Blackberry said:
How could they benifits from more interactive environments!? SURELY THERE'S HEAPS OF WAYS!
Depends on the game, depends on the audience, depends on the interaction.
Even the degree of functionality depends on the context of the game.
There are games that are very similar to a children's storybook, and in that scenario being about to touch nearly anything and get a cute animation from it is potentially valuable. In a game focusing on young children I'd expect nearly everything to have meaningful interactions, touch an object and it does something fun or teaches something or displays more information or otherwise does something. That is part of the value. They provide no direct progress to the game, don't serve a useful mechanic, don't contribute to achievements or stats, and even slow down the game, but they are fun to the demographic of young kids exploring an interactive world.
That same level and type of interaction in more mature game environments provide nothing; once people are past around age 10 or so they're not looking for cute animations whenever you touch a tree or a vehicle or rock, touching an apple doesn't make it giggle or dance but instead adds it to your food inventory. Instead of interaction for learning and fun the players are looking for mechanics that impact the story or gameplay; in that different context they childlike animations are a distraction that could have been better spent elsewhere.
There's always tradeoffs with complexity vs simplicity, and there are complex interactions depth and utility and value. What works well in one market can be terrible in another market. A game focused on mixing ingredients for a variety of effects better have a wide range of ingredients and effects, but for a hack-and-slash game or bullet hell game all that effort would be a waste. What is a great value in one market is a wasted effort in another market, so it's going to always come back to those details.
Any kind of benefit offered would then be entirely dependent on the game being made.