Why is 30fps not an option in the poll?
Has anyone who voted 20fps ever played a 20fps game, 25fps might be acceptable (being the cinematic framerate), but below that is truely a no go for me.

Totally depends on the genre. 10 - 20 fps are good enough for many games with fixed 2d backgrounds or slow gameplay: visual novel, point&click adventures, CRPGs, turn-based strategy, Layton puzzles...).

Solid 30 fps for are okay for games where speed and aiming aren't the focus: action-adventures, JRPGs, ARPGs, sport games...

For games where speed and accuracy are important (first-person-shooters, many platformers, many racing games, many multiplayer games...), 60 fps is mandatory, 90 - 144 fps even better.

VR games with head tracking of course need at least solid 90 fps. 60 fps with reprojection could be good enough too, haven't tried it yet.

I don't mind most frame rates as long as they are mostly stable.

I've bought a 75Hz monitor with Freesync range between 40 to 75 fps, so my games absolutely have to fit in that range, though I personally accept only the range between 60 to 75 with a rock solid 75 being my goal every time. I'm thinking about what GPU to buy to be able to totally max out Witcher 3 and still stay at 75 fps, I hope R9 480 will grant me that, though something tells me I may have to go with something a tad faster.

Well, YouTube notice drops from 60 to 50 for example, so 30 is already too low. If you're playing checkers, ok you can go to 5, but how many of us bought Checkers for XB1 or PS4? None.

So this argument is bullshit. 30fps is already stupidly slow, even for RPG's(unless 2d background or static background). I play fallout 4 at 20fps in my ps4 and it annoys me to death. The same goes for The Witcher 3.

I play them in my PC with constant 90+ so yeah, the difference is huge. If people say that even for RPG's that 60 is enough, people are talking bullshit. Fallout and The Witcher have so much going on at once that I'm not even sure 60fps locked is fluid, let alone fake 30fps lock, which can drop to 20's.

So yeah, 30 is already too low for me. A console can't be a pro gamer thing unless gamers can be pros in them, and no console is pro gamer right now. PS4 Neo may be.

While I feel very comfy with old games that my modest R7 250 can handle from a minimum of 40fps at 1080p in the most complex scenes up to maxing out my monitor's 60Hz in simpler and calmer scenes (without synching Morrowind goes up to 200fps in such scenes, far exceeding what the monitor can do), in moderately fast paced games, like RPGs, action RPGs and action adventures, I start feeling uncomfortable when framerate drops under 15-20fps. Anyhow I feel really better if slower games stay above 25fps and fast paced ones above the aforementioned 40fps.
The lowest limit is actually lower than eye minimum temporal resolution thanks to the absence of flicker and the stability of each frame until the following one is displayed typical of LCDs, with CRTs both framerate and monitor refresh rate had to be higher to avoid eye strain.

I'd say 15fps. Because I don't think I'll play the game.

Yesterday when I was playing The Division, the game took a disastrous dip into the 5-10fps realm. That I can consider low enough for me.

Has there been any news on if the PS4k (neo) will support FreeSync ?

That and HDR, and even if games ran the exact same resolution as the normal PS4, would be a huge upgrade.

When I get my Rift in November it's going to be 90 all the way for me lol