Most PS5 Players Say 60fps Is a Must

That's good to see people prioritize the feel of a game over the glossiness in stills after all! Though I fear the takeaway in corporate land will be "people should buy more brute force hardware" rather than "devs should optimize for the target hardware."

The non-enthusiast part of the market probably doesn't understand the difference of "frame rates" and what it implies. They may look at a game in stills and prefer one over the other based on resolution or shininess, but I think even the most casual of casual players, if you show them the same game on a nice big screen running with a nice fluid motion vs the same game side by side running choppy 30, I think most of the market, even the unwashed casual masses, would pick the screen that's showing fluid motion as the "better looking console." It simply looks more real when it's moving closer to real motion speed even when graphics, when still, are less photorealistic.

Hellblade 2 (an Xbox exclusive, nevertheless) is an upcoming 30-fps-only game. Bad signs for the future.

60FPS any day over better graphics.

Kudos for doing both.

Whether it matters to you or not, the 60fps with lower resolution choice should be there for those of us who prefer it. But that's just my opinion.

Poll ended up where many wanted (myself included).
Weather Sony actually delivers however... remains to be seen come PS5 Pro.

Remember though... FPS and graphics aside, we need more AAA PS Studio exclusive PS5 titles... the kind of games this gen painfully lacks!
60fps may be included for nothing if there are very few good games to enjoy it on...

Of course it entirely depends on what kind of game you're playing. Action rpgs, sports sims, beat-em-ups? Yes, 60fps is a must. In any case, would much rather play a brilliant game at 30fps than a mediocre one at 60fps.

Didn't buy DD2 because of the framerate issues. They can sink a good game imo

@Anke I was one of those 5% and yeah I've played games at 60fps if the option is there, but at the same time I don't care if it's 30 or 60 as I don't play shooting games or fighting games that you would notice the difference in (apart form HellDivers 2), and for any games I do play I usually pick the "graphical mode" over "performance mode" if given the option. But this is just my preference ad I understand others see the difference better than I do and some even get uncomfortable playing anything lower than 60, maybe it's because I'm used to playing the Switch that I'm also used to 30fps (sometimes lower) but even with that aside I don't think I'd notice the difference as I couldn't even tell what fps PS3 or PS4 games were running at when I was playing, in fact it's only this gen that it's become a main talking point and become a big issue.

I also think that to the wider audience that 60fps does not matter as much as it does to a selective minority of hardcore gamers, I mean these games that run at 30fps still get high metacritic scores and millions of copies sold, Devs will never see it as an issue either whilst they are getting glowing reviews and great sales.

Then there's us old guys who don't care, I always use graphics over performance modes

@Anke @ILikeStake I was one of the 19%. I prefer 60fps, but 30fps really isn't a huge deal for me. Your eyes/brain can adjust to either pretty quickly if you're not putting up mental roadblocks for yourself. Been playing Dragon's Dogma 2 at 30fps and I love that game. Would I like 60fps? Sure. But honestly, not at the expense of the ray tracing they implemented. Seriously, some of the best lighting in an open world game I've seen and it adds a TON of visual depth to the world. While I think most visual garnishments can be a bit superfluous, especially overall resolution, some really do add a ton to the overall experience, just as much as increased framerate.

The difference between 30fps and 60fps is undeniable. I fully comprehend and appreciate the difference. A stable 30 still isn’t a deal breaker for me, depending on the game.

@Vivisapprentice Old guy here and I do care. I take performance over graphics any day of the week.

It is funny how the Xbox hardcore were always so fervent about framerate… were being the operative word 😇

@Anke I've played 60fps with a lot of my games and still could not care less if it's at 30fps. I'm still playing Helldivers 2, FF7R, and FF16 at 30fps.

@Vivisapprentice That’s weird considering most old games ran at 60 fps.

