but if you spend several hours in front of a screen, resolution and frame rate matters.
Right. I have a 1080 screen (one I've used and been fine with a few years) as a secondary screen, and a 4K screen as my primary screen. A lot of things don't look any different, but those that do, such as a few video game textures and pics that were originally at 4K or above, look so much sharper at 1080P. Even my screen icons and the titles below them look better and crisper.
His bit about us thinking that 3D was going to be the next norm for video was a little iffy, too. 3D's problem, as everybody knows, was the glasses. Plus, things really don't look real in 3D. It's just a gimmick for the most part. 4K TVs and monitors don't really cost enough more than FHD, so why not.
As a side note, I groaned when he said Steam players are the gaming elite. Since it's almost impossible to buy a pc game locally, I guess that would make almost every PC Gamer an elite gamer, even the ones playing walking simulators and dating simulators.
I disagree with so many of the points he's making, I'm not going to list them. But his main argument is you're sitting far away from the screen, which might be true for TVs, but not for computer screens. Sure I might be one of the early adopters he mentions, but if you spend several hours in front of a screen, resolution and frame rate matters.