there's no good reason to do that other than benchmarking.

As a "graphics engineer", I wish you knew more about this. So let's go over just a little bit of what I know:

• Running a 60hz screen at 240 fps will actually yield better results. Why? Responsiveness. Now, we're getting into milliseconds here, but if you have one frame per second, it will have to wait for your monitor to refresh to display that. If you have 240, there will be less delay between a frame being created and getting displayed on the monitor. This video explains that pretty well.

• Secondly, there's this crazy thing called upgrades. Sometimes, the products available later are better than the products currently available. Take, for instance, the fact that 144hz LCD monitors have only recently started to become fairly common. Now, if it were up to you, games made before this would have been locked at 60 FPS because "there's no reason to have an unlocked refresh rate". THANK GOD you don't call the shots, because then I couldn't play a bunch of old games at 144 FPS on my 144hz monitor. I don't doubt that eventually we'll start moving to 240hz and above, and at we'll all be thankful for the games made today that had unlocked framerates, and we'll all hate the people like you that decided that unlocked framerates are ridiculous.

So yes, I'm FULLY aware that unlocked=/=higher than 60FPS, I'm not daft. I also fully realize the problems it presents such as screen tearing. I don't care, I play every game with V-sync turned off because the lag it introduces is insane.

I stand by my statement, a locked framerate is disappointing, and for a number of reasons. I also, in case you hadn't already gathered this, think that what you said is absolute horseshit.