Should research papers that require millions of dollars to development be evaluated on the same track as those that do not?
I feel your question approaches this topic from an unhealthy, competitive perspective: I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that science is about progress, not about a fair distribution of NeurIPS papers, awards, or other brownie points. We accept papers because they expand our knowledge, and we award those that (subjectively) do so by the largest margin. Whether a single person working in their office has generated this knowledge or a team at a company does not change the knowledge that's being produced. In that light, excluding companies from academic research (effectively because they are being too good at it) is silly.
That said, your specific question asks whether there should be different &quot;tracks&quot; (I guess either actual conference tracks or completely separate conferences would qualify) for papers that need a lot of monetary investment. This can certainly be useful, and in my experience it often happens fairly naturally - either because an industry track gets created and gains importance over the years (as happening for instance at ICSE with its Software Engineering in Practice track), or because an academic conference gets more and more industry interest until it essentially becomes an industry conference with an academic track (this has arguably happened with WWW and maybe NeurIPS, although I don't know enough about NeurIPS to be able to tell).
However, you may not like the result very much - once you push all those expensive and highly practical contributions into a separate thread, you may find that people actually value these papers higher than your (now clearly earmarked) theoretical academic papers. The end result may be that the highest-prestige tracks or conferences are the ones where you as an academic aren't even the target audience anymore. The top conference of my field, ICSE, isn't quite there yet (the research track is still higher-prestige than the industry track), but you can already today observe that attendance in industry track talks is higher than in research sessions.
That said (and this brings me back to the opening paragraph), I'm not sure what the problem is. At the end of the day we should be happy that the field progresses and that people are interested in what's being produced. As long as academic contributions in the field are still useful and valuable, meetings, conferences will remain available. And it pays to remember that academics rarely compete directly with industry anyway (say in the context of jobs, promotions, or grants).