First off, I appreciate that just about every commentator on the games industry sees lack of AAA innovation as the most serious issue at hand, but this is just getting fucking repetitive. I get it. They get it. What we don't have is a solution that doesn't put their companies in immediate financial risk.
I'm honestly amazed that focus groups are still relevant int he internet age. A well place forum question can get you all the info you need and more ideas than you could implement. Proper usage comes down to the right questions: more "what you we like to see" and less "what games to you like" taking into account that some people lie, and others may have had every intention of using said feature or buying said game, but when it's a big month, sometimes you just buy Skyrim like everyone else. On our end, we need to be reasonable. Gamers want everything to be a mega epic quest with all the trimmings, but that gets expensive so it isn't a surprise they want to market to a game to the demographic they know won't ask for much. Similarly, if all we bring to the table is lists of things we don't like instead of a few new ideas, we can the "impossible to please" label and get ignored.
But then, as others have said, innovation is more a buzz word than something we truly want. There's a lot of indy games to sate the thirst for something new, but somehow that $5 is too big a risk on a new game, even though we spend more than that for burgers made of pink slime and grease.So many metrics go back to companies through achievements, trophies and digital buying systems, that they probably have a better idea of what we'll buy than we do as we claim to want something new, but play the umpteenth sequel, or the COD clone.
And just for the record, I hate coffee. I don't even really like coffee flavored things.