Bear in mind the EA marketing model:
"You will pay, because you're all a bunch of ****ing junkies."
Junkies for what? Why, brand names, of course. They assume people will keep buying Big Name Game because it has a Big Name, even when there are problems. Why? Because they know that fans of a game, once well established, will keep hoping the next iteration is better. Take the Battlefield, series, for example. Each game that gets released has major flaws, but people keep buying them. DICE repeatedly manages them poorly, and is slowly moving towards ever more obnoxious DLC systems. But people keep buying in the hopes that this time it'll be better -- and then complain when they do. I get frustrated by aspects of the Battlefield series, but I generally know what I'm in for when I buy. I suspect other consumers....do not think this way.
Take Dragon Age. Origins is AMAZINGLY well done, especially considering it's age, and especially on PC. I've heard only mixed reviews on DA2, though. But you KNOW people will still buy DA3 because (A) "It's a Bioware game" and (B) "It's a Dragon Age game and they say this oen will be EVEN BETTER than the first one!!!11!! ZOMG!!"
EA counts on that kind of optimism, as do any of the producers of franchise games (let's be fair -- Activision and LucasArts both do this too). They KNOW fans will buy simply because name XYZ is on the box. Microsoft is counting on this with Halo 4, even though Bungie is no longer making the games. You see it everywhere.
I do think Bioware has taken some major hits this year, but I think that they'll survive if only because people WANT them to survive. They remember Bioware's golden years, when they could do no wrong (well...if you ignore Neverwinter Nights, I guess...) and hope for a return to glory. I think that's...unlikely because EA holds the purse strings now. They may return to making "pretty good" games, but they won't go back to making "OMG AMAZING!!!" games. They don't have the freedom to do that now that they serve a corporate master.