Arguably, this model of providing new material on a regular schedule for a successful franchise is how publishers survive. Best example of this ever: Madden.
Your idea here boils down to the nature of the franchise in question. While the idea of games as art is being tossed around, and still fluctuating between some saying that it has been decided, and others saying it will never be decided, there are admittedly different kinds of art. Since they are all in the story-telling bend, lets look at TV and writing for our comparison.
For TV, you have many kinds of broadcasting networks, that each have a different emphasis or goal, but that all require money. Fox achieves its goal by going with ratings. If something has high ratings, it gets run and re-run and remade and spun-off of until well after the cows have left the pasture for the slaughterhouse, never to come home again. And even after the cows have gone to their final home, assuming the rights are owned by Fox or a cooperating company, they'll go so far as to buy new cows to milk, or more accurately, buy new cows to make the same milk again (but with a twist). Consider the style of Fox News for the past 20+ years. It has been reported in that style because that's what sells. Consider series on Fox, like the infamous reality show, compared to Firefly. While that buggered Bachelor program gets remade and redone, and stolen from Britain because they ratings were high, Firefly was something new and interesting they greenlighted and then abandoned when it was not being widely watched.
Now SciFi (or however its spelled nowadays.) They have a simple and dedicated goal. Bring Science Fiction programming to the masses. Bring them Star Trek and Doctor Who. Bring them new Science Fiction series. What's the difference between them and Fox? They are more willing to give new Science Fiction a chance partly because they are cable exclusive, meaning people have to pay to watch their channel in the first place, and partly because they themselves love that genre. Consider that at least half of the people who actually have a cable package that includes SciFi would be willing to keep SciFi in their package no matter what, simply because they love SciFi as a genre. That guaranteed customer base makes them more able to take risks, while their own love of the genre makes them more willing. We are more likely to find art in programming on SciFi than Fox. Surprisingly, ESPN, Discovery, History, HBO, BBC America... almost all cable exclusive channels are the same way. Consider that with BBC America for example, almost every British show that people think will be remotely popular in America gets greenlit there before it touches another channel. And the more successful ones often get carried over to other networks.
Publishers of magazines, novels, serial novels, newspapers... they are different in the same ways, something I know you'll realize looking at it. And magazines and newspapers... when they find that a single author is not being well received, they will start looking for a replacement as soon as they can.
Game publishers are similar... when their ship springs a leak, they need cash to keep their trade going. Now, they are more likely to use that case to plug the holes on bigger ships (bigger franchises) than risk spending it on new, untested ships. But there are some who will take that risk, make a blind buy on a ship they've never sailed.
Now, with EA, I would propose a third option, one that may be unpopular, but could be useful in the long run. Offer Call Of Duty subscriptions. Not just for one game, but for the whole series. Throw the doors open. Say, "Here are all the games in the series. Play what you want, keep what you like, and let us know which you like best so we can make more. You could still have the individual games available for sale, but with subscriptions that give people access to all the games, and maybe even previews of new ones, for a flat monthly fee... that could help them steer their ship where they and we want them to go. I agree, Call of Duty is not art, and part of the reason is how Activision is handling it now. However, MW proved it could be art, provided it's handled correctly. Activision is not a monster, its a miser. Misers can be worked around or reasoned with.
Your idea here boils down to the nature of the franchise in question. While the idea of games as art is being tossed around, and still fluctuating between some saying that it has been decided, and others saying it will never be decided, there are admittedly different kinds of art. Since they are all in the story-telling bend, lets look at TV and writing for our comparison.
For TV, you have many kinds of broadcasting networks, that each have a different emphasis or goal, but that all require money. Fox achieves its goal by going with ratings. If something has high ratings, it gets run and re-run and remade and spun-off of until well after the cows have left the pasture for the slaughterhouse, never to come home again. And even after the cows have gone to their final home, assuming the rights are owned by Fox or a cooperating company, they'll go so far as to buy new cows to milk, or more accurately, buy new cows to make the same milk again (but with a twist). Consider the style of Fox News for the past 20+ years. It has been reported in that style because that's what sells. Consider series on Fox, like the infamous reality show, compared to Firefly. While that buggered Bachelor program gets remade and redone, and stolen from Britain because they ratings were high, Firefly was something new and interesting they greenlighted and then abandoned when it was not being widely watched.
Now SciFi (or however its spelled nowadays.) They have a simple and dedicated goal. Bring Science Fiction programming to the masses. Bring them Star Trek and Doctor Who. Bring them new Science Fiction series. What's the difference between them and Fox? They are more willing to give new Science Fiction a chance partly because they are cable exclusive, meaning people have to pay to watch their channel in the first place, and partly because they themselves love that genre. Consider that at least half of the people who actually have a cable package that includes SciFi would be willing to keep SciFi in their package no matter what, simply because they love SciFi as a genre. That guaranteed customer base makes them more able to take risks, while their own love of the genre makes them more willing. We are more likely to find art in programming on SciFi than Fox. Surprisingly, ESPN, Discovery, History, HBO, BBC America... almost all cable exclusive channels are the same way. Consider that with BBC America for example, almost every British show that people think will be remotely popular in America gets greenlit there before it touches another channel. And the more successful ones often get carried over to other networks.
Publishers of magazines, novels, serial novels, newspapers... they are different in the same ways, something I know you'll realize looking at it. And magazines and newspapers... when they find that a single author is not being well received, they will start looking for a replacement as soon as they can.
Game publishers are similar... when their ship springs a leak, they need cash to keep their trade going. Now, they are more likely to use that case to plug the holes on bigger ships (bigger franchises) than risk spending it on new, untested ships. But there are some who will take that risk, make a blind buy on a ship they've never sailed.
Now, with EA, I would propose a third option, one that may be unpopular, but could be useful in the long run. Offer Call Of Duty subscriptions. Not just for one game, but for the whole series. Throw the doors open. Say, "Here are all the games in the series. Play what you want, keep what you like, and let us know which you like best so we can make more. You could still have the individual games available for sale, but with subscriptions that give people access to all the games, and maybe even previews of new ones, for a flat monthly fee... that could help them steer their ship where they and we want them to go. I agree, Call of Duty is not art, and part of the reason is how Activision is handling it now. However, MW proved it could be art, provided it's handled correctly. Activision is not a monster, its a miser. Misers can be worked around or reasoned with.
