Companies don't really innovate, because they can't innovate. Innovation is expensive, and innovative games really don't sell. If you look at the true innovative games, they're cumbersome, and partly because no one really knows what to do. But once you have that first step, you can take the next step forward. And what people tend to think as revolutionary games are the games that saw the revolution, and saw the flaws and had ideas how to fix them. E.G. Few remember Dune II for RTS games, and even fewer remember Herzog Zwei (and even fewer than that remember Utopia). But Warcraft? Who hasn't heard of Warcraft? Dune II had a major issue in that you could only select single units. Warcraft fixed this, and Command and Conquer improved upon it, which Warcraft II picked up upon to be really the first major RTS. With 2D fighters, no one remembers Street Fighter 1, but everyone's played Street Fighter 2. Even Valve's original Half Life is less revolutionary, and more evolutionary. But it's significant in being the first polished game of it's type, and the first many played. And look at other Valve properties. They've really succeeded upon acquisitions of other companies games, or other peoples games (by hiring the talent), which they've improved upon, but gave the mass audience the first taste of those games.
And VR is apparently the next big thing. But right now, there aren't really any groundbreaking VR games. And that's what I mean more about being played out. Not that the genre is dying, but there hasn't been much innovation brought to the genre. But if VR isn't a gimmick, sooner or later someone is going to make the future, at which point, Valve might be the perfect medium to bring the future to the masses. And thanks to Steam, they're also in a position they can be picky. While Valve certainly needs money, they don't have investors breathing down their neck 24/7 to make sure next quarter's stock price will be higher than the previous quarter, by any means necessary. EA, Ubisoft, Activision, and even Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft, just aren't in the same position that Valve is in to usher in the VR era.
Innovation is certainly more expensive and risky, but they can certainly sell well. Eventually it creeps into more mainstream games. A large amount of the "new" features in BF3/4 were borrowed from Red Orchestra, as an example. But a large part unwillingness on part of the publishers and part unimaginative customers. They don't realize it, but enhancements to old gameplay is welcome and well received. They just don't realize it until they play a game that branches out.
Mafia 3 is an excellent example of a such a game. It is GTA in the 1960s. The cars, guns and music is changed but aside from that the gameplay is just mirrored and as dull as GTA itself. Despite being set in the 1960s, the player can call in new cars, ammo trucks and the like. Even though cell phones did not exist back then. It is hilariously awkward to see the main character talk to himself aloud and then have whatever you ordered delivered right to you. They didn't even try to make the game fit the setting. It sticks out like a sore thumb. Ironically, the game was panned. Probably in large part due to GTA being the godfather of the genre and better marketing, but both series (at least GTA4/5 and Mafia 3) are just as underwhelming and stuck in the early 2000s. Had it not been for marketing and brand recognition, I bet GTA would have been panned to. I think the reaction to Mafia 3 is people realizing that genre is too played out and has not seen any good changes for well over a decade.