Alright we’re in a cycle of misunderstanding each other, and rabbit holing on something that is rather tangential to my original point. I acknowledge I should n

Alright we’re in a cycle of misunderstanding each other, and rabbit holing on something that is rather tangential to my original point. I acknowledge I should not have used the word “never”. I meant rarely, and I meant for “most” games, not literally never, and not all games. When you said “No. Please don't spread this nonsense rumor. It hasn't ever been true and still isn't.”, combined with the downvote, I assumed you were referring and objecting to everything I said including diminishing returns (even though I see you acknowledging it next paragraph.) We are mostly agreeing violently, I acknowledge that there’s no known hard fps threshold above which nobody can see something. I acknowledge that there are benefits above 60fps, even if they grow smaller. But it’s still true that the primary reason games are going to 500fps is for the latency benefits, not for the smoothness or high flicker rate. A frame rate that high isn’t generally perceptible, while the latency of today’s games - a latency of multiple frames - is actually well inside the known measurable threshold of response times. The problem isn’t generally the need for more frames per second, the big problem is the time between input and the visible change on screen. The other topic that would be nicer to discuss is the quality trade offs. High frame rate takes away from other options.