Sure. And some things that may have been labeled gimmicks turn out to have a meaningful impact. Neither motion controls or 3D gaming represent a step forward in gameplay experience. There is evidence of that this generation.
A 'step forward' in what sense? Motion controls are in their infancy this last generation; of course they're not as good as they may potentially become. That's a given. Things take time to develop. [That said, the Wiimote's pointer function was downright fantastic and a definite innovation that the industry wasted horribly.]
Sure, I'm basing it my own preference and that of other traditionally core gamers -- but I'm not in a position to give a shit about what casuals want.
But 'casuals' - good lord, do I hate that term - are what constitute the majority of money being fed into this industry due to their sheer volume. The reason companies are able to spend tremendous amounts on development is because they are generating revenue somewhere else, more often than not. Home, for example, generates a very healthy amount of revenue for Sony; Kinect has brought in substantial sums of cash into MS's X-Box Division. This gives the companies more flexibility in how they pursue other endeavors and goals that may - just may - benefit you.
Maybe the Wii U will bounce back, maybe it'll tank. Yet you'd still call the controller innovative.
I'm not suggesting that 'innovation = market acceptance' by default. What I'm saying is that innovation is how this industry has evolved from the very beginning and allowed for its growth over the decades. Yes, I would call the controller innovative - but I imagine it will never be utilized adequately, just as the pointer on the Wiimote wasn't.
Oh well.
There is a difference between broadening and depth when it comes to innovation. Some additions are peripheral or marginal; other are more direct. I'm not against an attempt -- but the moment I have (forced) to wave my hand or shake my wrist stupidly, in place of clicking a button -- I will stop supporting that platform.
And the moment Sony attempts to conservatively fight against Microsoft, they will lose. Badly. They have to do something distinctive; they have to do something innovative that Microsoft cannot easily copy or recreate. Homogenization turns the battle into a war of costs and coffers - and Sony doesn't have an advantage in either.