Mass Effect Andromeda Outage Map

Community Discussion

Tips? Frustrations? Share them here. Useful comments include a description of the problem, city and postal code.

Beware of "support numbers" or "recovery" accounts that might be posted below. Make sure to report and downvote those comments. Avoid posting your personal information.

Mass Effect Andromeda Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Count of Arcadia (@ArcadiaCourt) reported 2 seconds ago

  @BasedChar_RE The problem for Mass Effect is that the ending to 3 is such an ending that you can’t go forward without addressing it, and Andromeda tried the reasonable concept of avoiding it. However, BioWare screwed it up from story to just making sure the game worked.

• 
  Noir_Discourse🔞 (@Noir_Discourse) reported 30 seconds ago

  @Rookie_425 I was watching a friend stream this with a group, and no one there had any issues with this. It was all "oh cool an ODST" or "hey cool, is her name a Mass Effect reference?". Imagine my shock when I looked on Twitter the next day. 🫤

• 
  Gefyrios (@fenerliyan) reported 4 minutes ago

  @Exorius84 @Pirat_Nation That's true but it's an industry issue. I would say Mass Effect and Dragon Age are not just any IPs. They still have huge fan bases and appeal and Bioware exists only as a container for these IPs. Otherwise nobody would be interested in Bioware at all.

• 
  Jakey (@labiamajorasmas) reported 9 minutes ago

  @nozostars I think my issue is ive been spoiled so badly by mass effect where all the men both straight and gay are tasty and fuckable so seeing even a few male romance options im not rlly attracted to kinda turns me off romance in that game 😭😭😭

• 
  Knight(Fate)1029384756 (@Knight10293847) reported 10 minutes ago

  My first gut instinct is to agree because yeah. Mass Effect doesn't need a canon ending and it should by all mean respect what the players have done and explore those consequences to their natural conclusions. What the rachni choice should have been is exactly that. If you killed the rachni they shouldn't have showed up at all in ME3. Imagine hearing from a friend who killed the rachni and them saying "I didn't get that mission. Like I saw Grunt and we fought Reapers but the rachni didn't exist in my game. I killed them." And just being struck by how that decision not only makes the renegade choice correct (in a way) but also such a vast difference. An entire enemy type and race just doesn't have influence at all in the game. But that didn't happen. What happened is the rachni game back regardless and the only difference was if you paragon'd you paragon'd again to get war assets. If you renegaded you renegaded again to not loss war assets. Something that does have an effect but its not what the player expects on a bare bones basic or even what they wildly might think. And that is the issue with the ending choices of Mass Effect. The promise such divergent stories that can't simply be crunched into a similar path. There will just be fundamentally different conflicts and issues with each one of them. This video does suggest they just do what Mass Effect has always done but that is accepting a comprise instead of expecting what it should natural be. Not having different assignments to show that "Hey there are differences?" But genuine world differences. Synthesis is described where conflict isn't really a factor anymore. Where everyone knows what its like to be someone else. That story, that exploration of the themes would result in a much less action oriented game and more something like Disco Elysium where the central conversation is about what this life is like. Control is likewise a very different kind of conflict where smaller scale wars could happen. But galactic conflicts just won't exist. Something like a Krogan Civil War is just unlikely to happen with a Shepard controlling the Reapers. Where they could easily stomp down on any major conflict. And not only that but things like diseases, medically issues and similar things would nearly be erased. Maybe there is a story where Shepard becomes a tyrant and rules over organics as an AI god but I don't think many could see their Shepard doing that and I don't think BioWare could see Shepard doing that. Destroy likewise would just be about reconnecting the galaxy together and would be the one most similar to the