I'm playing devil's advocate here, but the cheap GA's haven't meant anything to me. Either by bad luck, or by purposefully going with other seats, the U2 tickets I've bought the past couple of tours have been the most expensive standard priced tickets of ANY concerts I've seen.
And I know this is the first time the band has toured without having new material to promote. Sure, that's something different.
My point is, even taking those points into account, it doesn't matter anyway, and saying "it's just about money" is something you could say about any of their tours, at least in the past 20 years. (People forget that PopMart saw a sizable price jump from Zoo TV--I paid about double in 1997 what I did in 1992.) When I saw 360, my favorite moments were when they were playing songs decades old. That entire show could be whittled down to maybe 3 songs for me, the most recent of which was from 1995. So if they did that show but excised the NLOTH material, and put in more of the stuff that I liked (which many confirm was the case for the later leg that I passed on), is that somehow bad? I don't necessarily think so. And as I said elsewhere, I've seen other bands touring without new material: Paul McCartney, Kraftwerk, and Genesis, to name three. Each blew me away, to varying degrees. I don't think any of those shows are less for being "greatest hits shows". If U2 are stalled creatively, even temporarily, there's no shame in them putting on a new show and going on tour. It's not like they've done this before, even with the original JT tour. I just think there's a bit of "puritanism" about rock bands needing to have new material every tour, even if that puritanism only applies to certain bands. Bob Dylan's been on tour pretty much permanently for 30 years, both with or without new albums to promote. Do people deride that as being "just for the money"?