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.

We don't just get to pick definitions of established terms to suit our arguments.

Diminishing returns does not mean 'negligible'.

A simple google will tell you that it means;

'proportionally smaller profits or benefits derived from something as more money or energy is invested in it.'

I & others have repeatedly pointed out how those graphs are textbook examples of diminishing returns, so for you to turn around at this stage and announce you've been operating with a completely different (and wrong) definition of the very term that this whole discussion has hinged on is again, very lame.

I don't understand why some posters find it so difficult to acknowledge that they've moved positions based on new info or convincing arguments from others, there's nothing wrong with that - it's the healthy thing to do.

You asserting that you've been right the whole time isn't convincing anyone, we're all aware of your original positions, I just don't get the stubborn refusal to acknowledge reality.

I think overall you're a good poster & meaningfully contribute to the forum but I do remember in your previous stint that you'd paint yourself into a corner then refuse to admit any error or acknowledge moving position - the example that springs to mind was something to do with UK motorways/driving rules...

Anyway, I think you'll find yourself in far fewer bickering matches if you stop letting your ego drive the car, just saying.

With a power constrained system like Switch 2, I think 120fps is probably best saved for relatively simple titles.

For something like Metroid Prime 4, Ys X, or 2D indie game for instance it's a cool addition, but for most games I think 60fps would be a better balance of performance vs CPU/GPU budget.

The irony being I'm right about the UK rules.  I have a UK drivers license.  The people telling me I'm wrong, which I'm not, do not.  Hell one of them hasn't even been to the UK and other has never driven a car.  The issue all stimmed, not that anybody will admit it, they thought I was making fun of their policy.  I wasn't.  I think it is safer.  

As far as fps, fair enough I should have picked my verbiage better.  The gap gets smaller, especially past 90 fps.  But 90 fps has an absolute tangible benefit, especially once you get used to it.

I'd be curious who actually took the time to demo the UFO Test.  I know HaloDust did.  The UFO test, for me, is very clear in demonstration of the benefit.

But to be fair, my verbiage wasn't as accurate as it should have been and has caused unnecessary back and forth.

Edit

I'm also sincerely curious if anybody here will change their position via prime 4 at 120 fps.

I have two 165Hz VRR monitors in house (both in kids' rooms), but honesty, only time I run them that high is when I occasionally play something online on their PCs. I tend to cap most games at 60Hz, but whenever I decide to play the game with mouse+kb (I hate gamepad aiming), I tend to cap it at 90 as a sweet spot between mouse feel and letting GPU make things look little bit nicer (one GPU is 3060, other is 9060XT, so they are limited in their capabilities - mine is 3080, but it's hooked to 4K/60Hz TV, so I don't play anything that calls for twitch reflexes on it).

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.  

I'm on a 120 hz oled TV.  I have tried a few times, 90 to 120 are identical for me.  I usually go 120 so my dips are still above 90.

Any thoughts on resolution? Maybe it is a lack of sensitivity on my side but 1440p and 4k are identical for me.

The irony being I'm right about the UK rules.  I have a UK drivers license.  The people telling me I'm wrong, which I'm not, do not.  Hell one of them hasn't even been to the UK and other has never driven a car.  The issue all stimmed, not that anybody will admit it, they thought I was making fun of their policy.  I wasn't.  I think it is safer.  

As far as fps, fair enough I should have picked my verbiage better.  The gap gets smaller, especially past 90 fps.  But 90 fps has an absolute tangible benefit, especially once you get used to it.

I'd be curious who actually took the time to demo the UFO Test.  I know HaloDust did.  The UFO test, for me, is very clear in demonstration of the benefit.

But to be fair, my verbiage wasn't as accurate as it should have been and has caused unnecessary back and forth.

Edit

I'm also sincerely curious if anybody here will change their position via prime 4 at 120 fps.