I think a good comparison would be how children have come to rely more on toy-play over imagination-play over the years (or centuries). Not long ago, kid might have had pretty fun day with nothing but a stick and a pool of mud (to use George Carlin's imagery). But if you took a contemporary child and blast them through a time-machine some fifty years into the past, they'd be massively bored once they got there (besides being somewhat shocked because of the whole being-kidnapped-and-shot-into-the-past thing). In this case, past children were more creative, but also less prone to boredom.
If you took a kid from today and shot him 50 years ago, he may have an adjustment period, but he may just find himself interacting with the environment more.
Kids in the past probably had more creative uses out of their environment but put them in the digital world and their creativity wouldn't be there.
I wouldn't say that kids at any time period in human history were ever more creative. They were just creative about different things.
In so far as simpler toys require more imagination than complex toys, I still think that the effective level of creativity required of children has fallen. But I think the issue you've put forward is fair enough: there's not much* reason to believe that the potential level of creativity of children has fallen. Children might have much higher creative potential than they're currently exploiting, in which case they'd be able to adapt.
*: If performance on tasks involving creativity is positively related IQ, that coupled with the Flynn effect would suggest that creativity has increased over history. I call this "not much reason" because I'm not to sure why the Flynn effect exists and I don't think the researchers are sure yet either.
I disagree with that statement. We have it for one BIG positive reason.
Boredom = Creativity, especially with children.