ComangliaBasically devs who don't give EA what they want get shutdown.
It's by design. They aren't buying studios because they like what it's doing and want to see more, they're buying it for some combination of their IP / dev talent / existing fans. And when the fans leave or stop translating to sales (whether it be the studio itself making bad decisions or EA imposing things on them), there's no reason to keep the studio around--they own the IP and the cost of moving a dev is negligible.
But they don't just axe the company immediately; they need time to relocate individual devs without causing a panic. If it was recently acquired, there's probably some stipulation about not closing the studio until a certain amount of time or enough employees quit or some other conditions (afaik and iirc, I can't find any sources on this but I remember hearing this mentioned). And even if they don't have a particular reason to keep them around, it's better PR for EA at large to shutdown companies for "rapid loss of employees" or "underwhelming quality or sales." So projects are started with no expectation of becoming a finished or quality game and receiving continuously less direction from mid-level management, and it'll either be a failure or a flop and they can safely close the studio or it'll exceed expectations and they're getting even more out of it.
From another article about the same Visceral shutdown:
https://www.pcgamer.com/ex-visceral-employee-calls-the-studios-closure-a-mercy-killing/From there, according to the report, it wasn't so much a comedy of errors as a slow, sad decline, driven by indecision, indifference, and nervousness. Visceral was never given the staffing levels it needed to make the game, Hennig struggled without the support network she was accustomed to at Naughty Dog, the Frostbite engine was not suited to the design that had scoped, and EA's expectations were sky-high: One source told the site the publisher was looking for a 90 or higher score on Metacritic, an absolutely astronomical number even under the best of conditions.
And it seems to be working for them, EA at large is doing pretty well for themselves even if not all their studios are. There's obviously a lot more going on behind the scenes (and there's no mention of shareholders or the like in it), but that's the best explanation I've seen for why they'll so consistently close studios, sometimes within a few years of acquiring them, and still pull massive profits.
That was all a bit of a tangent, but it's important to recognize that the studios on EA's chopping block aren't blunders that piss off fans, it's a calculated plan that's gotten them to where they are now.
As for Respawn Entertainment and Apex Legends, I haven't been following either but I don't think it's immediately comparable to the big names in EA. Games like Battlefront, Battlefield, and especially FIFA are very mainstream and casual players were hyped for them, so it was a fairly safe bet to load them up with microtransactions and still sell well (with battlefront 2 getting burned by being so extreme and blatant with it that even people not following it were hearing about it, and now they know the line they can't cross).
Apex Legends isn't in the same position, and everyone knows the game would die if it ever got bad with being significantly pay2win. I'd wager as long as the game is a moderate success, it'd only ever turn into "microtransaction hell" if the playerbase starts leaving and they just want to milk whatever extra from it and be done with it. I'd be skeptical too, both because if it's not a success then they could recoup costs by becoming pay2win, and because for all I know Respawn Entertainment could be on the way out, but it won't be "EA is just being EA again and ruining a good game."