Ok, in the most basic distasteful way of looking at it yes.
It's coporation designed to maximize profit. That's what a corporation does. To say it's a cash grab is unfair. Nvidia wanted something, they used their own method of doing it. A Gsync module. This method inherently costs more money that Nvidia must be compensated for. But because of this, Nvidia was able to ensure stringent guidelines as well. This allowed consumers to be confident that a Gsync monitor was indeed a top quality monitor. A freesync monitor may have more options, but this is also more confusing to the consumer, and a consumer who has a freesync monitor may have a 1080p 50-60hz freesync monitor while an nvidia user may have a 30-144hz. It just is a way of NVidia to ensure their consumers get the experience they intended, and they charged more for it.
It's your job as a consumer to look at both options and make a choice. To me, I see the Nvidia way of doing it to be more expensive because it adds a proprietary component. This is shown by the costs. So I went freesync because I couldn't justify the insane price of Gsync monitors. But I don't think a Gsync monitor is a bad purchase. What if a person doesn't want to use CRU to lower the frequency range of their freesync monitor (You have to do this on SO MANY freesync monitors if you really want a decent range). What if a person just wants a good product without shopping around? What if a person doesn't understand all of this hz stuff and just wants to know that their Nvidia Gsync Monitor is just going to rock? There is a product for everyone. If AMD keeps failing me, you'll definitely see me buy a Gsync monitor. In the end, people just want something that works with what they got.
You can hate on Gsync all you want, Gsync has a market and people pay for things like convenience and peace of mind.