This is a very ignorant comment.
For some tasks, ray tracing already outperforms traditional rasterization.
All "photorealistic" 3D renderers are trying to produce output on par with a true ray tracing renderer, and because the computation required is so high, tons of bodges and hacks are employed to approach that level of quality. The resulting complexity of a traditional rasterizer is astronomical compared to the complexity of a ray traced renderer.
Ray traced graphics has been the goal the entire time computer graphics have been a thing; for the past 40 years, at least. That's always been the goal. I can't remember a time when it wasn't.
It's only now that hardware fabrication technology has put us in a place where we're able to slightly open the door to the rendering techniques we've desired for so long. It's an exciting time.
It is not a scam. It may not perform well in most situations currently, but I can promise you, that will change significantly as time goes on.
Just like how early CPU hardware was slow and expensive, early ray tracing hardware is slow and expensive. Over time, CPU hardware has gotten cheaper and faster, and the same will happen with ray tracing hardware.