Do you think having a higher refresh rate monitor is unfair in the video game world in general ?

[DigitalRiot28]

(Sorry for any mistakes in the text, english is not my first language)

As the title says, having a higher than 60Hz should be concider unfair ?

I've recently switched to a 144hz screen and instantly felt the difference. So much so that i hate going back to 60Hz. Everything is smoother, targets seems to be easier to track and my overall performance is better. So i came up with this question :

When you play a game on console, let say on Xbox One or PS4, The FPS will be lock to 60 or 30 (depending on the game) and mostly running on TVs at 60Hz making the true outside variant the player's skills. 
on the opposite end, having a mid range 60Hz monitor PC player fight the monster DUAL 2080s and 240hz screen PC player could be seems as unfair maybe ?

It's mostly an after-thought and I'd like to hear from you guys what do you think ?

[porina]

If anything I think it should drive a push to make higher than 60fps the standard going forward. Technology doesn't stand still, what was acceptable doesn't remain so forever.

 

For the short term, I don't think it makes too much difference for casual multi-platform multiplayer gaming. Any serious gaming competition would be equalised.

[Guest]

People's reactions really make the difference redundant. 

[Doobeedoo]

In competitive scene everyone should have the same. But really a good player will beat a bad player regardless of a monitor. 

[SolarNova]

3 hours ago, DigitalRiot28 said:

(Sorry for any mistakes in the text, english is not my first language)

As the title says, having a higher than 60Hz should be concider unfair ?

I've recently switched to a 144hz screen and instantly felt the difference. So much so that i hate going back to 60Hz. Everything is smoother, targets seems to be easier to track and my overall performance is better. So i came up with this question :

When you play a game on console, let say on Xbox One or PS4, The FPS will be lock to 60 or 30 (depending on the game) and mostly running on TVs at 60Hz making the true outside variant the player's skills. 
on the opposite end, having a mid range 60Hz monitor PC player fight the monster DUAL 2080s and 240hz screen PC player could be seems as unfair maybe ?

It's mostly an after-thought and I'd like to hear from you guys what do you think ?

 

About as unfair as 'gaming' mice, and keyboards.

and high end headsets with surround imaging.

and high end GPUs that can play games at ultra settings at higher resolutions.

 

 

in other words ..no they are not unfair.

 

Remember if a game dev wants their game to be as balanced and 'fair' as possible and considers user hardware a factor, the devs can in fact limit the engine and game to a set frame rate and set visual fidelity. They dont however.

 

For the most part, those people who want to truly compete at high levels, they will find a way to afford the hardware necessary for a more 'pleasant' competitive gaming experience. Those that dont feel it important enough to spend that much money are those whome likely dont take it as competitively and thus are likely less skilled.

 

This is why these studies done by companies like Nvidia showing people performing better when using their high end GPU's , thus suggesting buying one is in ones best interest, are so flawed. The people buying them are already enthusiasts, thus they are already a cut above the 'average joe' , the GPU isnt making them better than the 'average joe', THEY are just better to begin with.