AAA games that aren't from certain specific genres like versus fighting, hack & slash, FPS or driving simulators don't need to be 60fps. If they have a locked, steady 30fps it's fine for amost all the players. Both devs and players prefer these 3rd person action or open world games to have great visuals at 30fps than mediocre at 60fps.
Look at Halo Infinite: it has all these checks. Native 4K! 60fps! Raytracing (when done)! etc. But looked ugly, because you can't have everything. Doesn't matter if it's a next gen or not: when a game runs at 60fps, it could have run at steady 30fps looking better. And when you give these two options to the players, most of them will choose the better looking one with 30 fps unless it's from one of some specific game genres where reaction times and controls with very low input lag are key.
If at the start of the generation we see more 60fps than usual is basically because they are crossgen games mostly made for the previous generation and with some extra improvements on top and the horsepower allows them to run at 60fps if visuals aren't too demanding.
In any case, maybe it would be good for them to do what some games did: to include 2 options: best image quality and best framerate, in order to allow people to get 60fps but at the cost of losing cool looking stuf like raytracing, great lighting and shadows and so on.
But well, there's also people who also hates this. It's impossible to make everyone happy, because everybody likes and hates different things. So devs choose what most users prefers when you can't have everything, and for open worlds/cinematic 3rd action games it's the best possible visuals even if it's at the cost of having 30fps. Deal with it.