Going with the principle of parsimony - consciousness is arguably inefficient. I recommend some Peter Watts for fun sci fi inquiry into what a technically advanced species without consciousness should look like. So why have it?
Given that nobody can answer the question of what exactly consciousness is, why it developed, and how we could replicate it, I disagree that the study of consciousness has to be "looking for something more."
If the brain is "a wet computer" (and if you have time I do challenge you to support this statement), why is it seemingly non deterministic? Or is it actually deterministic, and we just don't have the modelling technology to sufficiently grab all the variables? I think I can predict your reaction - "of course it's deterministic! The universe is deterministic, and brains are just a part of the universe!" I think that is the inevitable rational point of view, sure. I'm not saying we need to leave room for a god... I'm saying literally, nobody knows for sure. So why not study these questions?