A new Mass Effect V

well, it uses a lot of humour.

Well, too early to say, but I suspect the humour will be
"tongue in cheek" :D

this is normal

So Bioware is fine and dandy because Bioware CityX did bad with MEA but Bioware CityY wasn't involved ?!!

You're basically arguing that Elvis should take the blame for what an Elvis impersonator did, just because they had the same agent.

I wasn't offering a defense, I was providing objective clarification of the underlying facts.

No, Bioware X is not the same as Bioware Y. EA formed a new studio, slapped a similar label on it [presumably to signify that it was intended to serve as a support/secondary team for Bioware IPs], and got a bad result. Your issue is with EA or with Motive, not with Bioware, which has thus far always specifically referred to Bioware Edmonton [other than for Dragon Age Inquisition and TOR, which were handled by Bioware Austin].

As I noted, the label may have taken a hit due to EA's liberal usage of it, but the studio the label inherently applies to did not. Thus, it's rather easy to determine if a future game has value or not, by noting whether or not it is done by the developer you like, rather than a developer utilizing the same name. If you're not inclined to do that, that's fully your decision, the same as with any decision to avoid pre-purchase research.

This differs significantly from if a studio itself had had a flop (such as Frozenbyte's Trine 3), which actually would create insecurity with a developer. Here, your insecurity lies with the publisher, who confusingly presented labels, during a period when you were unaware they engaged in such practices. Thus, you've grounds for criticism towards the publisher for past events, but no grounds for criticism against the developer, nor any basis to doubt future releases.

Do note, they're not branches, they're independent studios. They inherently have nothing to do with one another. Thus far, the only interactions between the studios has been Bioware Edmonton cleaning up Montreal's mess following the Andromeda launch, Edmonton providing Austin some early support in launching TOR, and Montreal creating DLCs for previous Mass Effects.

This makes them about as similar as Bethesda and Obsidian (with Obsidian having made Fallout New Vegas using Bethesda's Fallout 3 foundation), aside from being controlled by the same publisher. Branches, on the other hand, have dedicated tasks, roles, or functions that are actively supported by the actions of another branch. Eg, "the customer service branch", "the art development branch", etc.

Your (paraphrased) final argument is that "the faults of one branch of a company with multiple branches fucks up the whole company". By that logic, you're actually in full agreement that EA is responsible for this matter, as (even though the term "branch" is inaccurate) all the studios are representative of EA- and not, as you keep insisting, of Bioware (as, again, Bioware has absolutely no meaningful connection to Bioware Austin and Bioware Montreal).

While on the books they are considered subsidiary studios of Bioware Edmonton, in practice EA has full control over such studios. If Activision suddenly decided to create a new studio called "Blizzard Snowday", then, again, the faults would lie on the copycat's performance and the group which established the copycat. You wouldn't suddenly expect Blizzard to change its practices in any way just because someone else with a similar name behaved differently.

Putting everything more simply:
If you've got a fruit seller, and they've always only carried one type of apple, but then they start stocking a second apple, then you won't expect those two apples to be the same. Further, if you don't bother confirming the more detailed names of the apples (eg, "Fuji Apple" and "Granny Smith Apple"), then you may be surprised when the quality or presentation differs.

Sure, if the fruit seller is simply labeling them all as "apple", then that's an unnecessary confusion [though, again, that's an issue with EA- specifically, with how Origin reports developers; Steam properly divides labels by specific studios], but you do have the option to look more closely into the matter before walking up and simply requesting "an apple".

Meanwhile, "Fuji" hasn't become any more sour just because "Granny Smith" ended up being sour- so, again, any hesitation should be directed towards the fruit seller and their needlessly ambigious presentation, not towards the thus-far-unchanged apple.

This'll be my last post on the matter, so make use of it as you will.

Perhaps a better metaphor for the matter would be to reference regions with identical or similar names, such as York and New York, given how that best matches in structure to typical location-based studio labeling, but that ended up feeling a bit too on-the-nose to provide good imagery. :P