I know it's tempting (not to mention fashionable) to ascribe this kind of thing to rampant egocentric greed at the executive level, but in this case nothing could be closer to the truth.
Activision might best be imagined as a kind of flaccid, bloated tick, siphoning nourishment from a procession of hosts. The culture of entitlement at the highest level is difficult for ordinary people to imagine. This (to the best of my recollection, direct quote from inside the company prior to purchasing King) might give some kind of insight: "We haven't had our Clash of Clans moment yet."
Nobody on the board of that company gives one hot shit about games or the people who make them. Now, apologetics will be quick to point out that the board is not supposed to prioritise such things. Their fiduciary responsibility is to the shareholders, and any care shown for the product or producers is necessarily secondary. All will be well if you diligently pursue profit.
But that's horseshit. If you do not care about your product or your workers then you do not understand what you are doing or making. Which means you cannot be an effective, responsible custodian. It means that any idea that isn't "Let's make another CoD leveraging cutting-edge microtransaction strategies to maximise ROI" doesn't even parse, let alone feature in decision-making. They don't love games, so they don't understand WHY people love games, so they have no idea how to prolong that love affair. The only reason anything good has ever come out of Activision is the perverse dedication of the designers, artists, coders and producers labouring to deliver something they can be proud of and tricking their overlords into letting them do it.