@Vivisapprentice Same, I've been playing games since the PS1 which from it's whole library had 108 games that were 60fps, PS2 to PS4 weren't much better where the majority of games were 30-40 fps, if you grew up playing those consoles then I don't see how all of a sudden it can become a problem, unless it's an medical issue with eyesight, headaches and motion sickness then that I fully understand.

Thanks for making this poll.
I hope Sony sees this and keep it this way.

Great. Games have no physics for 2 generations in a row. Rockstar's PS3 pinpong game has more physics than anything out today.

Now we're gonna have even less physics because everyone wants fRaMeRatEs. Even more shallow games! Great! I'm gonna use the whole PS6 era to finish my backlog it seems

It is a must, like i said - literally affects the gameplay and how I play the game. 30fps worked for games way back when graphics and resolution werent so damn high and gameplay animations were less fluid, but seeing 4K HDR in 30fps now is a damn headache and literally makes the game unplayable for me. i wasted money getting gotham knights on PS5, the 30fps combined with the way the game plays was uncomfortable as hell.

it makes no sense to be 9 generations in, and 60 isnt a basic & bottom of the barrel standard yet. if yall are ok with 30fps then console generations shouldve ended with the PS3. Alot of your favorite PS4 games arent even 30fps, but actually 40 or higher.

I've been going back to older PS2 and PS1 games and with some of these games...yikes. I can't believe I never noticed the frame rate dips in them.

I don't care about FPS as long as the game isn't fast paced, though i do care about games that only gives you the choice to play it with uncapped framerate and the framerate isn't a stable 60fps. If i can select 30fps (with no framepacing) I'm okay. And that's it, these are my only gripes with bad performance. Other than that, I'm fine. If a game can't hit 60fps all the time, i don't mind (as long as i can select other mode with 30fps). If a game only runs at 30fps, i don't mind either.

I want my visual novels at 60fps. I can't read text at 30fps. It gives me a headache.
A fixed frame rate is better than one that aims for higher than it often achieves.

@Max_the_German what do hellblade 2 being 30fps on a Xbox have anything to do with PlayStation.

Not surprising given how gamers are these days. I've yet to play a 30fps game that bothers me whatsoever. Though, I admit, 60fps is objectively better — any fps increase is.

Still, is it essential for games? Absolutely not. Should PS5 games be 60 by default? Really depends what the game is visually going for: fluidity or fidelity. And what the game's budget is. And if the game is online focused and geared more toward netcode than individual performance (though, I guess, there's an argument to be made that 60fps matters even more in this circumstance). Which is too say: no. PS5 games should not be 60 by default. But it's probably fair to want it more often than not with the hardware we're dealing with these days.

I don't know, it's not like there's anything wrong with expecting 60fps. But I'd say it's one of the most insignificant details about a video game. Barely a step above arguing which tv settings are 'best' for gaming.

With that said, do make it consistent. Do 120, 60, 30 — we can even try some wild 24fps s***, that might be cool — whatever. But if it's not hitting target 98% of the time, we got a problem.

I can't enjoy a game the same with 30fps 🤷 it was fine playing them as a kid and during the PS3 era but after the PS4 Pro I can longer stomach it. Is sad that Xbox seems to be less interested in 60 fps than anyone else.

I mean, I’m getting long in the tooth at nearly 46, but as the game actually plays well, who cares.

The modern gamer is so obsessed with power, looks and frame rates that far too many are judging games on that alone and not how a game actually plays.

People are already pre judging Hellblade 2 for being 30FPS.

Wait and play the game and see if it’s actually any good. If it is then, the frame rate won’t matter anyway.

The obsession with tech over the actual games and how they play is like a disease for modem gamers it really is.

If 60fps removes blur when panning the camera then I’ll take it. But I really can’t tell the difference in “feel”.

I still believe that the majority of people who don't notice a difference are likely to be playing on a display with a slow response time, or internal processing that imitates that, that creates a natural transitional blur effect which, indeed, makes the effect unobtrusive in exchange for a softer image.

