We have two incompatible ways to think about this.
With classical physics, accelerated charges produce radiation. When the acceleration is periodic, the radiation will be a wave. We can mathematically predict the amount of radiation energy produced by accelerating N charges the same way, and clearly the bigger the acceleration the more energy it will be. The amount will be quantized because the number of accelerated charges is quantized, but that has no particular significance.
The radiation spreads, and the energy per unit area decreases with distance. Clearly, charges with bigger acceleration will produce more radiation energy, and to make waves they will oscillate at higher frequency. They will all dissipate at the same rate over time and distance, but with higher frequency they will have more energy, other things equal.
Quantum mechanics throws away the classical ideas. You cannot measure the motion of radiation through space. You can only detect it when it interacts with mass in detectable ways. The mass it interacts with is always quantized, so the measurements are always quantized. When the mass changes state it always absorbs or emits a quantized amount of radiation, so there's no point hypothesizing radiation that is not quantized. A quantum of energy gets emitted from some matter. A quantum gets absorbed by some other matter. Is it the same quantum? Who knows? Who cares? There's no experiment to test that, so it doesn't matter.
How does the quantum of radiation travel through space from the emitter to the absorber? There's no way to test that either. Who knows? Who cares? We might as well suppose that it travels through all possible paths and in some paths its probability function does destructive interference. It doesn't matter how it happens provided that the math predicts the right probability distribution for the detected quanta.
In that context, some quanta are high-energy and some are low-energy. After twice the time, a photon might be passing through an area 4 times as large. So a detector with the same area is 1/4 as likely to detect that photon, even though it will still be a high-energy one if it is detected.
Would it be better to say there's 1/4 the probability of a detection event, and put aside the idea that individual photons are traveling from point A to point B? Yes, that's probably more precise language but what's important is that the math gives the right probability, and not that we think about what it means in exactly the right way.