This is a brilliant post. Nail on the headmanufacturers are inconsistent in their implementation (likely because the average consumer doesn't understand what it does and just sees a darker screen)
So... We need higher frame rates, but developers obviously want to continue pushing the boundaries of visual fidelity.
Not everyone wants an RTX 4090 (super expensive, hot, and isn't going to fit into a laptop or even SFF anytime soon) and even Nvidia is acknowledging via DLSS 2 & 3 that brute force alone isn't going to cut it.
How do we get higher framerates while still pursing higher fidelity? Temporal reconstruction techniques like MetalFX Upscaling, DLSS, FSR 2.x, XeSS, TSR (UE5), and Checkerboard Rendering are currently the only option
I’d add to your point, that for most folks ‘good enough’ is what they are after and techniques like DLSS , FSR, MetalFX help commoditize raytracing for wider adoption and in turn the value proposition for buying ray tracing hardware.
I tend to see Ray Tracing like a diet version of the transform and lighting revolution that occurred in late ‘99 with the original GeForce. Perhaps not quite as revolutionary in scale/scope (subjectively to me anyway) but it is still in it’s chicken/egg phase with respect to hardware and software support.
From a business perspective, we need the lowest common denominator to be able to take advantage of ray tracing without crippling frame rates if we are to see a greater investment in the technology. DLSS is great for giving 4090 headline grabbing frames per second in marketing bench….. but it’s more important at the low end for making ray tracing usable or even an option worth of consideration to be turned on.
I also echo your sentiments about plasma. I had a very old Panasonic Vierra and to this day, I still think the motion on that was some of the best that I’ve ever seen.