No, it makes sense to not do it if internal analytics tell them it'd only break even. Like Patryn said in his post, they'd already be losing out on some cash to start by including all the DLC. It'd probably need to the best selling remaster to actually be profitable/worth the investment of putting it together and releasing it.
It's not that no money is better, it's that they think they can do other things that will make more than this would.
I disagree with this and have no idea how you can make the assumption that it would need to be the best selling remaster to be profitable. Lesser known titles are getting rereleased, so there is obviously some money to be made. I can tell you right now if EA were to release this and try to sell the DLC separately virtually nobody would buy it. That would be the ultimate slap in the face. That would make it dead on arrival. That's one of the charms of remasters that makes them attractive is that you (usually) get all available DLC content for one price.
They're not making anything on it, but they're not losing anything either. They don't need to pay developers, they don't need to do marketing, that stuff all adds up. Especially now that backwards compatibility is a thing on the Xbox One, I just don't see them taking the time to create the remasters.
They've probably been looking closely at what happened with the Master Chief Collection, too, since that's one of the few remasters to include more than one game. I think EA, of all publishers, knows a turd when they see one.
At best we might be getting something in the style of Dragon Age: Keep. And that's if they make past decisions even matter. Game might be set far enough in the future for none of it to matter anymore.
There's always a small chance they reconsider, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Yes, they need to pay developers and such, but once again you're thinking of this as an AAA title and not a niche title like it would be. It's not some thing that would get a huge marketing budget, because it's not something that would likely be worth it. I certainly believe that a Mass Effect trilogy uber edition pack would be a profitable venture. The development costs, while certainly not free, are not massive since they would likely porting the PC. Granted I am no expert, but I can tell you that porting from PC to these consoles is not a monumentally difficult task. Porting from PS3 to PS4 is considerably more difficult.
I found your comment about Halo MCC very interesting, because I have no idea what you mean by "what had happened" and how it relates to a Mass Effect trilogy. To my knowledge it sold reasonably well. If you're referring to the game being broken as all hell then fine. Halo MCC was buggy as hell, but it was also a MUCH larger and more difficult project than a Mass Effect trilogy port would ever be. HMCC required bringing together multiple engines, redesigning many assets (especially Halo 2) an online component, and an all new interface. It's not a very good comparison IMO. I think the Borderlands Handsome Collection is a more accurate comparison since those games were ported from PC assets and ran reasonably well. I played them, they run fine although GAF will try and tell you some minor framerate drops here and there are gamebreaking.
Your comment about Xbox One BC, means something but not a lot because it ignores the PS4, which has outsold the X1 by quite a bit. There is a market there and a rather large one. As for Xbox One, BC will certainly affect some sales, but people like me would buy it anyway for the graphical and performance improvements.
As for why EA may or may not do a remaster, I can't say, but I would take an educated guess that the number one reason is timing. As I stated in my previous posts it just doesn't make much sense to do it right now when we are 1.5 - 2 years away from release. It would make most sense to release it once the MEA hype starts to kick in when exposure would be at its maximum.
Other reasons are that they just may not want to.
