However they eventually added overpowered weapons that could only be unlocked via expensive rng loot boxes and that's when I stopped playing.
I question this premise. Do people demand the production values of AAA games, or are they just used to expecting it? I remember reading some article about how much more expensive it is to build photorealistic games now that you need to add so many more details to everything, and it makes sense. Maybe the fix is not to keep the current unsustainable system, but to readjust people's expectations and downgrade production budgets. Indie games are already doing this, because they cannot compete on production value.
Well, look at what sells most e.g. on Steam or Epic's store, etc.
No, those aren't indies with "Minecraft" or "Nintendo" graphics. Ultimately it doesn't matter at all whether people "demand it" or "are used to expecting it" when it is what they are putting their money into.
And it isn't for lack of other choices.
So careful what you ask for. Even an indie developer needs to pay bills and put food on the table somehow. Very very few game developers got rich developing games, in most of the studios burnout and attrition because of the extremely toxic work environments are common too.
That doesn't mean that stuffing ads, subscriptions and microtransactions everywhere is the only way forward. However, saying that "there's more reasons for a game to exist besides making big bucks." sounds like you are suggesting that the developer of the next Call of Duty sequel should be working those 60-80 hour weeks only for their personal enjoyment from delivering something for the gamer to play (and then loudly complain online and demand this or that - or else!) and sense of dedication to their fanbase.
That really doesn't work like that.