Please show me a $300 GPU that can play 1080/60/max setting with RT.
Until then, RT belongs to the same place as fusion power...
What kind of RT are you insinuating here? If path tracing like aw 2 and cp 2077, of course going to be hard but if something avatar, spiderman 2, metro ee.... well consoles are running them with no fallback to raster only.... If consoles couldn't do RT then of course it wouldn't go anywhere.
It doesn't but that is where it's mostly being used for currently. If you go for cartoon looks RT only helps devs, changes nothing much for consumers. Example, failed experiments with RT in World of Warcraft, which just makes things look worse in many places, kills FPS and generally is a bad idea there - whole game would have to be redone from scratch with proper lighting setup for RT to work at all in it. As is now, most lights in the game aren't even real light sources, shadows are being generated by invisible to player light sources and whole experience is just awful visually because nothing make sense to human brain like that.
It's been mentioned earlier in this topic, seems to not be making any positive impression on gamers, especially that looking at comments for that mod, it doesn't work that great (both performance issues even with DLSS and also issues with lights popping in and out of existence as game has not been designed with RT in mind etc.). That something can be done, doesn't mean it will work well.
You just described whole gaming industry - almost every single game out there is a "rip off" (with some changes) of another game. Why do you think terms like "Rogue-like" or "WoW clone" or many other of such kind exist? That is how humanity's creativity works with everything - people take something that exists, improve upon it and release as a new thing. That said, neither Nintendo nor Pokemon company really think it's a rip-off, as per their official posts (in both cases they admitted they're aware this game exist and asked fans to stop emailing them). No lawsuits were filled. Argument invalid.
CP initially was a horrible rushed mess that shouldn't have been released for at least 1-2 more years. But it had already pretty graphics, just bad gameplay with bugs all over, etc. As a good example why I connect these 2 - a lot of publishers put graphics above gameplay, as the low hanging fruit, easy to achieve, looking good on adverts. On the other hand, gamers seem to not care as much for the graphics as they care for the gameplay. That we should have these 2 things as independent doesn't change the fact that often one is put way above the other, as in "It's pretty enough, why bother working on gameplay, release and next game!" (as likely a lot of publishers said on internal meetings). Or in other words, if game doesn't have good graphics, gameplay is the only thing defending the product (like a lot of the times in the past or on weaker hardware like Switch etc.), but if game can put most of the budget into graphics and ignbore actual gameplay (as both would cost too much to develop equally well), then we get pretty but bad games. It's a common enough disconnect between what publishers think will sale and what gamers actually want to buy.
WOW was and still is to my knowledge regarded as being one of the worst games for RT implementation, I only recall of the shadows being implemented but maybe more was added later on? I never played it so can't comment on it.
Been using the mod myself for palworld and it's working just fine, haven't noticed any issues and it has in fact got rid of the artifacts associated with SSR i.e. the halo'ing around objects when in front of pools of water. Shadows are more defined and so on. Unfortunately I have to use TSR since dlss is not available on the gamepass version but it looks better than native taa and no rt (no taa and the grass has awful aliasing/jaggies), fps is about 55-80 depending on location and time of day. The game itself is incredibly buggy though so again, even if there are problems for other people, it's not just a RT specific problem.
In your previous posts, you have been insinuating that games with fancy graphics don't do well then used palworld as an example for this, I merely just pointed out that graphics have very little to do with how well a game will do and the 2 should not be compared as they are different things and also worked on by different teams/developers.
That may be true, style over substance and it could very well mean more money/budget is put towards the visual presentation, it's the same in my work with products, the frontend and UI is always in the spot light but not so much what happens in the backend, at the same time, user experience is vital thus if games aren't being succesful on this front then they won't do well regardless of their visuals. Again, RT or raster does not and should not be compared to gameplay experience, 2 completely different things, having said that, RT could and will allow devs to perhaps make more interactive worlds i.e. better destruction for example by devs not having to worry about how lighting, shadows and so on will look if certain walls/buildings get destroyed.
FG have issues as is already (both quality and latency) and you need min. 60 FPS for them to work properly. Consoles as is often can't even get to 60 with upscaling as is, so this will not help. And if they can, RT doesn't look great. To get to that level you need more powerful hardware, not just "crutches" - and that takes time and loads of R&D. 5k series will be indicative what NVIDIA (the whole modern RT in games is mostly their R&D) is able to do further with things - can they push more acceleration of rays into the GPU, or will still relay on the CPU for a big chunk of these calculations etc. However, in the end NVIDIA doesn't produce chips for consoles currently, hence whatever they do is limited mostly to expensive PCs. Outside of the PC market gamers get what they get in console and mobile chips - RT is nice on adverts on such hardware but in practice works rather badly.
As long as it pays their bills really. Again - they only follow the money, everything else is really meaningless. If all GPU died today and only RT ones would work, they would instantly switch to that. If the opposite happened and only simple raster would be available, you would only see games with that. There's nothing else to it, aside what brings monies.
It actually depends on the game I find but yes generally 60 fps is the rule before enabling 60 fps. Even though ark and cp 2077 base fps is below 60 on my end, they still look and feel and play far better with FG than no FG, are there some artifacts and is there an increase in latency, absolutely yes but is the overall experience better in terms of actually being playable and having better motion clarity and fluidity? Absolutely it is.
As we also discussed before, it's wrong to assume that the only way to increase RT perf is through better hardware, as shown before, there are ways to improve performance with better optimisation and coming up with ways to cut corners, just read the documentation by nvidia, amd, intel and unreal engine, they have several documents and tools to provide guidance on where and what to do in order to get better performance (but sadly, optimisation is always the last thing to get looked at, if at all... getting a product to mvp and out the door is the most important thing). Raster had how many years for devs to learn to get the best from it, either by optimising or cutting corners? We're still arguably at the tip of the iceberg for RT and what can be done.
You can't keep supporting outdated tech... Heck, even a ps 5 and xbx is considerably better than a 1060.
Never noticed anything bad about raster in CP. RT initially was a total gimmick, aside few places with reflections, I couldn't see any big difference. Way later they improved a lot and then PT happened. However, some games really looked horribly bad in raster, comparing to RT - devs clearly weren't bothered with all the good old tricks to make raster look good. Fun fact, all sponsored by NVIDIA, which is quite clear what happened there, to me. 
As that was when NVIDIA was pushing RT marketing really hard. It wasn't very common though.
