Quote Originally Posted by Valkyrie_Lenneth View Post
Because fps beyond what your monitor can display is wasted. You don't suddenly get a better experience running a 60hz display at 200 fps.

I feel like it's mostly people who don't understand how monitors work who are getting in a tizzy about this. Especially those who don't understand how the game functions in regards to refresh rates.

I've had the in game limiter on since release, as I have a 60hz panel, and I don't feel like heating up my room excessively for no gains in playability. I have an overclocked 4770k and a 980ti. I can easily get over 120 fps in areas, but there is no point. The panel caps at 60 hz, so running the hardware extra is pointless.

I've tried upgrading to higher refresh rate or resolution panels, and I've had absolutely terrible luck with dead pixel clusters and backlight bleeding. I went through about 6 monitors in the last 3 years, none of which weren't defective.
What does the bold bit have to do with your argument? Seems like you're just bashing a particular technical spec for no reason with that part. Obviously many people (including myself) have purchased such monitors and had no trouble, thus why those devices are still sold.

As to the rest of it, of course extra fps beyond refresh rate of display isn't displayed. Personally, I'm mainly upset with the wording of the patch note (Max 90 FPS). It can be interpreted that they intend to cap everyone at that and no higher. It can also be read as this only replacing the uncapped option leaving the others alone, (such as 1/1) allowing you to match your displays refresh rate.

Given that it's Square communicating a new change... no one can know for sure which is meant, until the patch drops or they clarify the note.