I can only assume that early video-games, being new and with no set definitions, were influenced by other game mediums, such as board-games and sports. These games have one fundamental philosophy that modern video-games have now broken away from - there's a correct and incorrect way to play. The modern multiplayer game will boast about its user customization, which lets you play how you want to play. Wasn't there a move or tactic you absolutely hated in your favorite board-game? If that board-game was a video-game today the developers would look at your feedback and, because the feedback as a whole surely contradicts itself - some people like this, others hate that - they give players the ability to tailor their experience. Your favorite board-game, now a video-game, would have a plethora of options! You could play how you like and still win, but other players would be able to play how you despise and still win too - the game becomes infuriating. Nowadays it's not about finding the correct way to play, it's about making the correct way to play your way. The video-game industry isn't interested in making a game that will stand the test of time as chess has. It's solely concerned with profit, and the largest profit is gained by riding the trends and making your product accessible to as many consumers as possible. That's why we see many shallow Call of Duty clones, and it's why Call of Duty won't suddenly make any dramatic changes - it is the most popular FPS and everyone's copying it. Once something does succeed it in popularity, or the interest in Call of Duty declines dramatically, will the series feel forced to make such changes as this YouTuber desires.