While this seems weird because it's a deviation from the pattern, it actually makes sense and not just due to the obvious "better to put scarce wafers/RAM/capital toward higher margin AI products." There are three other reasons:

1. 3D GPUs have been rapidly evolving for over 30 years. We're now at a point where the silicon designs for real-time graphics pipelines have reached maturity. Most of the big wins have already been harvested. Of course, new design innovation will still happen but the performance leaps won't be as large, as frequent or as easy as they once were.

2. That makes gen-over-gen improvements increasingly reliant on new process nodes but the end of Moore's Law and Dennard Scaling have reduced those gains to typically sub-10%. And the gains no longer improve gate count, speed and cost all at once like they once did. There was a magical time when a major new node might deliver >20% more gates AND >20% more speed AND be >20% cheaper. Now it's more like ~9% more usable gates OR 11% faster BUT >20% more expensive.

3. For several years around roughly 2020 there was an extraordinary financial bubble driving irrational amounts of capital investment in large game studios. That drove unsustainable hiring and a bunch of acquisitions at insane valuations. The inevitable crash happened and we're still in the early parts of a long hangover and industry reset. It'll still be a few years before we fully recover to pre-bubble levels. Until then there'll be fewer AAA games which push the bleeding edge so amazingly that they simply can't properly shine without brand new GPU silicon. Sure, it's always possible to saturate performance by increasing resolution, FPS and maxing settings and that's never bad but there's not going to be many titles which make an obvious OMFG! difference from across the room.