there's many (me among them) who wish they'd never been bought, but then again, I'm thinking as a selfish player who wants more quality games from the studio, which isn't fair if the developer needs money (which I don't think BioWare did, but who knows).
Still, even a successful studio may sign with publishers like EA because often the deal includes language like "we'll buy you but leave you be to do the thing we bought you for" but like EA and Activision proved, they can... change their minds.
Also, the people you form those deals with can sometimes transition elsewhere, and the new publisher execs don't feel the same way. The only time I've seen it work pretty well seems to be with Microsoft (most acquisitions from MS I know of have had no complaints).
Lastly, it depends on how well things are going. Publishers may not let a developer do their own thing when the rest of the companies the same publisher owns are hemorrhaging money, or if they need a stock boost, etc., so...
So generally "we'll let you be" only works when everything's going great on all levels, the pub doesn't want a short-term cash influx, the stockholders are all happy, etc. but not sure how much that happens. :/
Most publishers (esp. if they don't actually care about the games they release) want as much money coming in as fast as possible, so you're always fighting that, even if the long-term consequences to individual studios is pretty damaging (driving away talent, burnout, crunch).
I guess the ultimate lesson of BioWare, (this wasn't my judgment, it was made by one of their project leads), was Ray and Greg worked best as their own bosses w/o answering to anyone else. It may not have been perfect 24/7, but it was better than after the acquisitions.