For displays that do not do that, you just see essentially a screen flickering effect as objects in motion jump a distance between each update in real-time. Strobing video display isn't fun. While one can adapt to it in certain games, it's still unpleasant, and in fast moving games becomes difficult to watch. But if you have a slow response display? There's no flashing, you just perceive a softer image during motion.

We didn't notice as much in the old days because on CRT TVs, they were already rendering in interlaced scanlines at infinite refresh rate, and in early LCD days all displays were slow so it hid the problem. I still believe it's a much bigger issue now because of the current state of display tech making it a more palpable problem.

Although, control input being more precise at higher fps has always been known and important, as the PAL territory cats in the know would do anything to get their hands on NTSC consoles back in the day for this very reason.

FPS isn't just about looks. FPS affects input response. People forget that. You don't just watch it, you play it, and it doesn't just look smoother, it handles smoother, as well.

I'm used to 15 fps, so anything faster is bonus.

My first gaming was done on a dedicated LCD screen that only played one game and only did either clear or pre-determined black shapes. It maybe hit 2 frames per second and I adored it. My ZX Spectrum didn't reach much higher FPS either and I have many fond memories of it. Obsession with frame-rates is corporate crap to distract from how bland and samey games are becoming. But then, I'm 50 so just ignore this old man while I shout at clouds.

@thefourfoldroot1 "If 60fps removes blur when panning the camera then I’ll take it. But I really can’t tell the difference in “feel”."

HAAAH! That goes right into what I said. Unless it's a game that has artificial motion blur when turning, like Spiderman, FF16, GoW, which can usually be turned off, if you see "blur" when panning the camera, you have a slow response display. That's why you don't see the flashing on a 30fps game and can't tell it from 60fps. Your display is hiding the lag/gap. If the display response is fast, there is no blur, that's getting added by the screen (assuming, again, artificial blur is turned off in a game that has it.) And then you see the worse problem. Flickering, every time you turn the camera.

Sounds like you need to better educate your readers on what it takes to hit 60 fps. We have cpu limits and that’s how it is.

How about the option:

• I would rather the game not come to PS5 if I can’t get 60fps.

I don’t want UE5 games and newer pc games on my system, etc.

60fps has been a possible standard for decades, devs are choosing to prioritise graphics over something that will improve gameplay.

I’d much rather play a 30 FPS Dragon’s Dogma 2 than a 60 FPS Lord of the Rings: Gollum. Just sayin’ 😀

Seriously though, while I’m not saying I wouldn’t love 60 FOS in DD2, I’m still having a blast with the game and am not even thinking about the framerate.

Series X, 120hz and VRR on my LG CX helping to keep it smooth most of the time.

higher FPS ≠ better gameplay

better gameplay = better gameplay... at any FPS

Maybe if Devs could focus on that rather than fulfilling a certain crowds "benchmark of pedigree" by being cyber bullied pre- and post launch, we'd see more innovation, with performance which is tailored to what the game has set out to achieve.

I just prefer a locked framerate. I have trouble telling the difference so long as the framerate is around 30. So it isn’t that important to me.

Dragon’s Dogma 2 for instance I have been breezing through.

I only notice the frame rate when it changes right in front of my eyes, and that's my only problem with frame rates.

"Most" players..that'll be 6000 out of the tens of millions eh

Yours
A.Pedant

@NEStalgia
Hhhm, interesting. I have one of those 4K LG displays digital foundry were touting as amongst the best a few of years ago, and it’s on game mode, don’t know if VRR is on but it does it. As I understand it that should be decent enough. Do you think it’s time for an upgrade?

