I don't think that's true.
First of all, the dream of procedural generation is still alive. Look at something like Space Engine.
The future is far away, but the future is bright.
Second, the principle difference between something like No Man's Sky and Spelunky or Minecraft is that the former has bad game design, while the latter two have good design layered on their procedural generation.
Consider the difference, Minecraft is a game that encourages player investment with well-thought out but basic gameplay loops. The most basic gameplay mechanic is duh, mining (or perhaps more broadly "harvesting). And to find suitable mining spots, you need to explore. These two mechanics feed into player investment which comes mostly in the form of building. Players build crazy castles and mansions and they concoct amazing red-stone machines. Boom, player investment and engaging with the world. Each time you spawn a new world seed, you'll never know where the materials you need to build are going to be. Having basic biomes means you at least need to wander a bit to see different things. You'll never know what the landscape is going to look like and how you might need to adjust your home base to fit it, or how you'll need to terraform it.
And with survival mechanics, Minecraft further encourages you to explore, and then later encourages you to try things like farming. Again, investing you in calling a place "yours" and stamping an identity and ownership on a completely procedurally generated world. Throw in multiplayer and you have some fairly engaging player co-op building and even PvP going on.
Compare this to No Man's Sky which is a glorified seek-and-find cum tourism simulator. The resources you need are only needed to power your suit, tool and ship (or to sell). There's nothing else you can do with them. You can never build a home base, you never can or even need to create a resource farm. Land on a planet, go "hey that's a pretty landscape," press the screenshot button and then you just wander around looking for the stupid little zinc plant that looks the same on ever damn planet so you can press square and harvest it. You can't even build or customize a ship and are left only with the option of buying procedurally generated ships from vendors.
And on top of the no building or customization, there's no player interaction. So forget building together or fighting one another, you can't even engage in the basic enjoyment of exploring together.
You could even make your same claim about the preponderance of survival-resource-crafting games inn Steam. Doesn't the failure of No Man's Sky show those are a dead-end market bubble waiting to pop? And the answer is again, no. The fundamental flaw of No Man's Sky isn't its procedural generation or its focus on survival-resource-crafting. The flaw is that it basically does nothing with those ideas. There's almost nothing that makes the game more engaging or that draws the player to invest something back, and that's what's caused the backlash, and I think that's the lesson to be taken away from it.
