First, bc it's the most important aspect of this discussion atm, both console manufacturers have been working to create their own version of dlss. Neither elected to use AMDs. And Nvidia announced months ago now that DLSS 2.0 is openly accessable to developers, as they no longer need to send individual frames in for it know what the image should look like. It's unlikely consoles are capable of supporting Nvidia's version bc of it being hardware accelerated, but adoption should increase significantly on pc. I have far more faith in both Sony and MS to release a fully functioning version before AMD does, as there will likely be months of hard crashes when AMD drops theirs.
For many developers, once ray tracing is integrated into their engines lighting will become far simpler than it currently is. Now that its in DX and Vulcan at least. From there, it essentially functions as a physics engine for light and shadow.
One developer used a dungeon as a great example. Typically, they work with either global illumination or simple assets which have a sphere of illumination. If you want to hide something, a reward or enemy, you need to lower global illumination. That has the side effect of requiring more lighting assets for the areas you don't want things hidden. Even if its things like hidden assets on the other side of the wall, akin to how Skyrim did a number of things. Which then acts as a tell for the players. With ray tracing, you don't have to manipulate global illumination. You can use fewer lighting assets and let the geography manipulate the light as it would irl. So you can have a well lit pathway with any enemy completely obscured to the side. All of which requires far less manipulation by the developer, thus far less time sunk into it.
tl;dr version - Traditional lighting CAN look just about as good and be manipulated to work nearly as well... if developers want to continue to dump hundreds to thousands of man hours into something that can be essentially automated with greater effect.