The number of posts like this on the internet shows to me that too many people simply have no clue how game development works.
The price of making games is going up. The more and more visual detail and computational complexity that these games require, the more money it requires. The reason you're getting shallower games content wise, is because it takes way more time/money to make said content. 50 million dollars 8 years ago got you MSG4. Now? 50 million dollars is entry level for AAA game development. So game developers have two options. Extend the development cycle of these games to 6-7 years, or, release a relatively bare bones version of a game, and then build on it for the sequel. Most are chosing the latter, because the former is untenable for most companies outside of Blizzard and Valve.
This is exactly what's going on for a franchise like Titanfall, or it explains why Fallout 4 is using a lot of the same tech as Fallout 3. If you make an entirely new game, it's going to take a lot more time and money to make than one that's built on new tech, but there isn't a developer out there that can go 6-7 years building a game from scratch with no revenue. There's a balance, and I can see that a lot of developers are struggling to hit it. This doesn't make them bad people, it just shows how competitive (and expensive) the gaming market has become.
It's a sad reality of getting games with more graphical fidelity, and more complex underpinning systems. Especially when compared to the late games in the Xbox 360/PS3's cycle, games that were jam packed with content because the fidelity and processing limit had be reached on the consoles by about 2011.
I just don't believe any company can afford to release a product that can be perceived as "too shallow" if they can help it. The market is saturated with a lot of quality. Releasing a product now a days in a state any less than it could have been is enough to bury a game nowadays. I don't think EA is unaware of this fact.
By the way, consider that games are also cheaper than they've ever been despite everything I just mentioned. Games on the SNES were $50-$60, some times up to $80 new, depending on the game. Accounting for inflation, you easily pay way less than you did in '92, for games that are exponentially more expensive to make.