Do you have a source for that? Because Bioware has a history of chasing trends on their own volition, which is why ME went more shooter and why they decided to make Anthem. I wouldn't be surprised, but all I've really heard that would be on EA is an insistence on Frostbite engine.
[...]
My understanding is that with e.g. Dragon Age 2, though EA pushed them with the probably unreasonably short timescale, the artistic choices with spiky graphics and a soundtrack to match, waves of combat with abseiling goons (popularised by the SAS 40-odd years ago, and later revealed that they actually thought it was a terrible idea but tptb insisted as it made good TV) and perhaps most egregiously the "awesome button" were entirely Bioware decisions; as was the notoriously bad ending of ME3. In comparison, I actually preferred Inquisition and thought it was far better realised, though it was clear that some elements of the game really suffered due to them being the ones who were forced to figure out how to make the suddenly compulsory Frostbite engine do something it was never designed to do.
I think there is a tendency to assume some studios can do no wrong and others can do no right; the divide between the practically identical Fallout 3 and New Vegas highlights the issue, at least from my perspective, and some people are still going on about it today. What I found especially amusing was the claim that if left to their own devices, Obsidian would do a pre-first-person-style game in the fixed isometric style with complicated and awkward gameplay and bad graphics, just like a proper game should be. And they produced The Outer Worlds, which was more like a Bethesda game than ever. Though still with that very dry Obsidian humour, obvs., because that's what they do.
IMHO the main "chilling effect" is large publishers chasing deadlines and wanting the widest possible audience at any cost; and the ability to bilk customers monthly, hence the usual suspects forcing multi-player into single-player games.
