This is a semi-scientific Utilitarian approach to the Frame Rates, trying to illustrate,

- Is higher frame better? If so, by how much?

- Does dimishing returns apply to frame rates?

- Do we benefit from a reasonably high frame rate (exp. 30) to a higher one (exp. 60)?

- Do we benefit from an already high frame rate (exp. 60) to an even higher one (exp. 120)?

etc...

Assumtions

a) Higher frame is always better. This is a weak assumption (weak is good!) and it usually holds although there are biological / technical cases where it may not hold.

b) Higher frame rate matters increasingly less (dimishing returns to scale, increasing sharply soon after).

c) The specific numbers for utility here are meaningless in their "absolute magnitudes". They are important only in their "relative and sequential values". So a value like 20 is meaningless on its own, although it is understood that it's worse than 21. Or an increase by point unit is a larger increase than one half point.

The summary

Frame rate matters most between 0-30 frames. It matters less between 30-60 frames. It still matters but dramatically less after 60 fps. The utility you get at 30 fps is barely doubled somewhat above 120 fps...

I think you got the columns mixed up.

How do you determine the utility?

It seems that graph only takes response time or lag into account.

Frame rate needed depends on movement. Bigger screens and faster moving objects require higher frame rates to eliminate judder. Your eyes track and follow moving objects, the frame rate needs to be high enough so the objects don't 'skip' across the screen. The speed you can comfortably pan a camera at depends on frame rate.
You can watch a 30fps youtube video in a window and the frame rate is fine, stick the same thing in VR glasses and judder becomes a big problem.

Brightness also plays a factor. The higher the brightness the more you notice judder. Although low brightness doesn't make the skipping problem any better, it makes your eyes blend more after images together.

Higher frame rates will become more important with large size 4K screens and especially VR glasses.
Back with Doom on a 10" screen 10-12 fps was considered good.

Did I? I mean, on the left side, you get a certain utility for a certain frame rate. The higher the frame rate, the higher the utility. And to the North East (up and right), the frame rate as well as utility increases. It seems ok to me. Maybe I am not seeing what you're point at...

In absolute sense (values), I do not determine, we don't specifically know those values either. Human mind doesn't work with MATH. It works with PREFERENCES, so it cannot be precisely enumerated. However, Math can SIMULATE it. The gist of this comparison is, how STRONGLY we prefer one thing over another, and how SIGNIFICANTLY we perceive those changes.

All valid points, which this function above does not honestly address. Don't get me wrong, they CAN be formulated. It's just that I don't have the sufficient information how to formulate. However, the current illustration is, though not precise, still makes general and common sense.

I mean the columns on the left. It says utility and under it lists the fps from 5-60 and vice versa.

anything over 60fps is pointless really. Games at 30fps look just find as long as the frame rate is consistent.

Normally yes, but for turning and fast moving objects it does make sense.

Console games render a field of view between 55 and 75 degrees. Let's take the average 65 degrees. The max rotation speed for objects to not appear to skip accross the screen is limited by frame rate. At 1080p resolution there are 1920 pixels for that 65 degree view port. A vertical line should ideally take 1920 steps to cross those 65 degrees, so when you follow it with your eyes it remains a solid smooth traversing object. At 60fps, it would take almost 3 minutes to turn around completely without skipping pixels.

240hz smooth motion is not all marketing, it does help. It is however of limited use since it can't undo the motion blur that is already present in the source material. 240fps rendering will make fast turns feel more natural. Diminishing returns are real though, is it worth it. Maybe in VR.

Yep, you're right. For some reason, I was blind to that. So yes, take it the other way around! =D

Oh man I love the 240hz trumotion or whatever it's called on my TV.

Input lag be damned, everything just looks so great. Maybe that's why I'm not such a stickler for 60fps games lol.