the popularity isn’t the issue it’s the fact that the bad game is still popular even though it’s bad
It’s popular because people like the series. Even a bad COD game is still a COD game, and the main criticism I see is that it feels like an expansion, but it was also allegedly planned to be an expansion until execs decided to release it as a standalone due to delays in another COD game.
It’s not a broken game, it’s just bland. People generally play COD for MP, not for the story, which is probably why it’s still selling well. Capitalism may have encouraged the studio to cut corners, but individual choice is why it’s popular.
People buy games because of the franchise, not the company. People buy COD because they liked other COD games in the past, not because they liked other Activision games. Each franchise appeals to a different demographic, so they’re not going to be trying to get COD players to play Spyro or Tony Hawk, they’re going to try to get COD players to play the latest COD game, and maybe try to attract Battlefield players as well.
And that’s why indie games struggle so much, by the time they’ve established a franchise, they’re a large studio. Most indie devs don’t do franchises, and very few get well known at a studio (e.g. Supergiant is an exception here). Usually a successful indie studio will have one or two hits and a bunch of less popular games.
So what you’re complaining about is inertia of a franchise, not capitalism, because that would exist even in a socialist, georgist, or mercantilist economic system (or whatever system you prefer). When the original team behind something disappears, the franchise tends to suffer, and I think that’s precisely what COD has become (it’s now your garden variety fast food of video games, like Assassin’s Creed, FIFA, and Pokemon).