My response will seem purely argumentative, but I won't be able to help it lol

A few things that you have to consider: 3D is NOT a math concept, it is ALSO a physics concept.  Math is able to calculate in an infinite number of dimensions which is why physics exists: physics is the resultant of tangible math in our reality.  In our reality, we only operate in four dimensions, and three of them are visually perceptible (the fourth is time).  Thus, since we can ONLY see in 3D, this is a physics concept of dimensional perception, not math.

THUS, back when "full 3D roaming" was the hype, it was the same thing: neither technology nor marketing.  It was having the power to render in THREE dimensions which allowed us to perceive a digital world the SAME way we perceive our real one.  When people were saying "3D", they were NOT talking about the different graphics, but the FREEDOM OF MOTION/PERCEPTION.  Technology POWERS this concept, but the technology is NOT the concept itself.  Marketing latches onto this "new" thing and turns it into a hype machine.

Now if you're talking 3D MOVIES using ANAGLYPH 3D, or POLARIZED 3D, then THAT is technology.  Anaglyph and Polarized 3D are technologies that make 3D possible on a 2D screen.  Each of these technologies don't involve physics, but instead physiology and psychology (tricking the brain into perceive depth where there is none).  There is NO real world application to either of these except the mimicry of depth (and thus no involved physics), and not that accurately at that (obviously!) even though I personally enjoyed many polarized 3D movies at the theatres when it was available.  Marketing turns this into "Dolby 3D" or whatever, and THAT is the marketing part.

In summary, you're reaching a bit to downplay ray tracing more as marketing new graphics tech, but instead it's conceptually a lot like the move to 3D environments as you've chosen for an example.  It's not just some marketing term, it's an actual physics concept that's been used in calculations for the digital world for decades, now.  We're just NOW starting to have enough power to do it in real time, so it's getting marketed as the new cool thing.  The same thing happened when we moved to 3D, since as you can see it was NOT simply marketing hype and is now the defacto standard for modern games, even MANY of the 2D ones! Granted, the move from 2D to 3D is MUCH larger than the move to ray tracing, but ray tracing will permeate everything until it's the standard in all graphics engines as the decades roll on.

For decades.

Conker: Live and Reloaded had a single bounce light which is... You guessed it. Ray Tracing.
https://fileadmin.cs.lth.se/cs/Education/EDAN35/lectures/Stefanov10-gi-in-games-notes.pdf

Doom 1993 actually used Ray Casting for it's lighting model... Which you guessed it. Is a Ray Tracing Algorithm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_(1993_video_game)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_casting

So not only have you been privileged to enjoy Ray Tracing in video games for the better part of almost 30 years, but you didn't even know it.

Ray Tracing isn't a *singular* thing, it's actually a name for a group of different algorithms, with varying degrees of complexity and thus computational requirements...

As we gain more computing resources... Ray Tracing in turn has gotten more complex to the point where it's become necessary to offload it to dedicated hardware processing cores.
Rasterization will for all intents and purposes still underpin all 3D rendering for years to come, just like it always has.

I really think we aren't even thinking about the gameplay elements that could work with ray tracing. A legend of Zelda game where light can be manipulated in a more realistic way which provides various ways to solve the puzzle (think mirror shield puzzles). It would allow for those experiences to be less two dimensional. A first person horror game where the reflection on a window or mirror is the only way to see the patterns of an enemy so you can escape.

Besides looking pretty, I think this lighting solution has a lot of potential.

You probably need to watch that digital Foundry video that goes over the changes within the new Enhanced Edition coming out for Metro.  The developer decided to get rid of their old "cheat" rendering engine and go full RT and the benefits seen in the game as well as their workflow justifies that the "cheat" is actually way more work and doesn't produced as good as results when you develop your whole engine using RT.  

Its pretty obvious just like going from spirits to 3D where RT will be the default going forward as dev engines improve and hardware get better at rendering.  Its really going to make it easier for artist to compose their scenes producing faster work.

Frankly, while your video was well put together, I learned nothing from it.

Heh, I am not going to touch most of that post, because it is getting off topic, and we'd end up arguing about nearly everything.

Instead I am going to clarify that I am not downplaying ray tracing.  I am comparing it to Gen 5 when 3D graphics were the new thing.  What you don't realize is that expensive graphics are always about marketing.  It isn't just a marketing buzzword.  I'm saying that huge budgets are spent on graphics for the sake of marketing.  The easiest part of the game to advertise is the graphics.  Anything new technology that improves the graphics of big budget games is about marketing.  When games spend most of their budget on graphics, they are really spending it on marketing.

Dude, you are grasping at straws here. 

"So not only have you been privileged to enjoy Ray Tracing in video games for the better part of almost 30 years, but you didn't even know it."

You should stop making assumption about me. Makes you appear rather silly. 

Wolfenstein 3D Raycasting that was also used as an advanced version in Doom:

Raycasting (lodev.org)

Raycasting is not the same as raytracing! Raycasting is a fast semi-3D technique that works in realtime even on 4MHz graphical calculators, while raytracing is a realistic rendering technique that supports reflections and shadows in true 3D scenes, and only recently computers became fast enough to do it in realtime for reasonably high resolutions and complex scenes.

My question: "Since when did consoles rendered scenes with Raytracing in realtime?"

Raycasting it is not. 

Now let's focus on Conker.

Conker uses Global Illumination. GI is NOT Raytracing. Global Illumination is rather a group of algorithms. I've seen you doing that mistake in a different thread. Let me link the wikipage for you: 

Global illumination - Wikipedia

Images rendered using global illumination algorithms often appear more photorealistic than those using only direct illumination algorithms. However, such images are computationally more expensive and consequently much slower to generate. One common approach is to compute the global illumination of a scene and store that information with the geometry (e.g., radiosity). The stored data can then be used to generate images from different viewpoints for generating walkthroughs of a scene without having to go through expensive lighting calculations repeatedly.

Radiosity, ray tracing, beam tracing, cone tracing, path tracing, volumetric path tracing, Metropolis light transport, ambient occlusion, photon mapping, signed distance field and image-based lighting are all examples of algorithms used in global illumination, some of which may be used together to yield results that are not fast, but accurate.

Raytracing is just one algorithm that can be used for GI. That's it. In the document about Conker it is not mentioned which exact algorithm is being used. It could be Raytracing, it could be something else. But let's go with Raytracing. They used 1 ray to get GI in the game. OK, wow. *slow clap* 

How does that compare to the current usage with real time Raytracing nowadays for the new consoles? It does not. Let me take the opportunity of being silly here: "Raytracing is an industry buzzword for the new consoles because my old VHS player could do raytracing by playing the movie Toy Story. Raytracing has been there for several decades." How does that sound? That's the point I am going for. Raytracing can be done in real time in modern games and that's also thanks to the denoiser. That's what I am going for. And I don't think it is a industry buzzword and I am not wrong with my original response. 

He's right though. Ray tracing is a memory resource hog which doesn't add anything significant to the experience, at this present stage.

Don't ruin real time reflections for me. I adore them. 

It still has a long way to go. I only noticed raytracing in two games so far, Metro Exodus Enhanced and Control. It looks really nice in those games and I don't wanna miss it. In BF5, Cyberpunk and Tomb Raider however, I can't say if I'm playing with raytracing enabled or not.

Devs need to put some more work into it. If it's well done, it makes a hell of a difference and really looks like next-gen. But right now that's the exception, not the rule. You won't miss anything if you just wait a few years before investing into raytracing tbqh.