You didn't answer the question: what do you deem as an "innovation" and, let me add, when would you classify it as redundant or "meaningless"? What does a "shitty idea" entail? Is it something thats foreign to you? Is something "delusional" because you may not understand it and therefore reject it? Do you have any examples to illustrate your point?
The fact that you call it "meaningless" shows you speaks from a position of a non-creator whose disassociated with this "lowly" gaming community. Not to mention, possesses marginal imagination to see/perceive the potential value from the average gamer. Its little to no surprise western AAA has plateaued if unimaginative people with this perception populate and run the show up top. Look, I fully understand this is a business, not a charity. However, your concern over profitability seems to far outweigh that of the creative aspect. Seeing this industry from an only and strictly monetary pov, in a creative industry no less, is negligent and detrimental. It will eventually slap you in the face.
We're beginning to see mid budget AA and select indie developers emerge and that are becoming an actual threat to AAA. If AAA persists the way it does, and if those AA studios catch up, then the real stress test of the AAA model will begin. By that time, ripping off "shitty amateurs" may not save them.
Lets leave Apple's business out of this equation. They are incomparable in this case and service an adjacent, but different field.
There's the issue. They've gone from being actual creations to cynical business driven products. Most AAA games have been reduced to "sterile assembly line" products. They carry barely any ounce of authenticity in them. No human element whatsoever. They're no different than test tube embryos. Trying to disguise that lack with their high production values is a strategy that will eventually wear out. Western AAA has already become over reliant on 10 year old templates and reused gameplay with a glossy coat of paint slapped on top. Eventually those templates will run their course.
Of all AAA companies the only exception to this rule would probably be From software. Somehow they've managed to avoid getting fully engulfed in pure corporatism and maintain some semblance of artistic integrity. Same can not be said about the western counterpart. Their western AAA peers could perhaps jot down a note or two from them.
The way I see it, most of the actual talent and valuable creators (read: not auteurs) have long since flown away from AAA. The corporate work environment isn't appealing to them or has ousted them. If you wonder why those AAA incubator projects keep turning out to be duds, maybe that's why.
There's been a recent revelation, from a former EA developer, that EA stopped developing RTS like C&C due to some marketing suit concluded they didn't know how to market them. They fired an entire team of circa 50 people instead of replacing that one marketing guy. Take that as you will.
Innovation should have 2 aspects - first it's something new, second - it brings to a product something that consumer perceives as additional value.
And this value (and not money) is the most important and the hardest part of innovation. I bet your never tried to put your "bright idea" into practice or manage others "bright ideas" to see how this innovation process work in reality. It's hard and long process with lots of setbacks. DEA for example is a perfect idea on the paper and the world spent whole 20th century implementing and benefitting from it (woman rights, banning of segregation etc). Current DEA got heavily derailed and has completely shit implementation in games that everyone hates. It's an "innovation" that is not bringing a value to consumers and widely perceived as shitty idea.
You just want some fictional world and have little idea just how hard is to first to find a good new idea and then how to polish to make it popular. By the time it got polished enough for AAA expectations - it's already "old and boring usual stuff".
It's hard to understand the full scope of ideas, without practice as you vision only focus on good ideas and ignoring bad, but in practice it's hard to tell beforehand which idea is good and which is bad, especially when actual implementation of idea impact heavily result and it's a problem in itself. Even carefully selected, only 1 idea of 10 will be regarded as innovation, 3 will be be neutral to somewhat positive improvement and the rest will be perceived as unnecessary, bloating or straight harmfull to gameplay, reducing perception of the game (worse perception, less sales, less money)
I would point to FF7R2 as an example - it has tons of mini games. One of which is really good and widely acclaimed (QB), some of them ok. Half of mini games are straight out bad and some are fucking insane (piano for example). Someone did approve all of them and thought that they all might be innovative.
There is a reason why "creators" rarely given a blank check. Creators themselves often wine about this "we are creators, just give us money and not interrupt our work". But in reality creators overvalue their work most of the time, so for healthy company creators always should be kept in check - does their creation create value, does this value more that it was spent on it? If not - it's not a commercial creativity and thus should be left to amateurs who can create out of passion not bothering about negative net value. Companies cannot afford this as they will go defunct and all people will lose jobs for the sake of ego of creator.
AAA doesn't really threatened by indi and AA because AAA steals proven and popular mechanics all the time. When those mechanics proven to work and be popular - AA simply becomes new AAA. AAA don't close door for innovation, they just play it safe. They for sure will not be the next Mihoyo, but at least they will not have Square moment where company barely avoid bancrupcy (twice) because people in charge decided to pursue some bright and innovative (as they thought) ideas.
Let's look at one of the highest pillar of AAA gaming - CoD. Does it threatened by innovation of indies? Not really. Does it adapt to a changing environments? Yes, it adds new modes, it created a warzone to tap F2P market. It "adopt" zombie rush, BR innovations in gameplay. It's hold on MP shooters space is as strong as ever.
And what innovation does From Software have? They are bona fide AAA developer now, they just went through whole curve of "innovation" - from niche to A to AA and finally to AAA game. What new is in Elden Ring? Open world that are proven mechanics? Being Souls-like with tens of games in genre where previous installments already sold over 10M? What really did ER innovate?
