I don't know if the 30fps defendants are lying to themselves or what, but I think it should be obvious by now that developers are not using that extra power for physics and AI, seeing as we haven't experienced any advancement in that regard in more than a decade. And what does "world simulation" exactly mean?

Can't say it's a huge dealbreaker but 60 fps still needs to be the standard for action games at least.

What makes it extra weird and fishy, is that we've seen games emulated and ran at 60fps, largely being the same, and even games now from last gen being updated to run at 60fps and still containing the same elements the 30fps games had. The only actual changes that were made when those games transitioned, was their slight demand for a bit more power, but said power demand isn't some weird ass limitations or a downside, unless you're a company trying to make a cheap as chips closed box (to which I'd question why you're even in the market when everyone else is evolving).

The few errors I've noticed when going from 30-60fps, is when a game's animations are tied to framerate, but even then we've seen HZD's PC port actually correct that mistake with a patch down the line, making foliage animate at 60fps instead of a jarring 30, in a 60fps game, but correcting that mistake wasn't a downside (because previous logic would dictate that fixing it to run at 60fps would be some form of negative setback or "inferior" to it's previous 30fps state). 

Well there's BotW on Switch, physics based game play.
Death Stranding on PS4, lot of physics go in carrying, balancing and stacking all the things you transport.
Driveclub dynamic weather / time of day simulation, which GT Sport can't do at 60 fps.
Open world RPGs, lot of world simulation goes on there, also GTA5.
The last of us 2, global illumination and indirect lighting as well as water simulation and reflections.

Plenty advancements, but can't make the AI too smart. The player still needs to feel all powerful and kill hundreds of bad guys by himself. There's no way to make realistic AI on that premise. Shooting galleries is all that's allowed. Yet there have been plenty advancements in other areas of AI, pathing, animation blending, sound, lag forward prediction, even AA.

Fact is, a game with 30fps target can pull off a lot more. Then next gen you can run it at 60fps or on PC with all those benefits.

I will welcome it but it's not why I buy VG

The thing is that, in this day and age, you cannot release a 1080p-30fps game anymore. Developers need to target 1440p at the very minimum, and | believe any 1440p-30fps game could have a 900p-60fps mode with just a very few downgrades in graphics.

Take the Unreal5 Demo, for example. I'm sure that demo would be able to run at 60fps on the PS5 at 900p with very few graphical downgrades.

And at the end of the day, it is not like the 1440-30fps would suddenly disappear. You are just adding another option.

I already said not every dev will necessarily utilize it, but a game like BOTW on Wii U could never have been made if 60fps was the minimum allowed, same for other games that are pushing the CPU hard.

World simulation can refer to all manner of moving parts and systemic elements with the world, from wind to traffic to crowds to wildlife.

I'd love to see AI improved myself, though I was referring more to the number of AI entities that can be processed per scene than to their routines specifically, but the fact remains that 30 vs 60 is not just a matter of graphics, your CPU as well as GPU has to run at 16.67ms per frame to hit 60, which allows for only half as much processing time as 33.33ms/30fps.

Where did such knowledge of you come from Curl?.

You've never been this sophisticated and well versed in game design and AI tasks/usage.

But again, what about the sacrifices that are made to games being ported from PC to the Switch, which have been running at 60fps on PC?, like sim games for example.

It's not exactly advanced knowledge; for a game to run at 60fps both the CPU and GPU have to hit that speed, or else one will hold back the other. Just as this means the load on the GPU has to be less, it similarly means the load on the CPU as to be less.

As for ports to Switch, I think that's pretty self-explanatory, Switch uses a mobile SoC several years old by now so performance sacrifices are necessary compared to a PC which can be many, many times more powerful.

Why not? 

I understand some of you have standards, but those standards aren't shared for all gamers. A game like Horizon tailor made for PS4 runs perfectly and has a graphic overhaul and vast open world runs 30 FPS on console and nobody gave a damn, it didn't impacted its sales negatively nor stopped the game to be one of the biggest selling debut games ever 

They very likely couldn't provide a game with the same graphics quality, open world design and environment if they used most of the hardware it was designed to (PS4) for making it have more frames per second 

I think this is a perspective of a PC gamer "make the game thinking on the higher end specs then scaled it down for people who does not have fancy PCs", it works perfectly. However the perspective for a console it "this should run flawlessly in every piece of hardware of this console family". Instead of working on higher resolution and higher framerates they should provide the best games they could make running in a hardware with a specific set up, and this will eventually lead them to sacrifice something 

I do enjoy when games give me the option of choosing graphics vs performance, but I understand a game like The Last of Us 2 could never run 60 FPS on PS4 in the way it was conceptualized. Talking about Switch hardware things get even more limited as Switch is severely underpowered compared to other consoles in market, for Nintendo the choice of 30 FPS or 60 FPS is the choice of what mechanics can be implemented and I'm not sure if anyone wants to some Nintendo games to have less mechanics just for a spike in the number of FPS that almost nobody in Nintendo consoles is really paying attention