Saying that, I can tell the lack of blur on half the games that give me the choice, which is why I said I’ll take it when on offer. But it may well be down to devs using motion blur on lower fps to hide any perception of judder. I honestly feel most of the reason I can’t tell the feel is different is that I’ve simply gotten used to playing at different fps over the years. Animations tend to allow for simply timing things differently at different fps

I remember playing Onimusha 3, way back when, and there were particular combat challenges. 1 of which, entailed having to perform a perfect parry, and then slice 10 enemies in perfect timing, as they swung their swords. Essentially a 10 parry chain. Now my tv was only 50 Hz, but when I went to my friends, and played with 60... man, I felt those extra frames made the impossible possible. Now, I can't help but feel so many games, online fighters and shooters particularly, would just immediately benefit from smooth, consistent and higher frame rates. It feels like ps5 should be able to hit 60, and it's a bit hard to believe how few games do, or can.

@NEStalgia In terms of what you're saying, with not just looking smoother, but also playing better, I say: Bingo! More frames means more reaction time, and I personally struggle to be able to enjoy a game so much when I feel like I have to make my brain slower, or plan my moves differently, to compensate for less frames. I favour immediacy and immersion over pretty graphics!

Totally agree I don’t play without a 60fps performance mode.
Playing 30fps and panning around is a horrible mushed up jarring mess when compared to 60fps.
I don’t think I can ever go back to 30fps.
And that’s on a top end VRR 120hz tv with PS5 or series x.
Yes when motion is dead still at a stop then the 30fps with higher resolution can look a bit sharper, but all video games move.
I could not play HFW,GOW,R&C etc or rise of ronin in any other way but in performance mode.

I prefer 40fps for consoles.

I just don’t care if it’s 30 or 60, it’s like 5 minutes to acclimatize and then I forget.

The flip side is that 37% are not too fussed about high frame rates. That’s quite a lot. So over 1 out of 3 users. And like Rob says in the article, this poll has a fairly heavy selection bias and you can easily increase that number many fold if you were to broaden the poll outside of the enthusiast bubble. I suspect if you took the market at large, its much closer to 50/50.

I’m not saying that I don’t want 60 fps, by the way, but I am saying that the sky isn’t falling nearly as catastrophically as some would claim when we still have sub 60 fps releases. I choose fidelity mode more often than performance mode and enjoy my games immensely. I’d love to have 8K/120fps, but a good game is a good game, so we take what comes.

I did not spend $500 on a next gen console to be stuck with 30 fps. For every game that I have played, the graphics mode is so unnoticeable in motion that it isn't worth the drop in frames for image clarity, while the performance mode is extremely noticeable to me. I am not saying every game has to have 60 fps, but I wont be ok with having to accept 30fps as the norm again.

@BaldBelper78 what’s the point of console generations, to count to a higher number and squeeze an annual $400-$500 profit from consumers then?

I want 60 fps option even though I choice 30 most of the time ! And that bs about the cpu cant do 60 is bs it is a dev choice we had some 60 fps on the cell and consoles be for !

@awp69 I was thinking the same thing — I fear many are ‘throwing the baby out with the bathwater,’ as the saying goes. Opting to dismiss really good games based on one aspect of the game’s makeup. The Lord of Ring: Gollum example is a good one. Versus say, DD2 or even Tears of the Kingdom, which is the example I usually use.

I always choose performance mode (or whatever is equivalent) because it doesn't matter how pretty something looks if the stutter of moving around in it gives me a freaking headache...

I believe there are a large number of gamers who don't realise that many PS2 games ran at 60 Hz.

@Vivisapprentice
I'm almost 50, and even the games on my Atari 2600, ran at 60fps.

I would say this poll was loaded if the point was to make that statement.

Of course everyone prefers a game that performs well. It isn't news.

It's like polling. Do you like if your game has good graphics? There is no excuse not to, it should be the target, i prefer good graphics but it's not a deal breaker, i don't care, no. What are these options? 🤣 Most of these options are yes or not important.

More interesting would be: How important do you feel 60fps is for you?
Scale of 1 to 5 on matter of importance from very important to not important at all.
What about 30fps?
What about a locked stable fps?

Etc.

Then you actually get a number worth something.

