There should be profit sharing involved. And key people - like the lead developers and lead creatives - should get a big enough share of that profit to motivate them and entice them to use it on other projects to keep them fresh.
You have made a common but (as Sheldon would say) not forgiveable error in your reasoning. Two, in fact.
First, the "Talent" makes big money because they actually draw people to the movie. Enough to justify their huge salary? Yes. The market wouldn't bear it otherwise. Nobody, esp. studio execs., gives RDJ $25 mil because they dig the goatee. By your logic, grips and best boys should be getting big pay checks too.
There is *no* parallel in gaming, or at best the company itself is the "Talent". Voice actors, capture artists, designers, etc. do not individually draw major numbers of customers to purchase a game. The only people who do (and they are few in number) are creative director-types who do, in fact, earn great pay checks.
As to profit sharing, should these self-same developers take a huge pay cut if the work was a failure? Or, do only the people who a) built their company up from the ground, over years or decades, to reach this point, and/or b) poured all the front-money including salaries into the project, have to suffer if the game fails?
These developers you speak of are absolutely free to quit their secure jobs, go start a company, develop their own games and keep all the profits. They don't, of course, and that's why they don't get to show up with a cup in their hand when their company's 'AAA' hits it big.