I think you missed OP's point that studios care about minimizing risk as much as they care about maximizing profit. Sure, if you take risks maybe you'll come out with a smash hit that makes you billions-- but you could just as easily come out with a bomb that costs you hundreds of millions of dollars.
Let's say your studio has a budget of $500 million for this year. You've decided to produce 10 movies, each costing an average of $50 million to make. You could take risks, leading to two gems that each pull in $500 million, and eight stinkers that "only" pull in $5 million. (Remember, they cost $50 million to make each, so you're losing $45 million per flop here.) You end the year with $680 million, for a profit of $180 million. Not bad, all things considered, but not spectacular margins.
Alternatively, you could play it safely by numbers, and make $100 million per movie. Now you're making a profit of $5 billion.
If you're a corporate exect who doesn't give a damn about art and only cares about the numbers, it's tragically a no-brainer.
Kind of similar to how people gradually stopped using the phrase "social network" (implying the main point of these sites was to connect with other human beings) and shifted to calling it "social media" (implying the main point is to passively consume content).