Oh! That explains why I like 60 fps in video games (where they can add motion blur) but it makes me motion sick with real life footage. I always get a really wierd uncanny-valley feeling when I watch streamers that stream in 60fps and I didn't like the 48fps of the Hobbit much either. Although I think I'm slowly getting used to it.

I'm sorry but i have to say that it’s useless… I really don’t understand your excitement for this.

I don't know, maybe 2020 ? 

Do you have that problem with tv too? 1080i broadcast has been used next to 720p. Some shows do have 60i capture. Most are 30 or even 24fps though.
How about games before motion blur? A lot ran at 60fps, on PC all. Motion blur is just a recent thing.

True, on a monitor it looks more like a game than on tv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJMYJzaKCq4
Dr Who does look more fake than the usual 30fps show. Lighting requirements are different at 60fps, and since it looks more 'real' props and make-up have to step up too. There are also less gaps for your brain to fill in detail. Star trek original series looked pretty real on a crappy b&w analog tv, the enhanced 1080p version is still charming yet it looks like a high school play.

Some motion sickness is also due to how the camera works
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wi5aNTHUVk
Especially at the start you see that the camera capture is too slow for 60fps and the picture constantly deforms. That's a problem with digital camera's that don't take an instant picture, yet continually scan from top to bottom (or bottom to top) When you snap a picture out of a fast moving car with your phone the picture usually seems to bend in the direction you're travelling.
Plus giving your eyes better motion clues at 60fps is of course the first cause of motion sickness. The conflict between your inner ear and visual clues only becomes stronger. Yet at 2:42 the camera is stationary, is that still uncomfortable to watch?

Here's another comparison
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChsT-y7Yvkk
The Avatar footage looks better than ever imo. Looked fake anyway, might as well look smooth and fake :)

120hz tvs are at best 20% of the tvs sold currently. Game devs are not going to make the jump over 60 FPS until more people have 120hz tvs than 60hz (which is going to be a LONG time)

the reality is there comes a point where the human eye does not really notice faster frame rate that much. sure, something competitive or super detail sensitive in terms of quick action and response is one thing but the average game it just isn't that important

its sort of like why people really enjoy films with 24 frames or whatever and have for a veryyyyy long time. there is only SO much detail the human eye will really notice at one time anyway

I'm not against updating it but across the board if its expensive I just don't think an insanely high FPS is that important for casual gaming when half the time gamers are doing something else or eating haha

at this points its irrational anyway as the vast majority of PC gamers do not have moniters that support a higher than 60FPS frame rate

I think you're overestimating here. For instance 4k became a thing like what, two years ago? The launch price of such TVs were astronomical, north of 5 grand. Today I can walk into a store and buy a smart 4k 48" TV for about 800$.

With refresh rates, 120hz has been available on HDTVs for at least five years and slowly but surely 60hz has been getting passed out over time. Now instead of 120hz being available on high end TVs, that number is now 240hz and I'm not positive about this but I believe I've seen super premium models sporting 480hz (that were oled, not plasma). With that being said it's only a matter of time before they stop making 60hz TVs all together. 

And what I meant in my first comment about input lag was not completely accurate - simply put, if you have a smart TV say at 60hz, yes it is refreshing the screen at 60fps. However most if not all smart tvs have display engines built into the software that, for instance can make colors brighter, can make contrast better, etc - this takes a specific amount of time to process before its displayed on the screen. The input lag I'm talking about is more of a processing delay which is why on newer sets, you can feel a difference when turning on 'gaming' mode. It's bypassing the software engine to get rid of this delay. By investing in TVs that have a higher refresh rate, more often than not the effect of 'gaming' mode diminishes greatly and you can keep all those fancy filters and what not processing while observing much less delay. You want the weakest point in the setup to be the console, not the sound system, not the monitor, but the console. This way no matter how fast your console or PC can perform, everything else has no problem keeping up with it. Does that make sense? I'm writing this from a cell phone lol.

Edit - I totally went off on a tangent and described something you weren't talking about :p the point is that 60hz TVs are being phased out and as 4k is the next big thing, I'm willing to bet that refresh rates on the TV side of things will bump up along with it. 

Ah. Thank you for clarifying!

Is there a need for a frame rate that goes beyond 60fps? That's what I want to know.

When VR become the standard? No time in the forseeable in future.