemingly a scapegoat for Dragon Age‘s underperformance and too-high expectations that simply weren’t met.
Read: Dragon Age: The Veilguard, EA Sports FC 2025 underperformed on expectations
In late January 2025, EA reduced its projected bookings for the fiscal year, admitting both Dragon Age: The Veilguard and EA Sports FC 25 failed to meet expectations. In the case of Veilguard, it performed only 50% as well as expected.
Why did Dragon Age: The Veilguard fail to meet expectations?
There are ample reasons why this occurred – and it should be stated that the game lacking live service elements likely isn’t one. You can look to the high cost and long development time of modern AAA games, and how there’s no possible way to sell enough units to cover this incredible, constantly-inflating cost anymore.
Equally likely is that the ongoing cost of living crisis impacted the ability of casual fans to purchase and enjoy the game. The reality is when eggs cost up to AUD $9 a carton, spending AUD $100+ on a video game isn’t a luxury you can afford. The games industry is currently at a very difficult impasse. AAA games need to sell millions to justify the cost of their creation. They also need to be more expensive to justify this cost.
But at the same time, we’re going through a financial crisis as the global economy shrinks – and games are a luxury that few can afford. When consumers do buy games, it’s inspired by deep passion, and innovative, groundbreaking, or highly-acclaimed titles. They’re much pickier about what they spend on.
While Dragon Age: The Veilguard was met with strong praise from critics at launch, it was also the sequel to a 2014 game. A ten year absence is a long time. The folks who grew up playing Dragon Age wouldn’t necessarily all show up for the sequel – and new player acquisition is difficult in a crowded market, and with a franchise with such history.
It would also be remiss not to note that online conversations around Dragon Age: The Veilguard were incredibly hostile at launch, and to a casual observer, the furore and false outrage would likely have given a negative impression of the franchise.
There are so many ways to explain why Dragon Age: The Veilguard was critically acclaimed but financially disappointing. Very few of them relate to a lack of live service elements, or the need to create “deeper engagement” with its audience. Nevertheless, it appears EA is taking these lessons from the game, and will likely look to implement those coveted “shared-world features” in future projects.
