Mainly it comes from stupidity.

You need a minimum of around 30 fps for it to not feel like a slideshow (some say as low as 24 which feels awful to me).

Then people completely misunderstand and think 30fps is the max you can perceive. But, it's always been the minimum required for it to feel relatively smooth, no where near the max.

Personally, I always notice the difference and wish all games and monitors could handle at least 120.

Stupid people will stay stupid.

The problem being is that consoles still exist in spite of us being in a world where consoles are totally pointless, being closed garden PCs, at best.

Or a low quality toy in the case of most Nintendo products these days.

Which ironically has a more technologically advanced control system by default than the PC.

30FPS feels slightly choppy to me. 60FPS feels smooth and fluid. If a game is locked at 30 that damages my opinion of it.

I simply have a better time with a game at 60FPS.

I think there is confusion between response/lag feeling at 30 fps vs higher, and animation/movement as shown in a movie.

Okay, so adding a touch pad to the controller that has barely moved in 20 years, that's innovative?

Charging through the nose so you can do what custom kitters have been doing for years is innovation?

Please, do tell how the Steam Controller, the first actual paradigm shift in ages is less advanced than those.

Oh I fully agree with you, 60 fps makes everybody happy. That is not my issue.
My issue is when people assume everybody else can see a difference.
That's the approach the OP chose to take.

When I've seen the new Star Wars movie (2D) in cinema, I couldn't bear camera movements over landscapes, it looked terrible and I couldn't make out anything. It looked like a low FPS with very strong motion blur, yikes.
The person I went with had the same problem.

Not necessary. I wrote previously that I can spot the difference when it comes to certain games.
My argument is that I prioritize content over frame-rates when I buy games.

I think that test wasn't very good, as the object was moving so slowly. It is was moving even slower or not at all, I bet I couldn't have seen the difference to 15 fps either.

I've seen some other similar pages where there was some rotating object going up and down faster than in that test, and the difference between 30fps and 60fps was far more pronounced in it.

Question, since you do seem to have the most discerning eyes: Do you also notice the difference between 30 and 60 fps on 4X TBS and/or adventure games, or only on games that require you to focus on them a bit more? Then again, not sure how many TBS and/or adventure games support 60 fps.

Just curious, and question is open to all of course, not addressed specifically to you.

I guess for some people it just sounds odd that someone says a game sucks just because it runs at 30 fps instead of 60 fps. Depends what other things get left out because you try to run the game at 60 fps instead of 30 fps.

For me the framerate is just one of the many things affecting the visual quality and gameplay. It is a bit like the resolution of the game: should I play a game at 1920x1080 at 30 fps, or 1280x720 at 60 fps? Well, depends on the game, I guess. Same for other graphical options you can change for a game, ie. which things get higher priority.

I recall back when glQuake came out and people were playing Quake online (TeamFortress etc.). for many people the game remained a bit smoother (higher framerate) if they played it with software rendering in 320x240 resolution, instead of the glQuake version at 640x480 with much smoother graphics (3Dfx Voodoo (Glide) rendering).

I personally preferred playing it with 3Dfx Voodoo with "fast enough" graphics, while many others chose to stay with blocky and ugly 320x240 SW renderer graphics, just to make sure it runs as smoothly as possible. Depends on your preference.

(I guess when glQuake became more mature, the Glide version would later run smoother too, maybe this choice was relevant only when glQuake was still a new thing, I don't recall for sure...)

I've noticed a number of movies where you just end up watching a blur of movement. 1000's of man hours creating beautiful landscapes are just lost due to this.

The thing is, a human visual systems doesn't pan. Our eyes flick from one point of focus to the next, its our brain that makes it looks like we've just panned.

The "The human eye can't see more fps" stuff is kinda true, but at the same time it's nothing more than a cheap marketing trick ;) It's like useless diet pills with huge "You'll lose 20% more weight with these pills" stickers on them - proven in a test series with 10 people, where one group lost an average of 0.5 kg and the other group lost 0.6 kg (due to a very minor placebo effect) in one week.

The whole 30 fps thing comes from the fact that we can't discern more than ~25 individual pictures per second. That's where our eyes/brain start to mix everything. So it's true that "The human eye can't see more than 30 fps". What's wrong, is the implied conclusion! It's not correct that anything above 30 fps is a waste of processing power. It just means that anything below 30 fps means that we could start to percieve single frames and lose the illusion of motion. And before someone starts the "I've played lots of games with 15-20 fps without seeing every single frame as individual picture" discussion: I've done that too! But when you stop playing and start to look at the game, you'll immediately start to see that it's nothing but a "quick" succession of single pics.

Personally, I don't care that much for the difference between 30 and 60 fps. Nowadays, 30 fps is kind of a minimum for me. But everything above 30 is just a bonus. During gameplay, I do notice the difference up to 40-45 fps, but I have to stop playing and to start focusing on the image to see any difference above 45 fps.