setting before the Crucible. And all of this isn't even accounting for honoring other player choices. I mentioned it a bit with the Krogan Civil War hinted at in a N7 teaser but there is literally no way a Krogan Civil War can realistically exist in a Synthesis ending or a Control Ending. Not in the way the art depicts. Like I can not accept that if the quarians are dead in one playthrough that BioWare just goes. JK they live and the only difference is a mission. No, it should feel like a real loss. Something was fundamentally changed between a version of them living and a version of them dead. Because that is the promise of importing choices. A major decision was made and you will see how that plays out to its fullest. Not half, not a quarter but seeing it realized. The same feeling you get in a D&D session where a major choice you made comes back and makes you realize it would have been different if you made a different choice. I know for a fact that if BioWare does crunch the endings and the only difference is different side quests, I and other fans would be upset. Because that isn't what I wanted. The solution for BioWare is two fold. The hard path and the easy path. The first is they just buckle down make three games and honor the choices made in each game. Not saying Synthesis should be Disco Elysium but Mass Effect but its the one that makes the most sense in my head. But something that fully explores the ramifications of having this union between synthetics and organics. Same with Control and same with Destory. The second path is just canonize an ending. Its the easiest way because they can focus their efforts on story of the game instead of making a game that is literally about showing the player their choices and making the game before 2040. I think they should also canonize the Genophage, and quarian and geth choices because I know for a fact that if they don't it will be real sad seeing the only differences being less krogan, quarians and geth. And this isn't even considering the fact that the Krogan Civil War just won't happen at the scale shown in the artwork if Wreav is in charge, Eve is dead, and the Genophage isn't cured. Sorry but the krogan would just die out. Because the expectation of that combination of choices would be the krogan's extinction. Its how the games have framed it since the beginning and to alter that would introduce internal inconsistency. I hope this shows why this will be so difficult for BioWare but also why literally no other RPG studio has done it to this scale. What BioWare did with ME1 to 3 and DAO to DAI is astounding. Truly more than what I have seen. Because CDPR fumbled that and gave up with Witcher 3. Small example being Thaler is alive no matter what. And big example is that the dragon state you helped create alongside helping the Scoia'tael in the prior games just does nothing. No mention of it and not even the bare bones of them coming to help Geralt at Kaer Morhen. Obsidian did it fine enough but they just didn't do that with Outer Worlds 2 and Avowed. Larian? What about Larian? Larian has set each of their Divinity games 100s of years apart from each other just so they don't have to address it and on top of that they just are inconsistent. Only caring recently because they made it bigger. And don't even get me started with BG3. I know Wizards has already canonized events but what was with Viconia and Saervok? Just random guys with their names attached. Not even canonized endings just completely different people. Casey Hudson did an interview with Game Informer about this and he is right when he says this has to be planned out. So, many of these companions did these as features because BioWare did it because BioWare controlled what was supposed to be in an RPG. But as that feature waned without BioWare pushing it these other developers slowly removed it. Because its ******* hard to do. Great rewards if done right. A true feeling of your character existing in the world and having an effect long after it happened but a mountainous path it is. Again I want the hard path. BioWare. I'll wait man. Make three games and honor the choices of each of them. But as this video says its also about the money. And there isn't any reality where EA goes "Yeah, we can about 5 years with each release and for each of those games to be very different. Go head."