@thefourfoldroot1 If You've got blur from the display, you havent got used to bad fps yet. Honestly though, personally? If the display is pretty enough, never upgrade. Keep the blur. It's far better than the flicker. Of course 60+fps is smoother and better with a display without blur, but 30 then sucks.

I've been on both sides. My old display was 1080p and slow/blur. I argued on the nl xb forum when the 1x version of Forza had 60fps mode and everyone raved and I insisted graphics mode was way better and smooth so it didn't matter.

Then I upgraded my display. Unplayable at 30. Same me. Same game. Different display. I went from one of the 30 is fine people to unable to tolerate it. It's totally the display! Keep yours lol!

@Anke this is the reason I can’t go back and play Bloodborne again until they patch it or remaster it. I’ve tried a few times but it feels way too slow.

@koffing
I would prefer the option that any features preventing 60fps (no matter what they were) were removed to allow 60fps.

@BaldBelper78
Im only approx 1yr difference and been a gamer since very young, and I have such an intolerance of framerates that are poor or much less than 60, that i no longer buy or pre order until i have seen a framerate review / analysis. If anything my tolerance is dropping with age.

“Most PS5 Players Say 60FPS is a Must”

It’s actually most Push Square readers, not most PS5 players.

So this gen is fueled by hopes and dreams. It's a must but they buy games that definitely don't do that. Okay then.

@Max_the_German I'm treating each generation from now on as "being able to run the previous generation properly" and will focus my energies there. It's going to happen again with 8K on PS6 where the tech will be unable to cope with current standards without compromise. But it will run 4K ray tracing of PS5 games. Most of my installed games on my PS5 are PS4 games, either patch upgraded or PS5 native versions for these reasons.

@BardHard13 it's honestly a disgrace that they haven't 4K/60fps upgraded all of the Souls games, and especially Bloodborne which is often cited as the greatest PS exclusive in history.

@awp69 and for many of us, that 30fps in DD2 is a kick in the teeth as we only recently bought this "great next gen console" and have to suffer 2006 framerates from the PS3 era.

Some games like Spider-Man 2 and God of War absolutely require 60fps. Others like Alan Wake 2 and FF7 Rebirth don't need it. I think first party and action/platform oriented games should absolutely require 60fps to showcase the strength of the console. I also think this gen we've been caught in between a shift of technological prowess (too expensive to invest in optimisation or engine overhauls).
We are seeing games that are too technical to run well and games that look so outdated that run well. I think the Sony first party games are the only ones this gen that don't sacrifice either graphical fidelity or performance to heavily in either of their modes.

@Rich33 If you want to make the case that some or even many games could be more pared back to hit 60fps I agree with you.

But if you want to insist that all developers only make games that run at 60fps on your specific choice of hardware, you can but it’s an unreasonable demand.

imagine trying to insist that Ps5 games should run on PS3 at 60fps but just “remove the features” to make that work. It’s just not going to work. You don’t have the cpu, gpu, memory, or bandwidth to make it work. It would be a different game.

If 60 is that important you might want to get a gaming pc.

I'm going to be hugely in the minority, but I always play on 30fps, I've dabbled with various FPS settings over the years and I can never tell the difference (my eyes are awful though) but. I can when it comes to sharpness, so like with my Sky, I've always gone with the 4K option where possible. But I do agree that there should be multiple options for everyone, most people want the 60.

@koffing your take is countered by the fact there are examples of beautiful "performance mode" games running at 60fps. It can be done, and should be done. They are making these games to a clearly defined hardware configuration on consoles and know the specs and limitations. Either balance them correctly or give console gamers full graphical options like on PC and let us do it.

@Terra_Custodes it’s not. Your argument taken to its logical end is there is no need for any new consoles ever because developers should just be able to always provide 60fps for the existing console.

It's a bad option in reality
"60 FPS there's no excuse" - well actually there's plenty of excuses as to why it's not

@Enigk

I want a console to play, not to read, books exist to do that.

