I can't help but contrast the toys of today with the toys I grew up with. I was always trying to figure out how my toys worked--whether it was clever mechanical linkages or some sort of electronics. For the most part it was possible to do so. A lot of my toys were purely mechanical, involving springs, gears, and so forth. Much of this was exposed so you could see how one part interacted with another. Even the electronic toys were simpler. Based on how they failed, what tended to be linked together and how the toy behaved, you could get a reasonably good idea of how it worked. This was true for me even before I started to learn how electricity/circuits worked.
Modern toys are more complicated--especially modern toys that have any electronic parts. It's easy enough to get the automation in a toy complicated enough that you are running arbitrary software in the toy. As a kid, I think I'd have a much harder time understanding the toy at the same level. I could understand whatever the toy wanted to teach me if it were even mildly educational. However I doubt I'd understand how the toys worked.
I suspect that toys did play an important part in giving me practical experience being curious. I'm not sure I would be where I am today without that practical experience. I think that might have just been my reaction—and I suspect the reaction of a lot of my friends—to their toys. If my parents hadn't fostered a strong desire to figure out how the world worked, I doubt I would have approach play that way. Probably most kids don't have bedtime stories about how environmental product test labs worked, or how printers and typewriters were designed. I'm glad my father was willing to spend so much time discussing how farm machinery worked and the various ways it could fail. It was never something I would need practical experience with, but it was something to know. Really I've enjoyed adopting the attitude that it's worth knowing random things even if you can't see the point at all; they will eventually come in useful.