Canadian NDP Leader Calls for BioWare Developers to Get Support to Buy Their Studio

BioWare's reported closure has drawn attention far beyond the usual circles of game-industry discussion. The Edmonton studio's legacy is deeply tied to Canada's position in game development, with three decades of work on role-playing games that helped define the genre for many players. Now, Avi Lewis, leader of Canada's New Democratic Party, has publicly argued that the people who made those games should be given the opportunity--and federal help--to buy the studio themselves.

Lewis framed the situation as an example of the broader damage he believes private equity can cause when it takes over major companies. In social media posts addressing BioWare's apparent fate, he said the developers who understand the studio, its creative history, and its games should be offered the first chance to own and run it. His proposal would see government support used to help the team acquire BioWare and continue development of the reportedly cancelled Mass Effect: Universe.

The suggestion arrives amid a period of severe instability across the games business. Layoffs, studio closures, project cancellations, mergers, and corporate restructuring have become routine headlines. BioWare's situation has particular resonance because the company has been one of Canada's most recognizable development houses since the 1990s, responsible for series including Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Baldur's Gate, and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic.

A proposal centered on worker ownership

Lewis's central argument is straightforward: BioWare's developers possess the expertise required to make and manage BioWare games, so they should not be treated as disposable after a corporate decision to close or dismantle the business. Rather than allowing the studio's people, tools, and intellectual legacy to be broken apart, he argues that public backing could give its staff a route to continue operating independently.

For useful background on this topic, read Shigeru Miyamoto Sees AI as a Chance to Reconsider What Creation Means.

"The developers at BioWare know how to run the studio. They know how to make the games we all love," Lewis said, arguing they should receive the first opportunity and federal support to buy and manage it themselves.

That is an ambitious vision, particularly because purchasing a prominent studio is not simply a matter of retaining a building or rehiring staff. A buyout would raise major questions about funding, ownership of the BioWare name, access to technology, rights to existing projects, and--most importantly--the fate of franchises controlled by the publisher. The proposal also does not establish whether EA would be willing to sell the studio or any of its associated properties, or what a deal might cost.

Still, the idea of employee ownership has a clear emotional appeal in an industry where creative teams can lose their jobs even after shipping commercially successful games or spending years building expertise around a particular franchise. Developers are often the people with the longest firsthand understanding of a studio's processes and culture, yet they frequently have little control over the financial decisions that determine whether their workplace remains open.

Private equity is at the heart of Lewis's criticism

Lewis connected BioWare's closure to EA's ownership situation, arguing that the company's acquisition by the Saudi Arabia Public Investment Fund, Silver Lake Partners, and Jared Kushner's Affinity Partners in August has created conditions in which short-term returns take priority over long-term investment. He described private equity as a model that buys businesses, strips or restructures them in pursuit of rapid profit, and leaves workers to absorb the consequences.

His comments also push back against online claims that BioWare's problems were caused by the inclusion of a non-binary character in Dragon Age: The Veilguard. Those arguments have circulated in some corners of social media, but Lewis characterized them as conspiratorial distractions from corporate ownership, consolidation, and financial decision-making.

In his view, the important issue is not a single character, narrative choice, or supposed culture-war controversy. It is the degree to which development studios can be subjected to sweeping decisions made far away from the teams creating the games. His warning was that BioWare may be only one early casualty if ownership is focused on extracting value quickly rather than supporting studios through the long, expensive, and uncertain process of game development.

That broader concern is familiar to anyone who has followed the industry's recent waves of cuts. Modern blockbuster games can take years to produce, require large teams across multiple disciplines, and face escalating technical and marketing costs. At the same time, publishers are under intense pressure to show growth. When projected growth is not achieved, even well-known teams and long-running franchises can be vulnerable.

What a developer-led BioWare could mean

A BioWare owned and operated by its developers would not automatically solve every problem that has faced the company. Running an independent studio demands more than strong design and writing. It requires secure financing, production management, hiring, legal expertise, publishing partnerships, marketing, quality assurance, and a plan for surviving the lengthy gap between projects. It would also need to compete in a market crowded with major publishers, live-service giants, independent developers, and an audience with exceptionally high expectations for any game carrying the BioWare name.

There is also a crucial distinction between buying a studio and buying its famous series. Mass Effect and Dragon Age are central to BioWare's identity, but the ability to make future entries would depend on who owns those intellectual properties and what rights could be negotiated. Lewis specifically raised the prospect of allowing the developers to continue work on Mass Effect: Universe, but no terms, transaction, or official path to make that possible have been announced.

Even so, a worker-led future could preserve something that is often lost when a major studio is shut down: continuity. Game development knowledge is not limited to source code, trademarks, and office equipment. It also exists in the relationships between artists, writers, programmers, designers, producers, and testers who have learned how to work together over years. Once a studio closes and people scatter across the industry, rebuilding that shared experience is extraordinarily difficult.

For BioWare fans, that prospect is especially meaningful. The studio's best-known work has been built around player choice, party dynamics, world-building, and long-form storytelling. Those qualities come from people and creative practices, not merely a logo. A new company staffed by former BioWare developers could carry some of that tradition forward even if it lacked ownership of every familiar universe.

A political statement, not a confirmed rescue plan

Lewis's intervention is notable because politicians do not often speak directly about the future of individual game studios, especially in terms of giving workers the means to acquire one. It reflects the cultural and economic importance games now hold in Canada, where developers have helped build internationally recognized studios and franchises. Edmonton, in particular, has been closely associated with BioWare for much of the company's history.

However, the proposal remains a political call rather than a defined government program or active transaction. Lewis may be an influential figure in Canadian politics, but there is no indication that federal authorities are preparing a funding package, that BioWare employees are organizing a formal purchase attempt, or that EA has entered discussions about selling the studio to its staff.

Those limits do not erase the value of the conversation. The games industry frequently talks about talent shortages while simultaneously shedding experienced workers in mass layoffs. A serious policy debate about whether governments should support worker cooperatives, employee buyouts, or regional creative-industry preservation could challenge the assumption that closure is the only outcome when a large corporation no longer wants to maintain a studio.

• The core proposal: provide federal support that would help BioWare developers purchase and operate the studio.
• The immediate goal: preserve the Edmonton team and potentially allow work on Mass Effect: Universe to continue.
• The wider argument: limit the influence of private equity and prioritize long-term creative employment over short-term corporate returns.
• The major obstacle: no official buyout process, government commitment, sale terms, or intellectual-property agreement has been announced.

The future of BioWare's legacy remains uncertain

For now, the future of BioWare, its staff, and the reported next Mass Effect project remains uncertain. Lewis's comments do not provide a practical rescue plan with confirmed financial backing, but they do articulate a response that many developers and players may find compelling: put the people who make the games closer to the power to decide what happens to the studio.

Whether that can happen at BioWare is another matter. The legal, financial, and corporate hurdles would be substantial, and the fate of any existing franchise would depend on rights that may not be available to a new employee-owned company. But the proposal highlights the stakes behind a studio closure. It is not only about one company disappearing. It is about the possible loss of accumulated creative knowledge, stable jobs, and one of Canada's most important game-development institutions.

As the industry continues to wrestle with consolidation and layoffs, BioWare's reported shutdown could become part of a larger discussion about who should benefit from the value developers create--and whether employees should have a viable path to save the studios they built.