@koffing Yes it is.

I don't know how you plucked that nonsense out the air about expecting 60fps in 2024 meaning no new consoles should be made again. Bizarre comment. There's zero logic in your statement. I'd expect future generations to have higher frame rates as a standard, right now 60 is an extremely basic baseline that all games should have.

As I said, there are 60fps, great looking titles on PS5 - this means they're well optimised for the hardware. A game releasing now locked at 30 means it has not been developed competently, and isn't optimised for the hardware to run at a basic standard which 60fps absolutely is.

I think 30fps in video games on Xbox and PlayStation will be the standard again because PlayStation and Xbox are not capable of running demanding games made in UE5 at 60fps. Xbox and PlayStation don't have powerful CPU that could run demanding games, eg open-world games at 60fps.

@koffing
Plenty of good developers have shown it is perfectly plausible to make games on ps5 that look fantastic and run at 60fps - 90fps, providing you design your game around the capabilities of the current consoles.

If Sony or the industry at whole suddenly limited all game footage / photos to only that running in consistent 60fps+ modes (and a limit on % of footage that was cutscene), for all games that would cost more than say £15 (so we dont negatively affect small budget / indie teams), you would see very quickly how easy well optimised 60fps is to acheive.

@Fritz167 I also prefer books but the fps does come to a standstill when you turn the page.

@Rich33 “provided you design your game around the capabilities of the current console.”

imo that’s your real issue. Many games aren’t made first and foremost for PS5.

@koffing
You may well be correct, but if a company is developing games for current gen console (PS5 and series X are not that far apart in capability), and want £60+ of console gamers money, then they should be.

People are getting spoiled because there’s been so many cross gen games that can run at 60. It feels like the standard.

More complex games that simply can’t run on last gen hardware at all (like GTA6), will likely be capped at 30. They will push the limit of the CPU. Lowering resolution won’t magically speed up the game simulation.

I would honestly like to see more games that push the envelope in this way, but some games like Doom, just wouldn’t make sense at 30fps.

@Vivisapprentice yeah me too. When available, 40 fps option (120hz display) is my favorite though.

@zancoooo I agree. It goes a looong way to improve the experience over 30FPS but the cost to system resources is so much smaller than 60 FPS. Wish more games had it.

It also makes a difference on what display/screen your PS5 is connected to and how good your display actually is plus what onboard features that display uses.
for example: Resolution / AMD Freesync support / VRR / Anti aliasing / ALLM / HDR

What gets me is how can a meeting go along the lines of.....
"we could do the game at 1440p and 30FPS which will be incredibly janky, with stutters, a lack of control, fluidity and flow and with poor latency, or we could do it at 1080p, let FSR2 do the upscaling so no one will notice the resolution difference and run it at a super fluid 60 FPS that plays so much better"......

How do we vote guys............. 30 FPS please. FGS.

I've just bought pacific drive physical deluxe edition today ,and apparently on ps5 its dodgy on unlocked framerate so I'll have to see what all the fuss is about with it.,I for one think that 60fps should be the target certainly and if I'm being really honest 60fps should be standard but I don't mind 30fps locked as apposed to 30 unlocked etc ,certainly should be more stable like that,I'm personally not as sensitive to changes like some gamers are but I get it though on todays ps5 hardware, probably mostly not been optimised properly,anyway ps5 pro should without question address this issue heres hoping lol

I also think that 60fps is crucial for racing and fighting games etc as quick response is needed ,but it's not so important on much slower type games

@NEStalgia
And it may not all be to do with the TV…

https://www.digitec.ch/en/page/study-shows-some-people-perceive-the-world-at-a-higher-frame-rate-32518#

60fps should always be the targeted default mode in my opinion.
However if they have time to spare then they can feel free to make an eye candy 30fps mode or try to make a 120fps VRR mode.

30fps feels way worse on large 4k TV's than it used to look back in the old CRT days. You can get used to 30fps, the same way as you can get used to a bad smell...

