Well, yes, but I'm also constantly surprised just how many people are trying to use the game rules as a de facto physics engine. It seems a lot more obvious to me that they're to be used to resolve game-related and in-scope/genre for the game issues and not, say, seeing the freakin' moon.
Whether the range for a long bow or heavy crossbow is excessive or not tends to be more of a campaign-based issue than a significant rule issue. If you're playing in a setting where you can realistically have engagements starting 200 yards or more away, then it becomes relevant. If you're not, why would you sweat it?
Most of the time, long range isn't viable. Every so often it comes up. There was a string of Living Forgotten Realms mods in the 4e era where I noticed the battles were set up where a group of bow users could utterly dominate, but there weren't a lot of those around (most ranged classes had powers to attack with, and weren't using actual ranged weaponry); at this time, I joked about how a party of Rangers (and/or Seekers) would likely perform
quite well. And I still see it occasionally in canned adventures to this day, but nowhere near with regularity; the last three times it came up were, in fact-
An Adventure League mod about defending a town.
A Skulls and Shackles campaign which had a
lot of ship combat.
A setpiece battle where we were on an airship, attacking another airship.
I imagine a Spelljammer campaign would really put ranged combat to the test; I remember playing Spelljammer in 2e where the Dwarf melee Fighter wanted to be fired at an enemy ship via catapult in order to actually fight anything!
So the kinds of circumstances where an archer can dominate play aren't common, as most battles take place where you need to be relatively close, so this isn't often a problem. The question of whether, when it does come up, if it needs to be houseruled or merely allowed to be a moment where the archers shine, is one for the ages. Arguments can be made for or against; I tend to be fine if someone gets their moment in the sun, but I do understand the frustration of a DM who watches their "tough" encounter implode because of some X factor they didn't (or couldn't reasonably) account for.
In the past ten years or so especially, newer players seem to think outdoors encounters are basically like Skyrim, which has huge tracts of flat land, and enemies who are easily identifiable at long range, so one guy can always snipe a couple bandits off the roof of that abandoned Imperial Fort (Tamriel is lousy with them, and they always end up inhabited by unsavory types, lol) before they mobilize and take cover.
What kinds of shots can be realistically made are always in contention as well; one DM could say that they feel PC's are unmatched professionals, akin to Marine Corps Snipers. Another DM could say that PC's are nothing but country bumpkins who picked up weapons and are lucky to hit the broad side of a barn.
Different viewpoints and playstyles, you can't say one is right or wrong, as long as everyone is having a good time.
Personally, I see the long ranges of bows as an occasional, if minor, bonus to non-magical characters; ranged attacks from spellcasters are usually at reasonable ranges, and even the Warlock, who has likely one of the best at-will ranged attacks in the game has to invest to get half the range of a longbow (though without disadvantage, lucky jerks).
