Not really. If it didn't have the GTA license it would likely fail to recoup its development cost. 

If what you're saying is true then Hellblade 2: Senua's Saga should be a top 10 seller this gen and Alan Wake II should also be ... and that's not even close to being reality. Senua's Saga is a flop and Alan Wake II is struggling just to break even. Other games with high end graphics have also put up middling/mediocre sales (Avatar, Star Wars Outlaws). None of the "graphics showcase" games this gen have really lit up the sales charts. 

If you need a billion dollars to make a big leap forward, that isn't feasible for 99% of developers even big ones and you're treading into a territory that is just stupid frankly. 

There's exactly 0 games on the PS5/XSX that would give me the same feeling of going from PS1 to PS2 honestly, the PS4 to PS5 leap has not been great, doesn't even feel like a real generational leap. 

It feels like what used to be inter-generational jumps, like going from PS2 (2000) to the original XBox (2001). That's honestly what console generations feel like now. There's nothing that really feels like a full generation beyond the last God of War or Horizon Forbidden West. If GTA6 does it, that takes a billion dollar budget to pull it off, that's just not feasible for most devs and how then are devs supposed to top GTA6? 2 billion budget? 

Looking at the poll, that's a pretty lopsided result to boot. 

Also sure there are lots of games to play, but that doesn't mean I want just random games to play. If I'm a Zelda fan or something it does suck waiting 10 years in between games. 

Hard disagree. I'm as sure as I can possibly be that GTA would be successful even with somewhat oudated visuals technically, as long as its visual design was spot-on. Even kind of realistic-looking games seem to have a lot of wiggle room in terms of visual design, and I feel like it's probably greatly underutilized. Maybe a game like GTA would suffer if it went back a full gen, but it will absolutely not need to be among the most advanced games out there. In fact, GTA V is probably a great example of this: it was stunning when it was released, but the majority of its sales must have come at times when it hasn't been a top-tier game technically.

The problem with these stances is, is that you're basically saying that all of Rockstars had work in making it the most graphically and technically advanced game was just a waste of time and money because "it would have been successful anyway". They know what they need to do to make the most successful game possible, more than the people on this forum do. 

I play alot of rpgs.... and for the vast majority 30fps is plenty (as long as its a stable locked 30).

Even something like Path of Exile, I lock to it 60 fps.
(I don't need to make my pc strugle to output 120-150fps, get into something hectic and watch it drop down to like mid 50's anyways)
Set it to 60, and it breezes though it (non demanding workloads), and the most demanding situation in the game, only dips a few fps lower.

I like stable frame rates and frame times though.  If a game can run really stable frame rates, I would much rather have that, then it running insanely fast, and them going up and down.

Its like people that play Counter strike at 400+ fps.
What is the point? Like if you don't even have a 144hz monitor?  I don't get it.... and I'm not into shooters anyways.

480 hz, and higher, monitors exist.

Having said that, for me personally, 90 fps is extremely similar to 120 fps, not a huge jump.  But 90 fps blows 60 fps out of the water. 

Sh*t I play mostly on a big screen tv.
I wasn't even sure if it could do 120hz..... I just checked and found out it could (surprised myself there).... lmao.
Anyways its running 60hz atm, and I have been running it that way for along time.

I honestly don't care about fps and refresh rates.
Like I said, I don't play shooters. I don't feel like there any benefit to running say 120hz vs 60 for me.

my tv has HDR too... I don't use it.

Yes, Red Dead 2 is a PS4 game, it looks amazing, now it also was the most expensive game ever at the time right? but 6 years later, while games look better I think I'd be okay with games looking like that as long as they release more frequently.

Ghost of Yotei too 5 years to make, it looks amazing but it's still a sequel, surely they can use all the resources they had to make a new game without it taking so long? We used to get a game then a sequel every 2 to 3 years, now it's 5 plus? I'd rather just good sequels with minor upgrades.

There are people out there that are idiots however that think sequels need to be bigger and better in every way each iteration, i just want more games of those series... like we used to.

@The Fury

In regards of Yōtei: I actually don't even really disagree with you, I'm perhaps just having a different point of view, a different angle looking at it.

The "Ghost of" franchise had its 1st installment with Tsushima. So to me, it's still a damn new whole franchise, it even feels new to me. And just now saw its 2nd installment, which was a complete stand-alone new story and a new main protagonist.

Again, not saying that you're wrong, but that's how I feel about "Ghost of".

To topic:

Two days ago, I just started playing Hitman World of Assassination again after a 3-4 year pause.

And while it has its bitmap-ish looking textures here and there (like in older levels), I was simply in awe again of how beautiful Sapienza looks, or Marrakesh, and all the reflections going on - which wasn't even real Raytracing, right?

And I said to myself again - why the f*** should I personally care about if its real Raytracing or Path Tracing in, let's say, Dubai or Paris, when the result itself, based on much cheaper technologies, looks absolutely amazing, too, for of just walking through a level.

Wether it's Hitman, Red Dead Redemption 2, The Last of Us Part 2, etc. - I agree, I think PS5 is the perfect device to take that insanely high level of graphics and tech of those games and push a little bit further graphically, but mostly to stabilize their performance.

So, yes - I don't really need or even wish for "better graphics" - which in it of itself is ofc a given anyway, but I'd have nothing against devs NOT pushing for Raytracing and other fancy tech.

But rather use perfected older tech, which is cheap and efficient in demanding hardware ressources, but still looking great while walking through a lounge with reflections on marmour.

The biggest leap in open world games in the last 15 years was BoTW and came out on some weak ass Wii U. You don't need a billion to innovate and tbh GTA is not true open world. Never has been. You do the missions in the order it wants you to and how they want you to.

It would probably be 'the most successful game' even with lesser investment in visuals because it's GTA. Of course investing even more into the visuals is going to make it even more popular, but it's probably also coming at a huge cost. Note that I'm making no claims about whether it's worth the cost, because I honestly don't know. I'm just saying that as long as they don't really screw it up, the game's going to absolutely huge almost regardless of what exactly they do.

I think in at least CS:GO framerate had a significant impact on how the game felt to play, so for maximum competitive advantage, you'd need a really high framerate, even much higher than your monitor supports. I think they improved that in CS2 and you don't need as high framerate anymore, but I don't know how well that panned out. I don't really play CS so I'm not familiar with the details.