@thefourfoldroot1 That's interesting. I kind of find it horrifying that people would actually view real life in slow motion like that. There's a lot of implications for a lot of real world things. And probably at least half the population should be barred from being on the road.

Though I'm the strange one, I can see 30, 60, 90, 120 difference clear as day. But I have slow reaction times, like games with perfect dodge, perfect parry, if I even bother attempting to use the mechanic I have MAYBE 25% success rate if I'm lucky. Makes the games pretty un-fun. Although...... it may be something different. Because if I think of, say Splatoon, the only online shooter I play, I'm a high-level player in the upper ranks, though not the highest ranks. Meaning against real human opponents I must have very vast response time and prediction. But in games like Souls, FFXVI etc with perfect dodge/parry, I miss most of the time, but now that I think about it, I wonder if that's because I'm TOO fast. Those games are based on learning the "tells" and hitting it at the right time. I think I tend to react on the wind-up or the fake-out and react too fast most of the time and miss it. Although as a kid with sports I'd be the "wait for the ball to go by, then swing" kid, so I really don't know.

Saying all that though, I still think most of the time it's the TV, study aside. Again my own Forza Horizon 4 example I was definitely in the "res is more important than fps" crowd on my old display that blurred/smoothed the frame transition. And instantly jumped to the "WTF everyone was right all along!" camp when I changed monitors and the pictures started flickering/juddering between frames. Same with, say, camera panning in the Forspoken demo tutorial. You could see the edges of the cliffs literally flash from point to point as you rotate the camera at 30. But I bet on my old monitor I'd have not noticed.

@NEStalgia @thefourfoldroot1

I saw these comments last night but didnt have chance to answer but had a related conversation the other day.
I think its both.

People, in my experience, tend to have an upper frame rate limit, that they just cant see above - I have believed for some time that some people can just not see much above 30 (The problem being that some of these people just do not appreciate that others do and the issues it causes). They do appear to be a minority, but not exactly rare.

Im the opposite, like yourself NEStalgia have stated. I can see framerates up to 120 (I dont know how far beyond) and can actually see very small differences - 5fps is easy for me to detect below around 80, then slightly larger differences above this.
For example I can easily tell the difference between SM, SMMM, R&C, SM2 all from insomniac, in their unlocked 60+ VRR performance modes, even though they are all really high.
Also, even with VRR I can usually easily see dips to 55fps in locked 60 modes of other games.
But I am very, very, intolerant of frame rate issues and frame rates much below 60fps.

My partner really cannot see any difference above about 80fps.

One thing I have noticed is that there seems a trend between the highest framerate you can see and the lowest you can tolerate e.g if someone can see much lower than I can, they can tolerate down to much lower than I can.

However, my tolerance like yourselves has seemed to shift with newer TVs. The newer more advanced TV - the higher framerates need to be in order for me to tolerate them.
(Whilst I always play in 60+ modes, that hasnt stopped me being curious at times and looking at other modes).

I am also not convinced my tolerance hasnt reduced as I have got older (though I dont exactly consider myself old) - even though I dont think the max framerate I can see has changed much - though I cant be 100% sure.

Im not sure reaction speed has much to do with it but if it is of interest my reaction speed is incredibly high - im not being boastful, its just that my reaction speed has been trained heavily throughout the years.

@Rich33 If that's really true, it's a little frightening that people have such different perceptions of IRL as well. Those that can see above 30, and above 60, are processing a lot more information all of the time, maybe overloading our brains processing double, triple, quadruple more audio-visual input all the time than people that can't see above 30.

But at the same time, that means people seeing less than that are seeing all of IRL in a sort of slower-motion. Much slower paced perception of everything in the world must lead to a very different way of perceiving everything in the world.

While arguing about consoles we may have just unlocked a science that explains 10,000 years of religion, politics, and sociological human development!

