I agree with the said sentiment. To really understand it, you have to see it from the eyes of a customer.
To the average customer, the shift from diffuse-specular to PBR was a massive leap. Material shading, etc were looking far better and real and they could identify the change.
However, the same cannot be said for recent advances with respect to RT or ReStir RTXDI (PT) which mostly affect lighting and reflections. The common audience cannot identify what changed. RT lighting is giving almost same result as baked, but for the audience it is like - Uncharted looked the same and ran better - or something like that. They cannot differentiate between SSAO or RTAO. They don't know what realtime single bounce is vs baked lightmaps. To them only the final result and experience matters.
And now they are thinking, that they are paying more money in hardware for a change they can barely identify on screen and that to, to play at a performance worse than their older games.
Which is why they still hold games like Arkham Knight, Uncharted 4 as peak in graphics even today. Now take UC4 and Alan Wake 2. Sure you can see some graphical improvements but here comes the next question. Is it really "worth" it for the customer to spend $$ on a new hardware just for that graphical upgrade that doesn't mean much to them anyways?
Answer is no, it doesn't. If you look at Steam hardware surveys, and look at monthly comparison to see what hardware are upgraded, they are mostly low-mid end cards. Nobody is uber sold on RT PT whatever hoax Nvidia is trying to pursue to sell more hardware.
So yeah, people don't care much RT upgrades and they really haven't caused a big impact in the minds of audience to be considered for improving graphics.
I dont really like most of Steve's (HUB's) new video on Ray Tracing even if I do agree with parts of it. But this part here I strongly disagree with.
No. Video game visuals didnt peak 8 years ago. Dont humor your audience if they are actually delusional or believe in lies.