Let me start by saying that if people are perfectly happy with the sound of their system there's no need to change anything at all. I'm 100% on board with that.
But I believe there's still value in explaining how things work and why - regardless whether someone decides to apply it.
I'd say people seem to expect both too much, and too little from RoomFit.
Part of it is I guess due to folklore, marketing, and hype; and partly due to how many other gadgets in our life are simple to use, but vastly complex under the hood.
In the end RoomFit is a tool for a very specific usecase and you can't blame it if it doesn't solve every problem - just how you can't call a screwdriver useless because it's not good at e.g. sawing.
So the "problem" with RoomFit (and any other digital room correction tool, really) is that they can't solve every acoustic issue (they actually only solve one), plus they rely heavily on other factors being optimized first (like speaker placement). As such I'm not surprised at all that some people struggle to make RoomFit work well for them. I'm very sympathetic to that.
However, after having lead a good few people through this optimization process, I have to say that I'm fully convinced that EQ for room correction (or to be more precise: for bass correction) could improve sound quality in the vast majority of cases, assuming placement and sub integration is optimized first, and that correction attributes are tuned to the environment.
IME once you experience resonance-free bass, it is hard to go back to the room-resonance-ridden bass response most of us lived with for years.
That was funny and I enjoyed it.
"RoomFit" is perhaps a misnomer - what it is meant to do, however, is remove bass resonances which happen due to the interaction of the speaker with the room.
These are different in every room, and for every placement, but it is not uncommon to have one or more sharp bass peaks which are >10dB above average response, as well as notches that are >10dB below it.
That means that a fundamental frequency of e.g. one note played by the bass guitar can subjectively end up being 2x or even 4x louder that another note in the same scale, depending whether they align with the response peak or notch.
This can be very audible.
If placement is optimized and if RoomFit is applied correctly the result should be that relative loudness of individual bass notes will be preserved as recorded - at least at the main listening position.
Note that studio control rooms have pretty smooth bass responses as well. Room EQ combined with proper placement can bring that kind of response to our home HiFi systems.
Above the bass region the story changes - but I won't go into that here. Suffice to say that room correction EQ should be limited to bass frequencies only.
Creative use of EQ (e.g. the popular smiley-face curve) is something very different to room EQ.
Room EQ can actually bring you closer to what the producer had in mind - since the producer likely made the recording while listening to room-resonance-free bass in the studio control room.
But again - good results with room EQ are unfortunately not guaranteed for everyone, not until we have a system which doesn't require a significant level of expertise from the user.
IMHO we're not there yet with any automated room correction, sadly!
. Everything set to zero and it has to sound good. That's what my uncle (guitarist in a beat band in the 60s) taught me in my childhood with my first stereo in the mid-70s 
. That's how it is and that's how it will stay.
