the goalpost has long moved

I'll decide that for myself, thank you very much

I don't know, I think it's more down to personal preference than that. I get that competitive FPS players want to push frame rates as high as possible, but for me personally I have the exact opposite opinion as you. I have no real need to chase hundreds of FPS, at a stable 60 games feel smooth enough (maybe my eyes are bad). On the other hand, several games have a dramatic improvement in presentation with Ray Tracing on, in my opinion, which I value a lot. Both Cyberpunk and Alan Wake 2 for example look notably better with RT on.

https://imgsli.com/MjIzODc1

https://imgsli.com/MjIzODc2

https://imgsli.com/MjIwMzYw

https://imgsli.com/MjIwMzYx

https://imgsli.com/MjIwMzYy

In what world is Cyberpunk's ray tracing disappointing? Some shots I took while playing over the last month or so. I've never seen a better graphical showpiece.

Although I will say that by now the goalpost has long moved from 60 FPS and you really want to be aiming at 144 or more.

This is more or less subjective, or an ideal. Most people agree that 60FPS is completely fine (or pretty good) for single player experiences, as long as it is a smooth and stable 60 and doesn't have bad stuttering or the like. Naturally, almost everyone would say they would still be happy with more, but they're by no means miffed. Multiplayer experiences on the other hand, you'd have a point.

That being said, without raytracing on - which is mostly disappointing anyways -

LMAO sure whatever you say. You can be disappointed in the performance cost, but CP77's raytracing is undeniably some of the best around. The performance hit is definitely worth being bothered by, but real time ray tracing is a very new thing that is still being fleshed out, and we're 3 (or 2(?) for AMD generations of it, or 0 for Intel) deep. Both the software and hardware are actively being optimised for better performance and features, and we won't see the full fruits of the current cost for another few years yet.