Otter said:
Chrkeller said:
Proven wrong how? Diminishing returns, at least for me, implies negligible difference. Like 1440p to 4k is diminishing returns because it looks virtually identical. 60 to 120 absolutely has impact. It isn't negligible. RE4 Remake is one of my favorite games. I played it back to back on the PC vs ps5. 120 fps vs 60 fps, both with a gamepad. At 60 fps my a accuracy was 72%, at 120 fps I hit around 80%... I don't see that as negligible.
"But objectively the average gamer does in fact benefit above 60 fps."
I don't see how the above statement has been proven largely wrong when there is a statistical difference.... and that was the first article I found with putting in little effort. Other articles exist.... gamers do benefit from fps above 60 fps.
|
Diminishing returns means "proportionally smaller profits or benefits derived from something as more money or energy is invested in it."
Just to again contextualise the discussion you isaid that someone else objectively benefitted from 120fps whilst saying diminishing returns did not apply to high frame rate.
I'll add a correction on my side, I got the QoE and Performance graphs confused. The performance graph plateaus at 60 fps and QoL at 90-120. Similar to resolution, these results are very contextual to a specific experience/set up. I think there's clearly demonstrable benefit to some portion of gamers above 60 but that's also where diminishing returns really kicks in too.
I done the lazy thing and just grabbed chatgpt to explore the topic
-
Claypool & Claypool (2006): Clear subjective QoE benefits up to 60 fps, but plateauing beyond. Many participants could not consistently distinguish 85–100 fps from 60 fps in enjoyment terms.
-
Sony Interactive Entertainment Research (2019, PS5 dev white papers): While not peer-reviewed, testing showed higher perceived smoothness and responsiveness at 120 Hz in action and VR titles, but only sensitive players (hardcore FPS fans, competitive gamers) consistently rated 120 fps as more enjoyable.
-
Academic reviews of gaming QoE (e.g. Claypool 2023 CHI, ITU-T G.1032): Above 60 fps, frame-time stability matters more than the raw frame count. 120 fps is perceived as “smoother” mainly when motion is fast and screen latency is low.
-
eSports / HCI studies (CS:GO, Overwatch, Valorant community tests):
-
Performance (accuracy, reaction time) improves slightly from 60 → 120 → 240 fps.
-
Enjoyment/QoE: Most casual players don’t rate 120 fps as more fun than 60 fps, but competitive players often do, especially in twitch genres (FPS, racing)."
|
I must be super sensitive because for me 120 fps is every bit as big of jump over 60 as 60 is over 30. I've tested it out in a few games like RE4 where it tracks accuracy. I get rather large gains. When games like TLoU and oddly TTW have select areas that run poorly, I noticed immediately and confirmed via software that displays fps. In both games there was an area that dropped to lows 80s, caught the drop immediately, stands out like a sore thumb.
I'll leave my prediction, consoles will start offering more and more higher fps... it will become a thing.
Perhaps once you game a long time at 120 fps, you get used to it and 60 fps just seems sluggish. Like a conditioning aspect. With the exception of Nintendo and a hand full of PC games (souls, hades) I have not played any games that didn't average 100+ fps in 2 years.
Last edited by Chrkeller - on 19 August 2025