But yeah, you definitely described a lot of my own takes on it. I don't have any actual 120hz displays save for PSVR2, but easily notice the jump from 90 to 120, and certainly 60 to 90. And the dreaded 60hz reprojection in VR, which doesn't bother fourfold at all. And I can tolerate it, but it's jarring.

But there's definitely something to that link between some people seeing "slower", which is a fascinating science even outside video games and has a lot of implications to it, and newer displays. CRTs which had a sort of infinite refresh, but most of the time at least 100hz interlaced, never really seemed to be a problem even at slower fps. You could see the slow fps, but because the display updated many times faster than the game, it didn't trigger the same intolerance. With LCDs, where it's really updating at those speeds, it seems to trigger that conflict a lot easier.

For me, it's the flashing effect that makes it unbearable. Because updates are so slow, meaning objects/edges jump quite a distance between refreshes, you can see the objects jumping in stepped fashion, and a flash effect, rotoscope-like, such unnatural motion. But it makes sense that if you actually see real life like that, it would look "just like real life" based on the brain's reference points.

@NEStalgia
Not fully sure how noticeable it is in the real world as even a 30th of a second is a really small timeframe, but you do get the odd phenomenon where if something happens really fast with a number looking directly at it, some will see it others wont. I suppose one example is I am pretty good at seeing a magicians sleight of hand, when i watch an act.
Maybe we are reading too much into it - but i have known people who say they really cannot tell any real difference in 30 and 60fps, and definitely no difference between 60 and 120fps (and unlike some comments I have read recently, I had no reason to disbelieve them).
Never had VR, but I agree with CRT (never had any issue there either), but when I updated from HD to 4k, and more recently a couple of years ago when i moved to an all round better HDMI 2.1 120hz screen, I noticed framerates more, or perhaps more importantly my tolerance for low framerates dropped.
Agree about visual effects, but worse for me is at lower than 60fps when i turn in a 3rd or 1st person view I see it as a sort of slideshow. In fact you have to get up to 90fps before it looks smooth to me, but I can tolerate 60fps.
The results of the poll show there are many like us though - i just wish some (not all) of those who dont get issues (yet anyway) could understand that 60fps is needed as an option, not a bonus.

Just bought a gaming pc so anything below 60 wont happen now!

@Rich33 Yeah, the slideshow effect is the real killer. Playing FFXVI, even in "performance" it dips, and feels slideshow-like. I try graphics for giggles, and in exchange for sharper textures and more shadows/dynamic lighting I'm greeted with a powerpoint presentation. Like those old dot-matrix LCD games, Game & Watch and all, it looks like a prettier version of that. Faster of course (sometimes.)

One thing that interests me is how nobody really talks about this effect with cinema which runs at 24fps. Even for those of us FPS sensitive, cinema doesn't cause a tolerance issue even though it's even slower. But the big difference is in cinema c a m e r a ' s a r e p a n n e d v e r y s l o w l y for that very reason. VERY slowly. But you can't play a game that way. And the cameras never move in orbit AROUND an object unless it's the matrix style special effects which are slowed down anyway. And they almost never pivot fast in a rotation from a first person persspective. They move on dollies in wide arcs, or forward into or panning slowly out from the action. And they move much slower than you'd move a camera yourself when shooting video. So film solves the fps tolerance issue by simply ensuring that the actual movement on the screen is paced according to the 24fps updates and nothing moves too far a distance between frames. Even in stop-motion animation. IT's moved very little between shots, and the environment is static.

@NEStalgia
Quite agree with you about so called graohics modes, and i dont think I could put it better

I can see it in movies, but as you say with slower cameras (and shorter length) it doesnt normally trigger me. Though one film did serverly trigger me recently, but I cannot remenber which one, but I had to turn it off - so they do have the ability, but are normally kept in check as you say. Probably would have been fine viewed on a CRT though!

@Rich33 I miss CRTs so badly! I don't care about the lead, or the radiation, or the hernia. It was better 'cause grafix!