• 
  t (@RAFAN432) reported 13 minutes ago

  @MaroonKennedy Everyone wanted a space RPG. They just didn’t do a great job at making one. This probably wouldn’t be a problem that they made a new IP first if it was more like Mass Effect

• 
  sukru tikves (@stikves) reported 14 minutes ago

  The problem is a studio or even an “established IP” means nothing without the actual talent behind it As much as I love BioWare and the Mass Effect universe, It would be a massive undertaking to bring it back to the level we were used to before. Still I will keep hope.

• 
  Flatwoods Creep (@Flatwoodscreep) reported 15 minutes ago

  @Pies_of_Lee Veilguard is just a continuation of the same writing issues that plagued mass effect Andromeda but the same reactionaries were too busy bitching about a trans character in that game too

• 
  Gareth Walker (@Revision_124c41) reported 27 minutes ago

  @Beastiarii @Darket696 @K__Med This is a misconception sadly. Robbie Bach was in charge during Xbox's most successful era. He's the one who launched the Xbox 360, he's the one who helped organize many of the studios and the companies IPs. Such as Halo, Gears, Fable, Forza etc. He was the one who planted a flag for exclusivity for titles like Bioshock and Mass Effect 1. he was head of Xbox until 2010. 5 years after 360's launch. That means that many of his decisions and efforts ran through to 2012. He's also the reason you got the NXE, Blades, Xbox Live, and the many deals for things like Netflix. When Mattrick took over in 2010, Xbox 360 was already a success and leading PS3. He greenlit the Kinect. He was the one who didn't continue the acquisitions of exclusives and studios while sony was stacking release after release after release. During his time he lost momentum and the PS3 caught up and surpassed the Xbox 360 in sales. He looked at the usage data of Xbox 360 users and decided that since most Xbox users use the 360 to stream entertainment that taking kinect to the next level and integrating a dying technology like cable TV into the xbox was the way to go. That lead to him setting course of the hardware and OS team to change direction for the Xbox One. It was under his watch that a shfit to overly strict always on connections was decided for Xbox. Then in 2013 he revealed the hardware, told 80m xbox 360 gamers that they should stay on 360 if they didn't want an online connection. This resulted in the walking back of a heavily integrated drm system and publication process that wrecked the XBox XDK to the point that it actually got worse. Ruined Xbox's reputation. Destroyed their good will. Gave Sony the opportunity to pull out in front for the next generation. Did I mention these decisions also hurt the hardware architecture of the Xbox One because focus was put on non gaming features instead of game development? Well that happened. Xbox One VCR model was inferior to the PS4. At 100 dollars cheaper with a proper architecture suited for modern games that weren't madden. Sony trounced on them. That isn't even getting into the stupid name he green lit that gave gamers a way to taunt the brand, X-BONE. This lead to the quick dismissal of Don Mattrick from his position as he went to zynga. This lead to interim leadership with Julie Larson-Green for the following year until Phil could take the position in 2014. That means Mattricks plans were still in play, Julie was forced to hold an umbrella for someone else. Competent enough for the job imho, but never given the opportunity to prove herself to do so, since she was just there to keep the lights on. Then Phil came on board and had to right an already sinking ship that was being outsold 2.3 to 1. That gap would never close. Phil started out his first full year in 2015. They redesigned the One for the One S to put it on better or equal footing with the PS4. Got rid of the Kinect and made it possible for the VCR model to better compete. Gave us the One X and Backward Compatibility program (which was not cheap). Launched game Pass. by time he corrected these things his one weakness began to over take him. He doesn't know how to run studios. He's no Shuhei Yoshida (neither is anyone at sony these days mind you). By time all of this came together in 2017, the xbox was delivering compelling exclusive software. It was taking 3 years or more to get something out the door. Game Pass sabotaged any chance at a win they had. Just look at how poorly gears 4 and 5 did as a result, especially with that 1 month free. Discounts for the Halo MC steelbook and halo 5 steel book were dirt cheap within a matter of months. Day one game pass killed xbox and that was probably his first true bad move. Mattrick wouldn't have done a better job in this regard. I feel game pass was inevitable. Mostly because of Satya Nadella's position on software when he took over. Windows, Office, Cloud, anything microsoft was either cloud or subscription models. Do with that what you will, but this is why I start pointing to Satya as the actual problem here. Gears and Halo could have helped make Xbox healthy. Again assuming woke changes and other crazy nonsense wasn't at play. I have separate opinions for that and they are equally as negative. So where does that land us? two ceo's left with a dumpster fire because of two men. Don Mattrick and Satya Nadella.

• 
  Fizzypaladain583 (@Fizzypaladain58) reported 27 minutes ago

  @LordChrome375 The only squadmate who is worse then Liam imo is vetra given the fact she has all the same problems of Jax from mass effect 2 not being able to tank damage and dies alot

• 
  Night Time 👀 (@FighterFPS) reported 27 minutes ago

  @XTuleta @renegator66 @ANTllSM So by that definition EA never made a bad broken Game. Battlefield 2042, Anthem, Mass Effect Andromeda, etc. are all the developers fault right?

• 
  Ryu Maverick Art (@RyuNovels) reported 28 minutes ago

  My issue with modern RPG Games is they seem to focus to much on romance and hook up options You need to do to progress the Game, Like in Mass effect 2 You had the tantrum sequence of Jack against Miranda, instead of a neutral option you needed to pick a side, that's idiotic

• 
  lex is playing bg3! (@afrochantter) reported 29 minutes ago

  th funniest thing about EA is that they don't like money, apparently. for all their want and need of a live service game, they never considered that a mass effect live service based on me3's multiplayer would sell tons?

• 
  NintenRico (@NintenRico) reported 30 minutes ago

  @JamieMoranUK This sucks. Mass Effect is one of my favorite IPs and it’s gonna be gone. Or the new owners will want live service Mass Effect

• 
  BXG (@Lawgiver771) reported 31 minutes ago

  @GreasyPixel I've been on PC now for two years or so, and I've had far less issues than I ever did on console. Granted, I don't play games day one. Hell, I'm just now playing Mass effect legendary edition.