Eh! At least the singeplayer is locked at 60fps, so that's good enough for me!

Any reply to this point is going to be ignored.

There really isnt any need to resort to this. I'v read all your replies. Its also disingenuine when you first make a comment to me and then say that you will ignore my response. I will reply anyways and you can then choose to ignore or not.

We are in agreement as to the role steam stats play. I asked why did you feel it was necessary to repeat what i said. When you claim an average over a prolonged period of time you cant only use the most recent stats. Just looking at the trend of stats for 2014 already shows a trend in better hardware. Imagine that trend of 3 - 5 years. Its not as crazy as your example but its still significant.

Your initial statement is still wrong though because you didnt say PC gamer. But yes you are right, i automatically assumed you were speaking about PC gamers. Either way the statement was still false imo largely because we disagree on what a PC gamer is.

I'm still perplexed why you are willing to ignore posts, call me confused and then claim i am arguing for the sake of arguing. You made a false statement and i corrected you then asked for clarity because you still felt you were right. There was nothing wrong with that. I am/was not attacking you.

Edit: Also the whole MMO, MOBA thing...what exactly is your stance on gamers who mostly play those games? In my opinion they are still PC gamers. You were implying that they are not. Theres no way i was misunderstanding you with that.

Yeah, saying "1080p/60fps is standard for PC" in the context of console performance is somewhat misleading. Sure, the average PC can achieve 1080p/60fps on most game pretty easily, but doing so often requires turning the settings down to a fidelity comparable to the PS3/360.

To run a game on high (not max) at 1080p/60fps with a decent AA setting (let's say 4xMSAA) you need a pretty good PC.

Everything under 24fps isn't decently playable annymore, 30 is standard, 60 is optimal

Firstly, 1920 x 1200 with ultra settings has not been 60fps consistantly on even high end GPU's. This requires turning off some settings to reach even on flagship cards. It would also require yearly updates to the flagship card to pull off this feat in the handful of titles it is possible in. The yearly battlefield, and COD will start to drop about 15 - 20% of the previous years fps. If you go to more PC exclusive titles like Company of Heroes, they will never reach 1080p/60fps with ultra settings.

Secondly, even if these consoles had i7 + Titan Black or FX 9000 + R9 290x on a APU with 16GB of stacked RAM, and 1TB transfer rates, they still would not be 1080p/60fps consistantly. Developers will always push the envelope, not matter how much power they are given. The fact is 30fps is perfectly fine, and so it will always be the bar. 60fps will only be in select titles were a developer sets that as the foundation the game is built upon. Anything over 60fps will never be on consoles as it is completely pointless.

As beeing mostly a PC gamer I and all my friends played on 60 fps or more, we reduced the setting to get more FPS. Why buy a 120 hz monitor and play 30 fps ?. Max settings isnt needed most of the time they are still so good,

and yes I have a I7, 16 gb ram and only a 7970 Ghz edition and so does all of my friends.

Who said anything about Ultra Settings? If you're going to run a game in ultra settings I think it's pretty reasonable you're going to take a FPS hit, that's a given. Unless you spent thousands and thousands of dollars to have the highest possible performance and graphics, but those people are few. As for Company of Heroes will never run at 1080p 60fps at ultra, where on Earth did you get that from?

Secondly, that's a given. You can have all the power in the world but if the game is optimised like crap then of course it's going to run like crap. And really 30 fps has always been the bar? Since when?  And yeah, it is pointless to display over 60 fps because I doubt many people own a TV that can display more than 60 hz.

i played 25 fps games without problem
(example crysis 2 on X360)
below 25 fps(22 or 18) is shit

I guess everyone has there preference. Personally, I don't think I have ever been bothered by 30 fps. On the other hand, I have been bothered by 60 fps. I forgot what pc game it was, but I actually limited the fps to 30 because 60 fps just looked and felt weird; like the game was in fast forward and it kinda made me dizzy. I think that maybe 120 fps would be better because that's closer to our perception limit, but for some reason 60 fps just doesn't work very well for me.

I have played many FPS games, and I honestly can't say that 60 fps makes the experience any better. Personally, I'd prefer if 60 fps was sacrificed to accommodate a higher resolution and just better overall graphics.

60fps was the standard because this is the point where the visuals seem seemless and input feels in stant which was particularly important in many genres that used to dominate arcade lineups.

I'm not so fussed about resolution. But to me the framerate does have a direct impact on the way a game plays which is why I prefer 60fps. 30fps isn't a deal breaker, but I can see when a game is 60fps and always have a natural preference for this. Games like Mario Kart in 3-4 player split screen feel completely different to 1-2 player purely because the framerate is halved.

As much as most people don't really think they notice the 30-60fps difference. It's interesting that games like COD were the ones which took off last gen for multiplayer. Can we prove 60fps was a factor? No, but I'm pretty sure it was.